Source: The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism edited with an introduction by Benard McGinn
From “The Life of Moses” by Gregory of Nyssa (circa 335 – 395) Christian Mystic.
Chapter III: From The Third Theophany: Face to Face Vision (Ex 33:7-23)
“For, he declares, ‘My face you shall not see, for no one shall see my face and live’ (Ex 33:20)
Scripture makes it plain that it is not the vision {of God} that is the cause of death. For how should the face of life be the cause of death to those who draw near to it? But since the Divine is naturally life giving and, further, that it is the special character of the divine nature to lie above all definitions, whoever supposes that God is one of the things he knows, is himself without life, having turned aside from The Really Real to what is supposed to be grasped by a concept. For The Really Real is the true life and is inaccessible to our understanding. If, then, the life giving lies beyond our knowledge, what we have grasped cannot be the life. And what is itself not life is powerless of itself to communicate it. Moses’ desire, therefore, is satisfied precisely in so far as his desire remains unsatisfied.
Moses is instructed through what has been said that the Divine is of itself infinite, circumscribed by no limit. For if the Divine could be thought of as in some way limited, it would be absolutely necessary to consider what comes after it along with it. Whatever has limit has a boundary…”
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 9
I mostly agree. What you have said with trappings of academia, I say too in trappings closer to street language. We cannot know God. All our definitions, all our takes on God are wrong. The conventional wisdom handed down by many strains of religion have all got it wrong.
It would certainly be refreshing if organized religion were humble enough to admit it. Not that they intended to deceive. They put forward their best take. And it had a lot of truth. Has a lot of truth. But it didn't do the job completely. Or even slightly. I am looking for a religion that has as its purpose to help seekers work out their thoughts and feelings about God. One that teaches meditation and other methods. OK. They can also give content. They have libraries full of the best thoughts of our forebears, but they should give them out with a caveat that they are all incomplete.
What we need is a modern take. We are way too enmeshed in old notions; ideas of God set in ancient world views. Our world view is far advanced compared with our take on God.
I don't think that the modern take is atheism. Though it might seem to be. The modern take is that all existing notions of God, which tend to be centuries old, are wrong. Such Gods do not exist. But that is not atheism. We need to sit down and sift through what the ancients thought in light of what science has revealed. Something is clearly going on in the universe. There is a direction. Ever upward I think. And God is behind it, creating and redeeming. And God did not direct our forbears to commit war. God was not on our side or theirs. God is not like that.
Here I go, well into the process I am calling for. Debunking and building on the ashes. Striving to keep the baby, and throw out the bath water. So. Full stop. Let me just end with the call. It's a big job. Most of it political. We should start. A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Cheers.
Jim
Varying types of pantheism. Spinoza, Emerson's oversoul, taoism, etc.
Try THIS !
A common theme in the experiences and writting of mystics who have had direct communion with the Divine is the realization - which is what Gregory was describing, that our knowledge of the Divine - even from a direct contact with IT is an event that is beyond the ability of our human minds to comprehend. Gregory is not addressing the issue of ordinary preceptions.
I would be interested to know that Kant actually did write about such mystical matters and what the books were wherein he discussed this subject.
I am referring to Kant's insights into the way the mind forms concepts and how the divine mind imparts knowledge to us, apriori. My point is that if Gregory were aware of this, he probably would not have made some of the statements that he did in the portion of his paper that you've posted as this article.
Kant addressed the concepts that we form in our minds based upon our comprehension of all types of perceptions - including direct contact with the divine mind.
I would recommend you read "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Practical Reason" - these works discuss how the minds understands by forming mental concepts AND revelations directly from the divine mind are discussed in these works as well - you might want to read "Critique of Practical Reason" first.
Kant is someone I keep having to go back and re-study, and the german to English translatation and his writting style make it slow and difficult going.
I am not sure of how to match up Gregory and the other mystics insight of the overwhelming nature of the Infinite divine to Kant. And Kant not being a mystic, might not understand their experience either. the Mystics do understand aspects of the Divine from that direct connection but they confess that the human mind is just not suited to get the fullness of the infinite. Our minds can only process a finite thing that an infinite thing as the Divine. It is the problem that arises after the communion when the finite mind of the mystic has to graps the small portion of residue that they retained out of the overwhelming abundance of data.
A the sand pail of the mind can only hold so much and it matters not if we are given a square mile of sand to fill our pail or a billion square miles of sand from which to choose to fill the pail. We only have that same limited carrying capacity. Hence we only take from the Divine vastness of knowledge - the sand, that which is already nearest to us when we get the sand of knowledge to fill our bucket. The mystics are just aware of how much sand is not and can never be in the sand pail that is our mind. Most of the available sand/knowledge that the Divine is offering is left back on the vast stretches of the beach. That is what Gregory is describing - the vast amount of knowledge that we can never partake in since the Divine is offereing us directly all the infinite knowledge in one communion burst.
I dont' think Kant considered that scenario and circumstances.
All in all alot of material to work through and ponder.
All information recorded in our brains (due to sensory input) is aposteriori in origin.
Kant's point is that apriori concepts cannot develop out of sensory input because we cannot experience in nature, ideas that are apriori. We cannot "observe with our senses" infinity - but we grasp this concept apriori (thanks to God's gift of an understanding of this concept which we cannot possibly experience in the material universe through our senses).
you keep not reading what I wrote. I did not say that Kant concludes that apriori's are "burilt into the biological structure of our brain...." I said that was my conclusion and my assertion. I am taking Kant's postulate that certain ideas are not derived from sense data and coming to a whole different conclusion.
The best way to understand Apriori ideas and where they originate is to study infants. Those scientists who have know that infants do have innate sense of space, time and cause and effect. They are part of our biology they exist at the moment of birth - our ability to make use of this sense devolps over time but begins in early infancy as do the start of all our cognitive abilities. Check out the book: The scientist in the Crib.
I and those scientists are not asserting that the ideas of space, time and causality are derived from sensory data but rather are derived from our innate biology.