"The soul has to go on loving in the emptiness, or at least to go on wanting to love, though it may only be with an infinitesimal part of itself."
- Simone Weil
Simone Weil ( 1909 - 1943) French philosopher, social activist, and mystic. She accepted the Roman Catholic rites at the time of her death at 34. However, she was opposed to religious syncretism, claiming that it effaced the particularity of the individual traditions:
"Each religion is alone true, that is to say, that at the moment we are thinking of it we must bring as much attention to bear on it as if there were nothing else...A 'synthesis' of religion implies a lower quality of attention."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 38
Don't you think she was saying, as a mystic, that all forms are reflections of a single reality?
Simone Weil was speaking as a spiritual mystic and visionary here, not as a scholar and philosopher (which she certainly once had been, and brilliantly so).
St John of the Cross also was not writing as a theologian or philosopher but as a mystic. St Augustine, on the other hand, wrote as a theologian and thinker : "I no longer wished for a better world because I was thinking of the whole of creation, and in the light of this clearer discernment I have come to see that, though the higher things are better than the lower, the sum of all creation is better than the higher things alone."
What a fine article. I headed toward my 'sources' on the net as soon as I saw it. I had known about and read some other 'bits and pieces' about Simone W (1909-1943) but never to the depths that I should have.
As I bounced around I found in the Weil biography in Wikepedia a fascinating section: It was titled " THE SPIRITUAL NEEDS OF THE SOUL". The brief intro to 'key words'; therein read: "The soul needs food just as the body needs food, according to Weil. This food comes in the form of meeting the obligations that encourage the soul to grow and mature. These needs include the following.". Then followed some KEY WEIL THOUGHT CATEGORIES that, for me , resemble a list of qualities that not only the SOUL needs, but what the EARTHLY BODY needs too (if we make such an arbitrary distinction). The categories are:
(1) ORDER; (2) LIBERTY; (3) OBEDIENCE; (4) RESPONSIBILITY; (5) EQUALITY; (6) HIERARCHISM, (7) HONOUR; (8) PUNISHMENT; (9) FREEDOM OF OPINION; AND (10) TRUTH.
THERE IS ALSO AN ELEVENTH that is called UPROOTEDNESS (and the suggestion that ALL of us human beings need ROOTS and bases at times to UPROOT). There is then this explanatory comment (written not by Simone Weil):
"Uprootedness is a disease that causes further uprootedness wherever it goes. Her examples of those who are uprooted include foreign invaders, French colonialists, America (because it is the land of immigrants), British marauders, and the Spanish. Uprootedness can have several outcomes, but the most dangerous is a kind of spiritual lethargy which resembles slavery and a form of activity that spawns and feeds on further uprooting others."
Imagine 10 on line U-Tube Meetings on National TV, etc. for both USA Parties (this coming 'season'), each with ONE of the KEY ideas discussed by each candidate. We might learn a great deal. Then a final one on the idea of 'change' and 'needed AGENTS OF CHANGE' in our Congress and in our Executive Branch. ROOTEDNESS & UPROOTEDNESS "take center stage"?
Dick
The disease of soul uprootedness ( 'déracinement' ),Weil sees as the result of both the master-slave social paradigm and spiritual alienation.
"What a country calls its vital economic interests are not the things which enable its citizens to live, but the things which enable it to make war. Gasoline is much more likely than wheat to be a cause of international conflict."
- Simone Weil, The Need for Roots
"Oppression proceeds exclusively from objective conditions. The first of these is the existence of privileges; and it is not men's laws or decrees which determine privileges, nor yet titles to property; it is the very nature of things. Certain circumstances, which correspond to stages, no doubt inevitable, in human development, give rise to forces which come between the ordinary man and his own conditions of existence, between the effort and the fruit of the effort, and which are, inherently, the monopoly of a few, owing to the fact that they cannot be shared among all: thenceforward these privileged beings, although they depend, in order to live, on the work of others, hold in their hands the fate of the very people on whom they depend, and equality is destroyed. This is what happens to begin with when the religious rites by which man thinks to win nature over to his side, having become too numerous and complicated to be known by all, finally become the secret and consequently the monopoly of a few priests; the priest then disposes, albeit only through a fiction, of all of nature's powers, and it is in their name that he exercises authority. Nothing essential is changed when this monopoly is no longer made up of rites but of scientific processes, and when those in possession of it are called scientists and technicians instead of priests."
-Simone Weil, "The Causes of Liberty and Social Oppression", Oppression and Liberty
If all religions are at their ESSENCE the same, then a synthesis of essence should be better rather than less ... ?
S W makes it clear above she means the "priests" of religions preach dogma,lies and fiction about their own religion and then "compare" their stuff to what the priests of other religions claim about their own etc ,etc.:
"...the priest then disposes, albeit only through a fiction, of all of nature's powers, and it is in their name that he exercises authority. Nothing essential is changed when this monopoly is no longer made up of rites but of scientific processes, and when those in possession of it are called scientists and technicians instead of priests."
Absolutely not, in my opinion. She is essentially denouncing just that view. She is saying two central things;
IF there is truth in ANY religious tradition, it may very well be exclusive, and therefore, it could ONLY be approached as if fact, entirely.
IF more than one religious tradition is "valid", any of THEM must still be valid unto itself, and therefor in no need of others at all.
There is no other rational conclusion available from that quote. Merely ways to avoid seeing those two central implications, says I.
Perhaps the most oft remembered, but only once heard, saying of my father I retain, may help make my point, he put it this way;
"One drop of shit, ruins a whole glass of water"
I understand you just feel real sure about some undeclared logos, which yields your theories more compassionate and open-minded, by default. Regardless of what God really is, and has done. So what, He's got His own logos.
To assume it is bound by the limits of one's own logos, is slippery ice.
The sense of Simone Weil's thought, which she strove to live in practice was that all human institutions are used by the few to rule the masses through "fictions." "Priests" are one "privileged" group, "technicians and scientists" are another . She sought to emulate the saints and great teachers , whether St. Francis or Buddha, Christ, or Lao Tzu through selfless service to all humanity.
I don't doubt what you say, she sounds like a fine thinker. My point is only that she must have seen some reason for being discreet about her approach to each possible source of revelation. To take such a quote as you offer here, and conclude that she believed all paths lead to the same destination, does not seem reasonable.
There are deep problems with the idea that all traditions are equally valid. For example; Are the Roman gods reflective of great insights into reality, or a jumble of deities adopted to suit the fancy of idol worshipers? Are collections of sayings really bound by some magical power in the cosmos, or just attempts by scholarly people to preserve good thoughts?
While I understand the need to be respectful of what others believe sacred, I live in a world where it is blatantly obvious that human beings will believe just about anything that suits the momentary desire for vindication and the appetite of pride. It is fine in theory to speculate about a great synchronization of man's pursuit of the Divine, but to conclude the Divine is interested in seeing such a thing play out in all instances where a person, or group of people, adopts a particular construction of ideas, seems presumptuous, and itself in contradiction to many of the doctrines themselves.
One can see similarities in all that men accept, but those similarities can easily be accounted for by the nature of man himself, and may not indicate any profound commonality beyond that. They may be a reflection of similar yearnings and pressures, while not being indicative of a response to them by God. It's kinda obvious God does not respond to all yearnings and pressures men feel.
I have tried to make clear Simone Weil believed all human beings by nature at any time and any place are called to serve the spirit. Comparing or "equating" religions is just one expression of human weakness and selfishness, a form of denial of their real purpose for living.
It is not up to us to believe in God, but only to not grant our love to false gods
- Simone Weil
Now, it is quite obvious that Ms. Weil believed in God. And it is also obvious that she believed God imbued man with a spirit. But what is not at all obvious, is that she considered ALL that human beings were called to serve, truly sacred, or good for the soul. She clearly believed in false gods, as well.
Does it not seem rational that her insistence on avoiding cross contamination of religious traditions (which she vehmently applauded in principle), might have something to do with her belief that some gods whom people's "spirits" responded to, were not at all genuine?
- Simone Weil
That in no way indicates that SHE believed in false gods ... but that she recommended we should NOT even though others may mistakenly do so.
And in John's listings of the various beliefs, he left out Christ ... no different to said believers than any of the 'others' ... all are but gods under God IMnsHO.
"That in no way indicates that SHE believed in false gods ... but that she recommended we should NOT even though others may mistakenly do so"
That's rather implicit in speaking of false gods. That's what the qualifier 'false' means. She clearly believes they exist, or she would not say avoiding them was our obligation in the matter. To believe in false gods, is not the same as believing false gods. To say they are false, is to say one does NOT believe them, but they exist.
Your opinion of my God, bespeaks a rather intolerant disposition. Is this what we are to expect from your INclusive philosophy?
As for Christ, my opinion puts him pretty much on the level of a god (not God) for all practical purposes, the same level as countless others throughout history that had a personal relationship with God via God's Spirit (by whatever "name" that stands for the most transcendent relationship directly to the One God). The God of UNconditional Love and Absolute Truth. IMnsHO.
My believing in any which thing or way in no way makes me intolerant, it only says I believe differently ... if you cannot accept that, then you are intolerant.
My believing in any which thing or way in no way makes me intolerant, it only says I believe differently ... if you cannot accept that, then you are intolerant. And you said;
"no different to said believers than any of the 'others' ... all are but gods under God (In My NOT SO Humble Opinion)"
Not lookin' real good in the tolerance department, bub.
That is rather obvious.
It is YOU who go about professing to be INclusive, and respectful of ALL peoples beliefs and spiritual INtuitions, not I. I have not obligated myself in any way to respect whatever someone happens to believe about God or religion, just the person themselves.
Your views sound great, when one is bedazzled by the incessant flaunting of puffery and rhetorical non-sense, but upon closer examination, it's just talk. You don't hesitate to cast dispersions on actual people, and their beliefs, despite how many UNs and INs and HIGHESTs you decorate your diatribes with. It appears that you do not comprehend the difference between pronouncing words, and adhering to their meanings.
YOUR "God" is declared by you to be the ONLY true God. Yet you routinely lambaste people simply for believing in a true God at all, even if they do not renounce others, but merely caution against assuming ALL others are respectable. YOU just literally renounced ALL other gods, and declared YOUR view the ONLY one you even accept as possible. And boast of your pride in doing so.
You talk but do not walk. I can demonstrate that with actual words, as I have many times, yet you rail against me based on empty innuendo.
John,
From my knowledge of her life and work, Ms. Weil sought to live a spiritual life in the world. In the course of her life she experienced visions and recognized many others before her had had similar experiences. But her aim was to live a spiritual life. She didn't value "believing" in anything, she wished to serve the higher as a human being in her actions, as through improving the social conditions of the working class. All imperfect human social institutions , including religious ones, are fields for service to the higher.
I don't doubt what you say of Ms. Weil, and it corresponds to the little I know of her, quite well. That, however, does not yield the conclusions you drew about her approach. I myself do not favor ""believing" in anything, and don't think my God does either. It is a word out of context and without real meaning, and from what I gather most define as 'believing', does not seem to me to even exist in the real world. Consider;
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him
What the Book teaches is not the superficial "wanting to believe something is true", which is the closest thing I can identify as being possible, and fitting the common assumption of what the word is implying, as used by the God of the Book. But it's just not so. He asks for a willingness to believe, and a humble, uncluttered mind in order to have some good effect on a person Spiritually. From that comes (in my experience) all sorts of "proofs", which quite naturally lead to acceptance without substantial doubt.
I do not differ all that much with what seems to be Ms. Weil's take on the matter, but feel you may be making some assumptions about both of us, which have no real foundation in truth. The logic I provided is sound. It is not exclusive, it is not prejudicial. I believe prejudice in matters pertaining to God is extremely likely to result in error.
That means even prejudice one happens to feel fond or proud of.
I can tell, because I have your number, that you feel you have been put upon by me because I have as much as accused you of being ego bound based upon your fruits.
That and because I differ between your god and God where you do not seem to, you take offense (ego again), but if you listen closely and open your mind just a hair, there is still a chance that you will one day "get it" ... really, you should just ask your god about it all,. seek and ye shall find ... truth. Remember, God loves ya, and I do also.
; )
and the soul in all beings
does not shrink away from this.
In whom all beings have become one with the knowing soul
what delusion or sorrow is there for the one who sees unity?
It has filled all.
It is radiant, incorporeal, invulnerable,
without tendons, pure, untouched by evil.
Wise, intelligent, encompassing, self-existent,
it organizes objects throughout eternity.
– Isha Upanishad Verses 6, 7, & 8
Blessed is he who has a soul, blessed is he who has none, but woe and grief to him who has it in embryo.
Aphorism of G I Gurdjieff
you will wind up somewhere else."
- Yogi Berra
I've been looking at the debates about heresy and orthodoxy in the first few centuries Anno Domini. Fascinating stuff about the 'leanings' of two early forms of developing Christianity in this historical exploration. The deliberations were and are about the NATURE(S) of Christ: DIVINE or HUMAN or BOTH. The key players then (before the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.) were (1) the Ebionites , and the (2) Marcionites. I'm trying to tie these early most important debates (with hereticisms playing major roles according to the ORTHODOXIES that were developing in the multiple emerging christianitIES) to the later development in the Muslim faiths. In Islam there is still a most powerful distinction between Trinitarianism and traditional Monotheism which shapes a near-paradox. Christ was a Man; GOD is GOD; PERSON is PERSON. Paradox here? Logical consistency?
The debates were all about creating the bases for teaching and informing the developing 'flocks' with a proper (and perfect?) CANON. Thus was the New testament being 'pieced' together. Recognized INSPIRATION starting to do its essential work. The human FILTER was in the PROCESS of being developed that must end up with the TRUE TRUTH. Truth, via mystical experiences (think Paul here, at least) were being carefully viewed. And the analyses go on to this day and are now assisted by ever more 'evidence' in the histories now available about our many religious saints and their odd experiences, Kundalini experiences in the Far East and so on and so on. and they ALL go on to this day. Modern day science is adding its muscle in to the evidentiary base too.
Think here of the mysteries of DNA/RNA, epi-genetics, new findings about 'tags' and the incomplete logic (also critical evaluations of physics and incompleteness theorems and big-bang and string theories too, if you wish) that is now apparent in simply working with the organized information within regular DNA/RNA genetics' theories, and our world is off in new directions that were impossible to VISION centuries ago and only years ago. Scriopture augmented by science and human histories.
I recently found a couple of DVDs that I had acquired months and perhaps years ago that I had never reviewed. I think it was one of Clarke's recent articles that sent me scurrying to those forgotten sources for edification. One was called: (1) What the Bleep Do we (k)now!?, and the other was (2) the Secret. One thing led to another (I can't recall the details of the path) and before I knew it I was in the grip of re-thinking my knowledge about the Apostle's Creed and some key words at the end about BELIEFS: The CREED notes -- "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, and LIFE EVERLASTING." I was challenging myself: "What do I REALLY BELIEVE?'
Are Science and Scripture in Concert with visions of the meanings of MYSTICISM? My early, imperfectly researched guess at this time? YES! To me, a powerful linking PATH is developing between: (1) Scriptures (and the resultant Canons), (2) Sciences, and Human Histories. REVELATIONS within most broad perspectives! An the road to deep insight need NOT be bumpy at all -- as I 'see' the still ill-shaped prospects. Bless SW and her early struggles with history and troubled modernisms.Broad debates like this thread above can 'move mountains' to seek and find TRUTH, and it may shock us when and if we find it. And CHANGE the WORLD while doing so!
Dick