History of My Ideas --November
1999 - November 2000
Reflections on Various Notions
Without a doubt this year has been productive in my own personal reflections. I have been able to develop and reshape my own perspective on reality. This year I have contemplated many ideas. Several of them were new, if not to others, at least to myself, but like all ideas they had connections to ideas which I already had. Although I have been able to contemplate them, I have not been too successful in writing them down. I often wanted to put them down in writing, but instead of being able to write on them, I often let the time pass when I was considering each of the issues on their own without writing on them and found myself moving on to different philosophical concerns. Nonetheless, as I have the ability to look back at them, so I think that I can judge better now than when I initially pondered them and figure out which among them have been most influential on my life. In this process I have also been able to determine which of them I think should be written down. Even if I will not fully elaborate on them, one will find the ideas I have had during the year. I hope that in writing them down here, I will not only help myself, for if and when I ready to explore these ideas in some detailed explanation I will have a record of them, but I also hope it will also anyone who looks upon these reflections. For these thoughts, though highly speculative, I think have the kernel of something important within them so that they can awaken a deeper understanding of creation and the Creator. I know, in what limited form they have developed, they have already begun to enrich my own life. As they are put down here, I am sure they will not stand; my understanding of the issues addressed in here will continue to change as my own internal reflection continues.
As I begun the year, the one major topic I was able to develop and put into writing was one on the essence of creation. I knew that Christian theology taught that creation was made ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing. The simplistic understanding of this teaching has a major problem. Most people think that when God made the cosmos out of nothing, He created something new and totally independent of Himself. In doing so, this establishes creation as a limit to God, but theology elsewhere states God is without limit. This contradiction has led many theologians, for example Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, to refute this interpretation. In whatever fashion God is said to have made creation out of nothing, it nonetheless must also be said to be bounded by God Himself so that it puts no limit to God, but rather God puts the limit to creation. In reflecting upon this, I came up with an idea which I think helps form a solution to this dilemma. It employs the use of two traditional theological understandings to form a conclusion about creation. The first thing I noticed is that the teaching of creatio ex nihilo focuses on "nothing" as the source of creation. While the simple reaction is to think this implies that what was created came from something which was empty of existence, that is something less than existent, I thought that the term "nothing," could be and should be viewed, not as something less than existent, but something which is greater than existence. That is, the way to understand this teaching is to suggest that the nothing in discussion is none other than God, or more specifically, the Godhead. Calling the Godhead "nothing," is in itself not new. For this is done within the theological and philosophical method known as the via negativa. The Godhead completely transcends existence, transcends creation, transcends the notion of "thingness," so that the Godhead is itself "nothing": not as a "nothing" that is inferior but rather a "nothing" which is said to be superior to "thingness." This left me to find an explanation for the logical distinction between the Godhead and creation. It is here that I thought that what was discussed by St. Gregory Palamas would be useful. St. Gregory Palamas stated that in the Godhead there is a logical distinction between the essence of the Godhead and the energy of the Godhead. The essence of the Godhead, I saw, is something which transcends creation, and it is the very nature of the divinity -- a nature that creation could not be. However, as the energy of the Godhead is divine, it is the divinity, but it is the divinity in immanence, and it is here that I found the foundation of creation. The energy of the Godhead is transcended by the Godhead's essence, but it is in itself the foundation and cause of creation. This idea is further explored and explained in my essay, "On God, Nothingness, and Creation."
While exploring the concept of creation, I was also reading Buddhist works on the concept of the Bodhisattva. This concept intrigued me because I thought, and still think, that it contains a lot that could teach Christians about a way beyond what seems to be the normal selfish, self-centered view of salvation that they tend to have. The Bodhisattva within Buddhism is a man of compassion, a saint, who seeks the liberation of himself in union with the liberation of others. He is someone who not only seeks this, but vows to make it happen -- that is, he vows to not rest until he has literally helped bring "all living beings" into the same salvation or liberation that he is himself seeking. This idea reminded me of the spirit found within the writings of St. Paul in Scripture where Paul stated that he would be willing to forsake his own salvation -- if it could help bring about the salvation of the Jews, the kindred whom he loved. In exploring the concept of the Bodhisattva and its ideal of compassion, and the vows which are made to become a Bodhisattva, I felt that there could be something within it which would be adaptable to the Christian life. Looking at it now, it is easy to see how this is an excellent way to imitate Christ. Even though we are not going to be able to do for others exactly what Christ has done for us, we are able to imitate the compassionate humility that Christ had in order to save us, and use it to help others in whatever circumstances they are in. We can imitate Christ's zeal to liberate creation from the violence of sin, and become co-workers with Christ in the process of salvation. In reflecting upon this, and in reflecting upon the Bodhisattva vows themselves, I thought that in some modified form, the vows would make a wonderful devotional prayer. Thus I wrote "The Greater Way of Charity," using what I found adaptable in the Bodhisattva vows and added to them the traditional Christian prayers and devotions.
After I wrote "The Greater Way of Charity," I had wanted to write upon the topic on the immortality of the soul. I understood that, within Christianity, it is rarely disputed that the human soul is immortal -- this is, however, rarely the case for any other kind of life. In the process of viewing only the human soul as immortal, I feared that the real value of creation was diminished and made into some sort of limited good which does not have its fulfillment and end within the Godhead but only within the temporal order. I also saw that the proper attitude that one should have towards creation had been slowly removed in modern history. Humanity dominates creation and subdues it selfishly only for its own benefit. It is now possible to look at creation solely as something which is meant to bring pleasure to humanity. Humans now breed animals as if they were some sort of factory product, as if they were merely material things without a value and life of their own. Instead of this completely selfish attitude towards the natural world, I knew that all life should be respected and humanity had been given a gift of reason that should be used. It was a gift given so that humanity could be a just steward over all other aspects of the earth. It is true that one can view life in the universe within a hierarchical understanding, where one can say one form of life is of greater innate noble value than another, and humanity is the most important of all. In saying this, one can understand why and how, for example, we can morally feed upon other life forms, be it vegetative or animal life, without it in itself being totally wrong. However, I think it also allows us to stop, pause, and look upon what we do to creation. The method by which we raise animals, as if they exist solely for our own pleasure and fulfillment, has a great internal problem. If they are viewed solely for the purpose of human pleasure, and not as noble life forms of themselves with a dignity higher than vegetative life, we do a great disservice not only to them but to God who provided them with the ability of self-determination and will (albeit in a more limited in ability than humans have). Looking upon the method by which man raises animals for the slaughter, a method which has become progressively a brutal and mechanized usage of animal life without respect for their sacredness, I have took it upon myself to primarily become a vegetarian. Like St. Francis of Assisi, I see the value of all creation to be so rich, that I would not like to be seen as abusing this noble life. However, like St. Francis of Assisi, I also know that there is a time and place where even the eating of animal flesh is expected, and indeed should be done. Indeed, although the very notion of animal sacrifice seems repugnant to the modern mind, what we have achieved as a society must be viewed as something far more horrendous. At least in animal sacrifice, the animal was seen as something holy and good of itself, so that it could be offered, not only as food for the "gods," but also food for humanity. It was food which had been given respect and honored. It was understood that the life which had been taken had indeed been noble, and was only out of special necessity that it was taken. It provided a limit to the extravagances of a self-seeking humanity, for it understood within its own principles that all life is sacred-- and thus, it could truly be seen as a sacrifice, something which is made sacred for the sake of the divine.
Next, I had several ideas develop all within a given framework of time, and it is hard to distinguish among them within that period of time as to when one developed in comparison to another. So I will now look at the rest of my ideas thematically. Many of them have had some inter-religious aspects to them. For all religions have an interest to me, and in having an interest, I also try to understand their value to myself as a Christian. Within the inter-religious thoughts I have had, the primary focus of them have been on the figure of the Buddha. He is without doubt one of the most influential and significant figures in history. When I look at him, I notice someone who is very holy, and someone who is very important to understand if one wants to understand what it means to be human. His own personal holiness is so strong that early Christians could only understand it within a modified framework: his life was transformed into the Christian legend of St. Josaphat. With such a holy life, I knew he must be recognized as someone worthy of veneration, even as he has received modified veneration in Christian history through the legend of St. Josaphat which created a major medieval cult. However, I quickly realized there were many questions which needed to be addressed. If he is so holy, what are we to make of his own personal descriptions of omniscience and enlightenment? C. S. Lewis once stated of Jesus Christ that he must either be a liar, a lunatic, or the Son of God. I think what C. S. Lewis stated of Jesus must also be said, in a modified form, for Buddha. Buddha must be seen either as a liar, a lunatic, or who he claimed to be: a fully enlightened and omniscient man. If, as with Jesus, Buddha's holiness puts the options of liar or lunatic fully outside of the range of acceptable answers, than I think the only real answer I have left is that Buddha must be what and who he claimed to be. But how could he be omniscient? It seems to me that the kind of enlightenment Buddha had was one where he achieved a contemplative union with the divinity. Buddha himself explained his omniscience, not as knowing all things at the same time, but as the ability to find the true answer to any question through his "intellectual" ability. Thus, he had the "Buddha eye" which was freely able to explore all of creation, to penetrate its hidden secrets, and to find the way to a solution to any given problem. In some respects, it sounds as if he had found a way, within this life, to achieve a limited beatific vision which allowed him access to any hidden secret of the cosmos he wanted to know. Mystical theologians have long discussed the concept of the divinity as a mirror which is able to reflect all of creation, and thus one such as Buddha who had achieved a clear vision of this mirror, would be able to view all of creation and in a sense be called "omniscient." Such a limited, but clear "beatific vision" in this life, which was possible for Buddha (and thus, as Buddha himself said, is possible for others), is nonetheless not comparable to the full and final vision which one obtains in eternity. Buddha made a distinction between the experience of Nirvana in life here (where one achieves enlightenment and attains Nirvana), and the final achievement of Nirvana one obtains after death. I think this distinction reflects the distinction between the partial beatific vision and the final beatific vision in eternity very well.
The understanding I have of Buddha can not be said to be a full understanding of his personality nor of his role within the cosmos, but I think it is nonetheless a beginning from which I can build upon. I want to explore his personality more, and figure out precisely who he is. Just as Christology, which is the exploration of the person of Christ, is important, I find a similar search for who Buddha is to also be very important. Of course, the two do not compare fully: Christ transcends the Buddha, for Christ is not only man but also God , but I believe that an exploration of the person of the Buddha will help us understand the humanity of Christ. Within modern Christian theology we find that many theologians want to focus on the humanity of Christ, to explore what it means to be human, and use this to put limitations on Christ's knowledge and ability according to the humanity that He had. But in doing so, I think they have also put too great a limit on what is or is not capable of humanity. For I know that the discussion of the humanity of Christ has often been to make Him all too human, all too much like us, all too fallible, all too limited in knowledge. The cry which is heard often states, in one way or another, "He can't be omniscient, because he is human." I see this said from far too many modern theologians, many of which I nonetheless find worthy of respect elsewhere. I think it is true that the humanity of Christ should not be forgotten (for in doing so modern theologians are right: this could lead to a kind of docetist understanding of Christ), on the other hand, I think we need to explore what is fully capable of humanity and use that as the measure for Christ. If Buddha is omniscient, even in a limited form of omniscience, then Christ's omniscience can no longer be put into question on grounds of His being human. Rather than limited Christ to be a reflection of our own impure and imperfect participation in humanity, we must remember Christ has within the fullness of a pure humanity, and thus can not be judged according to our own imperfections, but rather our own imperfections can only be judged by the fullness available to humanity as seen within Christ.
As I have been exploring the humanity of Christ throughout the year, and as I saw how it can be further understood by looking at the Buddha, I have also been examining the role of the Incarnation this year specifically with the goal to have a better understanding of the meaning of the Cross. There is no doubt that it is a paradox which seems to captivate Christian thought. That which is "foolishness to the Gentiles," is nonetheless that which we Christians find glory. Christ's death on the Cross is seen to have a cosmic significance because it provides salvation. But how is this possible, what does it mean? I have looked at this question within Christian history, often guided by what I have read this year, and saw how the Western development of Christology answered this question, and developed a complex system of justification. In doing so, I am sure there is indeed truth to this exploration, but it is a truth which often horrifies modern man, and it is a system which many are unable to come to grips with. It has become that the dialect of man's damnation, Christ's death, and personal salvation through faith on the resurrection of Christ and the merits of the death of Christ is the main way Western man understands the very teachings of Christianity. For me, the way to understand the Cross in some significant manner is the way the death and resurrection of Christ is viewed upon by Eastern Christian theology. The death of Christ is about the conquest of death by death. What is death? It is a point of disintegration of being, where an entity dissolves into various component parts: a physical body and a spiritual body. The spiritual body continues to live, while the physical body is seen as destroyed and separated from the spiritual body. It is seen as the final end of the process of disintegration or disunity within the cosmos. Death is final, because after death there is nothing more which can be broken down: the spiritual reality, which is left, is simple and immortal and is not subject to further corruption. But is this what was meant by God's act of creation? No. Creation was not meant to go through a process of disintegration, but because of free will given to the cosmos as a whole there was some sort primordial fall, and as a result of that fall creation entered into the process of disintegration whereby its parts are separated from each other, and the unity which holds all of creation together is slowly dissolved. The final end is the process, if left to its own, would be a complete destruction of creation itself. However, the internal unity which was provided by the foundation of creation, that is, the unity which is found in the Godhead, did not want to let this full splintering of creation to come to its final end. Creation was given an internal value by the Creator, and it was within its own nature good. Although through the fall it had become less than it should be, it was nonetheless through the good which was at the root of its existence that it could obtain some sort of restoration. Thus, God entered into the cosmos to help bring about its re-unity. The death of Christ can be seen as the final victory of the process of disintegration, but as it is the final victory, it is also the way by which death and disintegration is brought to an end. The resurrection of Christ is the first fruit of the process of reintegration which has been brought into the cosmos. It is a victory by the very law which provides for any kind of unity within the cosmos itself: The Logos of the Godhead. Thus the Eastern hymn, "Christ is risen from the grave, by death He conquered death, and to those in the graves He granted life," there is hidden a deep ontological meaning which transcends all questions of justification found within Western theology. Yes, the Western insight has some importance, but it is also important to realize that the process of death, which entered in the cosmos in the cosmic fall, has now been defeated. Death is now itself "dead." That which is dead, by the death of death itself, can be brought back to life. The role of the Cross is the means by which death has died, and the role of the resurrection is to bring into the cosmos the beginning of reintegration. This does not mean, within immediate time, death is no more. If a car is speeding, and slowly decelerates, it will still move forward until it finally halts. The process of death is now in its deceleration: at the time of the final resurrection it will finally be halted, and brought to a complete temporal end, even as it has already been brought to an eternal end on the Cross.
Within this year I have also tried to gain a deeper understanding of the history of Christianity. With this, I have tried to understand the formation of seemingly countless varieties of Christianity. Of course I believe that Jesus Christ formed a Church, the Catholic Church, but I think this belief does not remove one from examining history and with it try to find the importance of other formations of Christian thought. The question is this: as the Catholic Church is seen to be formed, within its own internal principles, upon Christ's teaching, can it also be said that some of the other forms of Christian thought have basis within the teaching, life, and work of Christ? The initial response would seem to be "no," but the more I look at Christian history, the more I think that is too simplistic an answer. To help me understand the development of Christianity, I have taken upon myself the task of understanding the development of Buddhism. For, as the other major religion focused upon a central person, it has also the characteristic of having developed into many independent traditions. It is true, each of the traditions views its own representation of Buddhism as the greatest manifestation of Buddha's teaching, but they also understand that other manifestations of Buddhism have a role in exploring the teachings of Buddha, that they have a value in helping spread the truths of Buddha into the world at large, and indeed, are legitimate forms of Buddhism. How are they able to do this? For in doing so, it seems Buddhism allows for a greater diversity within its system, while acknowledging in this great diversity a kind of unity which, sadly, is not seen within Christianity. It centers on an understanding of how Buddha taught. Buddha is said to have taught differently to different people, to bring about one manifestation of his teaching of Dharma to one group, and then a different manifestation to another group, all aimed at each groups' needs. It was a pragmatic way of teaching, to some extent. As Buddhism teaches a "middle way" which teaches that it is beyond systemizing, Buddhism teaches that any true version of Buddhism is a teaching that helps prove a means to liberation: that is, for something to be a true and honest interpretation of Buddhism, it must provide for the pragmatic needs of those being addressed. Thus, Buddha is said in his wisdom to have seen the many different ways one might need his help and teaching, and set about to develop different "schools of Buddhist thought" which would reflect the many needs of humanity. The different forms of Buddhism are seen to have developed from various seeds of thought that Buddha planted. Within Mahayana Buddhism, this concept was further developed in a systematization where "Mahayana" or "The Greater Way" is seen as a fuller manifestation of the teaching of Buddha, while the "Hinayana" or "Theravada" form of Buddhism, which primarily teaches the path of individual salvation, is seen as the preliminary and elementary form of Buddha's teaching. In seeing this classification, I think there is the possibility of it somehow being adapted as a way of understanding the development of Christianity. While the Catholic Church is the fullness of Christianity, and is the "Greater Way" of Christ, is it not possible to see that Christ left other "ways" of Christianity, other seeds which sprouted -- and which will one day be grafted into the "Greater Way" of Catholicism, when they are fully developed and all misgrowth found within them are removed? As Mahayana states that Hinayana or Theravada Buddhism should not be mocked, but respected for what teachings of Buddha are found within, could this not be a means of Catholic ecumenical dialogue with "separated brethren?" We can look at with respect what teachings of Christ have taken root in these other forms of Christian faith, realizing that whatever graces within come from the Catholic faith (as is stated in Catholic teaching), while not totally dismissing the key role these different forms of Christian faith can have in the future of Christian thought? Who among Catholics can neglect to see that there is indeed a devotion to Christ in other Christian faiths, even if they are imprecise and without the fullness found within the Catholic Church? While I am not sure how the application of the insights that Buddhists within their own religion can help Christians understand theirs, I think there is something which can be found which could very well help Christianity as it continues to develop in the future.
Outside of these considerations, I have had also several minor thoughts which have not been as central to my own philosophical development. Of them, the most important one has been from my exploration of Zoroastrian thought. I know Zoroaster is an important and influential figure within world history. Zoroastrian thought has had considerable influence on the development of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. As such, I have had an interest in exploring the works which are attributed to Zoroaster, and seeing the kind of quality and information they provide. While it is true they have, on one level, the kind of dualism I expected, I also found within them an eschatological monism or apokatastasis which I had not led to expect. Zoroastrian monotheism I believe must be considered, to some extent, to have had a prophetic call, and within its own limited framework, it is a holy religious faith. As with other holy pagans, I find no problem with understanding Zoroaster himself as a holy, righteous man of God. His philosophical and prophetic role has achieved its end within Christian theology (although, to be sure, its dualistic tendencies has also helped bring about a dualistic tendency within popular Christian thought, which although is transcended by both Zoroastrian and Christian theology in their proper sense, has been hard to rectify within the popular piety of the common man).
I have also begun to explore, although only briefly, the Sophianic element found within Hinduism and Buddhism. It is quite interesting to note that my views of creation, which also have value within my Sophiological pursuits, seem to have also been part of the paradigm found within Hindu theology. The distinction between the "Godhead" (or Brahma), and creation as the "Bride" of the Godhead or the "Shakti" which is also established as the "energy of the Godhead," I think helps strengthen and confirm my philosophical understanding of creation. Buddhist thought on Tara, which I have only recently begun to explore, I believe will also have other elements of the "Eternal Feminine" for my reflection which I hope to combine with Hindu and Christian understandings of the "Eternal Feminine" such that, if I ever get around to writing my own full exposition on Sophia, I will not be able to neglect the insight of any culture which has reflected upon Sophiological questions. It will be with the understanding that Christian, Platonic, Hindu, and Buddhist explorations of the nature of Sophia which will be the primary basis for my examination of Sophia, but surely all cultures, especially those with naturalistic religions which have some love for "Mother Earth," have intuitive insights which have yet to be fully incorporated into Christian theology.
Another direction my thoughts have gone this year is to look into the developments of science, and to see areas of scientific advancement which will require philosophical and theological concern in the future. With discussions I have had with my friends, and with their input which has helped me to see where these developments are going, I have noted a few areas of concern which need to be addressed: artificial intelligence (and the new moral questions it will pose, if and when a true artificial intelligence is created), nano-technology and its possibility of transforming humanity into something which is quite different than what is normally considered human (a nano-human mixture which could feasibly provide a temporal immortality), and of course, the ramifications which will occur if and when alien intelligence is discovered within the universe. The last aspect will have more problems with popular religious thought than it will with technical theology, because theologians have already considered the question of alien life, and have already provided the outline of how to deal with such life if and when they are discovered. The existential question of what it means to be human will be highly important when the possibility of a nano-human hybrid occurs. In combination with this form of progress within science, there has has been the revolution in physics already within this century through quantum physics, which has opened up scientific understanding to the nature of reality. Although I am not entirely pleased with all aspects of quantum theory (and I am not sure all aspects will be found to be true), I also find many aspects within quantum theory to follow more of what I would expect to be found in reality than in previous theories of the universe. It allows for a deeper understanding of the "illusionary" and "empty" value of matter itself, which is found within most major ontological traditions.
Although this is not the full extent of all my thoughts within the year of 2000, I think I have put down the most important ones. Perhaps in the future some ideas I have had which I have not written down in here will be ones I find as important, but for now, I have recorded those ideas which I think will continue to shape my life in the near future.