[ BACK ] 1. DEFINING ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY |
[ BACK ] 1. DEFINING ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY |
It is necessary first to define the terms: "orthodox" and "spirituality". We cannot speak about "Orthodox spirituality" unless we know exactly what we mean by these two words. This is what the Holy Fathers of the Church have done. In his exceptional book "The Fountain of knowledge", and more specifically in the sections entitled "Philosophical Chapters", St. John of Damascus analyses the meanings of these words: Substance, nature, hypostasis, person et.c. Because these terms can be defined differently within other contexts he explains why they are so defined here.
The adjective "orthodox" comes from the noun "orthodoxy" and shows the difference between the Orthodox Church and every other Christian denomination. The word "Orthodoxy" manifests the true knowledge about God and creation. This is the definition St. Athanasios of Sinai offers.
The term Orthodoxy consists of two words: "orthos" (true, right) and "doxa". "Doxa" means, on the one hand, belief, faith, teaching and on the other, praise or doxology. These two meanings are closely connected. The true teaching about God incorporates the true praise of God; for if God is abstract, then prayer to this God is abstract as well. If God is personal then prayer assumes a personal character. God has revealed the true faith, the true teaching. Thus we say that the teaching about God and all matters associated with a person's salvation are the Revelation of God and not man's discovery.
God has revealed this truth to people who were prepared to receive it. Judas expresses this point well by saying: "contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Judas, 3). In this quotation as in many other related passages it is clear that God reveals Himself to the Saints, i.e. to those who have reached a certain level of spiritual growth so as to receive this Revelation. The Holy Apostles were "healed" first, and then received the Revelation. And they transmitted this Revelation to their spiritual children not only by teaching them but primarily by mystically effecting their spiritual rebirth. In order for this faith to be preserved the Holy Fathers formulated the dogmas and doctrines. We accept the dogmas and doctrines; in other words we accept this revealed faith and remain with the Church so as to be healed. For faith is, on the one hand, Revelation to those purified and healed and, on the other it is the right path to reach theosis, for those who choose to follow the "way".
The word "spirituality" (pnevmaticotis) comes from "spiritual" (pnevmatikos). Thus, spirituality is the state of the spiritual person. Spiritual man has a certain way of behaving, a certain mentality. He acts differently from the way non-spiritual people behave.
The spirituality of the Orthodox Church, however, does not lead to abstract religious life; nor is it the fruits of man's inner strength. Spirituality is not an abstract religious life because the Church is the Body of Christ. It is not simply a religion which believes in a God, theoretically. The Second Person of the Holy Trinity -the Logos of God- assumed human nature for us. He united it with his hypostasis and became the Head of the Church.
Thus the Church is the Body of the Godman Christ. Moreover, spirituality is not a manifestation of the energies of the soul as reason is, or the feelings are etc. This is important to state because many people tend to label a person spiritual who cultivates his reasoning abilities: a scientist, an artist, an actor, a poet etc. This interpretation is not accepted by the Orthodox Church. Certainly we are not against scientists, poets etc. but we cannot call them spiritual people in the strict orthodox sense of the word.
In the teaching of the Apostle Paul the spiritual man is clearly distinguished from the man of the soul. Spiritual is the man who has the energy of the Holy Spirit within. Whereas the man of the soul is he who has body and soul but has not acquired the Holy Spirit, which gives life to the soul. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" (1 Cor. 2, 14-15).
In the same Epistle, the Apostle Paul draws the distinction between the spiritual man and the man of the flesh. The man of the flesh is he who does not have the Holy Spirit within his heart but retains all the other psychosomatic functions of a human being. Therefore it is evident that the term "man of the flesh" does not refer to the body, but signifies the man of the soul who lacks the Most Holy Spirit, and who operates out of his so called "psychobiological" self. "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" (1 Cor. 3, 1-3).
If we combine the above mentioned passages with those referring to the Christians' adoption by grace, we ascertain that, according to the Apostle Paul, spiritual is the man who by grace has become son of God. "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.operates out of his so called "psychobiological" self. "And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God" (Rom. 8, 12-16).
Spiritual is the man who is witness to the Holy Spirit within his heart and is thus well aware of the indwelling of the Holy Triune God. In this way he realizes that he is son of God by grace; and within his heart therefore, he cries "Abba, Father". According to the testimony of the Saints this heartfelt cry is essentially the noetic prayer or prayer of the heart.
St. Basil the Great in examining what is meant by "man becomes the temple of the Most Holy Spirit", teaches -inspired by God- that the man who is the Temple of the Holy Spirit is not disturbed by temptations and constant cares; he seeks God and has communion with Him. Clearly the spiritual man is he who has the Holy Spirit within and this is confirmed by his uninterrupted remembrance of God.
According to St. Gregory Palamas, just as the man endowed with reason is called rational, in the same way the man who is enriched with the Holy Spirit is called spiritual. Thus spiritual is the "new man"; the regenerated by the grace of the Most Holy Spirit.
This same outlook is shared by all of the Holy Fathers. St. Symeon the New Theologian, for example, says that the man who is prudent, forbearing and meek, and who prays and beholds God, "walks in the spirit". He is pre-eminently the spiritual man, par excellence.
Again according to St. Symeon the New Theologian, when the parts of man's soul -his nous and intellect- are not "clothed" in the image of Christ, he is considered a man of the flesh, since he does not have the sense of spiritual glory. The man of the flesh is like the blind person who cannot see the light from the sun's rays. In fact he is considered both blind and lifeless. In contrast, the spiritual man, who partakes in the energies of the Holy Spirit, is alive in God.
As we emphasised, previously, communion in the Most Holy Spirit makes the man of the flesh spiritual. For this reason, according to Orthodox teaching, the spiritual man, par excellence, is the Saint. Certainly, this is said from the point of view that a Saint is he who partakes, in varying degrees, in the uncreated grace of God, and especially in the deifying energy of God.
The Saints are bearers and manifestations of Orthodox spirituality. They live in God and consecutively they speak about Him. In this sense, Orthodox spirituality is not abstracted but is embodied in the personhood of the Saints. Hence the Saints are not the good people, the moralists in the strict sense of the term, or simply those who are good natured. Rather, saint is the person who submits to and acts upon the guidance of the Most Holy Spirit within.
We are assured of the existence of the Saints firstly by their Orthodox teaching. The Saints received and are receiving the Revelation of God; they experience it and they formulate it. They are the infallible criteria of the Ecumenical Synods. The second assurance is the existence of holy relics of the Saints. The holy relics are the token that through the nous the grace of God transfigured the body also. Consequently, the bodies participate in the energies of the Most Holy Spirit.
The primary work of the Church is to lead man to theosis, to communion and union with God. Given this, in a sense we can say that the work of the Church is to "produce relics".
Thus, Orthodox spirituality is the experience of life in Christ, the atmosphere of the new man, regenerated by the grace of God. It is not an abstract, emotional and psychological state of being. It is man's union with God.
Within this framework we can detect some characteristic traits of Orthodox spirituality. It is firstly Christ-centred, since Christ is the one and only "remedy" for people, by virtue of the hypostatic unity of the divine and human nature in His person. Secondly, Orthodox spirituality is Holy Trinity-centred, since Christ is always united with the Father and the Holy Spirit. All the sacraments are performed in the name of the Triune God. Being the Head of the Church, Christ cannot be thought of as being outside of it. Consequently Orthodox spirituality is also Ecclesiastic-centred, since only within the Church can we come into communion with Christ. Finally, as we shall explain later, Orthodox spirituality is mystical and ascetical.
|
[ BACK ] 2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY AND OTHER TRADITIONS |
What we have said up to this point clearly indicates that Orthodox spirituality differs distinctly from any other "spirituality" of an eastern or western type. There can be no confusion among the various spiritualities, because Orthodox spirituality is God-centred, whereas all others are man-centred.
The difference appears primarily in the doctrinal teaching. For this reason we put "Orthodox" before the word "Church" so as to distinguish it from any other religion. Certainly "Orthodox" must be linked with the term "Ecclesiastic", since Orthodoxy cannot exist outside of the Church; neither, of course, can the Church exist outside Orthodoxy.
The dogmas are the results of decisions made at the Ecumenical Councils on various matters of faith. Dogmas are referred to as such, because they draw the boundaries between truth and error, between sickness and health. Dogmas express the revealed truth. They formulate the life of the Church. Thus they are, on the one hand, the expression of Revelation and on the other act as "remedies" in order to lead us to communion with God; to our reason for being.
Dogmatic differences reflect corresponding differences in therapy. If a person does not follow the "right way" he cannot ever reach his destination. If he does not take the proper "remedies", he cannot ever acquire health; in other words, he will experience no therapeutic benefits. Again, if we compare Orthodox spirituality with other Christian traditions, the difference in approach and method of therapy is more evident. A fundamental teaching of the Holy Fathers is that the Church is a "Hospital" which cures the wounded man. In many passages of Holy Scripture such language is used. One such passage is that of the parable of the Good Samaritan. "But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee" (Luk. 10, 33-35).
In this parable, the Samaritan represents Christ who cured the wounded man and led him to the Inn, that is to the "Hospital" which is the Church. It is evident here that Christ is presented as the Healer, the physician who cures man's maladies; and the Church as the true Hospital.
It is very characteristic that Saint Chrysostom, analysing this parable presents these truths emphasized above.
In the interpretation of this parable by St. Chrysostom it is clearly shown that the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops-priests are the therapists of the people of God.
And this precisely is the work of Orthodox theology. When referring to Orthodox theology, we do not simply mean a history of theology. The latter is, of course, a part of this but not absolutely or exclusively. In patristic tradition, theologians are the God-seers. St. Gregory Palamas calls Barlaam a theologian, but he clearly emphasizes that intellectual theology differs greatly from the experience of the vision of God. According to St. Gregory Palamas theologians are the God-seers; those who have followed the "method" of the Church and have attained to perfect faith, to the illumination of the nous and to divinization (theosis). Theology is the fruit of man's therapy and the path which leads to therapy and the acquisition of the knowledge of God.
Western theology however has differentiated itself from Eastern Orthodox theology. Instead of being therapeutic, it is more intellectual and emotional in character. In the West, Scholastic theology evolved, which is antithetical to the Orthodox tradition. Western theology is based on rational thought whereas Orthodoxy is hesychastic. Scholastic theology tried to understand logically the Revelation of God and conform to philosophical methodology. Characteristic of such an approach is the saying of Anselm of Canterbury: "I believe so as to understand". The Scholastics acknowledged God at the outset and then endeavoured to prove His existence by logical arguments and rational categories. In the Orthodox Church, as expressed by the Holy Fathers, faith is God revealing Himself to man. We accept faith by hearing it not so that we can understand it rationally, but so that we can cleanse our hearts, attain to faith by "theoria" and experience the Revelation of God.
Scholastic theology reached its culminating point in the person of Thomas Aquinas, a saint in the Roman-Catholic Church. He claimed that Christian truths are divided into natural and supernatural. Natural truths can be proven philosophically, like the truth of the Existence of God. Supernatural truths -such as the Triune God, the incarnation of the Logos, the resurrection of the bodies- cannot be proven philosophically, yet then cannot be disproven. Scholasticism linked theology very closely with philosophy, even more so with metaphysics. As a result, faith was altered and scholastic theology itself fell into complete disrepute when the "idol" of the West-metaphysics-collapsed. Scholasticism is held accountable for much of the tragic situation created in the West with respect to faith and faith issues.
The Holy Fathers teach that natural and metaphysical categories do not exist but speak rather of the created and uncreated. Never did the Holy Fathers accept Aristotle's metaphysics. However, it is not my intent to expound further on this. Theologians of the West during the Middle Ages considered scholastic theology to be a further development of the theology of the Holy Fathers, and from this point on, begins the teaching of the Francs that scholastic theology is superior to that of the Holy Fathers. Consequently, Scholastics, who are occupied with reason, consider themselves superior to the Holy Fathers of the Church. They also believe that human knowledge, an offspring of reason, is loftier than Revelation and experience.
It is within this context that the conflict between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam should be viewed. Barlaam was essentially a scholastic theologian who attempted to pass on scholastic theology to the Orthodox East.
His views -that we cannot really know who the Holy Spirit is exactly, (an outgrowth of which is agnosticism), that the ancient Greek philosophers are superior to the Prophets and the Apostles (since reason is above the vision of the Apostles), that the light of the Transfiguration is something which is created and can be undone, that the hesychastic way of life is not essential -i.e. the purification of the heart and the unceasing noetic prayer- are views which express a scholastic and subsequently, a secularized point of view of theology. St. Gregory Palamas foresaw the danger that these views held for Orthodoxy and through the power and energy of the Most Holy Spirit and the experience which he himself had acquired as successor to the Holy Fathers, he confronted this great danger and preserved unadulterated the Orthodox faith and tradition.
Having given a framework to the topic at hand, if Orthodox spirituality is examined in relationship to Roman-Catholicism and Protestantism the differences are immediately discovered.
Protestants do not have a "therapeutic treatment"-tradition. They suppose that believing in God, intellectually, constitutes salvation. Yet salvation is not a matter of intellectual acceptance of truth; rather it is a person's transformation and divinization by grace. This transformation is effected by the analogous "treatment" of one's personality, as shall be seen in the following chapters. In the Holy Scripture it appears that faith comes by hearing the Word and by experiencing "theoria" (the vision of God). We accept faith at first by hearing in order to be healed, and then we attain to faith by theoria, which saves man. Protestants because they believe that the acceptance of the truths of faith, the theoretical acceptance of God's Revelation, i.e. faith by hearing, saves man, do not have a "therapeutic tradition". It could be said that such a conception of salvation is very naive.
The Roman-Catholics as well do not have the perfection of the therapeutic tradition which the Orthodox Church has. Their doctrine of the filioque is a manifestation of the weakness in their theology to grasp the relationship existing between the person and society. They confuse the personal properties: the "unbegotten" of the Father, the "begotten" of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Father is the cause of the "generation" of the Son and the procession of the Holy Spirit.
The Latins' weakness to comprehend and failure to express the dogma of the Trinity shows the non-existence of empirical theology. The three disciples of Christ (Peter, James and John) beheld the glory of Christ on Mount Tabor; they heard at once the voice of the Father: "this is my beloved Son" and saw the coming of the Holy Spirit in a cloud -for, the cloud is the presence of the Holy Spirit, as St. Gregory Palamas says-. Thus the disciples of Christ acquired the knowledge of the Triune God in theoria (vision) and by revelation. It was revealed to them that God is one essence in three hypostases.
This is what St. Symeon the New Theologian teaches. In his poems he proclaims over and over that while beholding the uncreated Light, the deified man acquires the Revelation of God the Trinity. Being in "theoria" (vision of God), the Saints do not confuse the hypostatic attributes. The fact that the Latin tradition came to the point of confusing these hypostatic attributes and teach that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also, shows the non-existence of empirical theology for them. Latin tradition speaks also of created grace, a fact which suggests that there is no experience of the grace of God. For, when man obtains the experience of God, then he comes to understand well that this grace is uncreated. Without this experience there can be no genuine "therapeutic tradition".
And indeed we cannot find in all of Latin tradition, the equivalent to Orthodoxy's therapeutic method. The nous is not spoken of; neither is it distinguished from reason. The darkened nous is not treated as a malady and the illumination of the nous as therapy. Many greatly publicized Latin texts are sentimental and exhaust themselves in a barren ethicology. In the Orthodox Church, on the contrary, there is a great tradition concerning these issues which shows that within it there exists the true therapeutic method.
A faith is a true faith inasmuch as it has therapeutic benefits. If it is able to cure, then it is a true faith. If it does not cure, it is not a true faith. The same thing can be said about Medicine: A true scientist is the doctor who knows how to cure and his method has therapeutic benefits, whereas a charlatan is unable to cure. The same holds true where matters of the soul are concerned. The difference between Orthodoxy and the Latin tradition, as well as the Protestant confessions is apparent primarily in the method of therapy. This difference is made manifest in the doctrines of each denomination. Dogmas are not philosophy, neither is theology the same as philosophy.
Since Orthodox spirituality differs distinctly from the "spiritualities" of other confessions so much the more does it differ from the "spirituality" of Eastern religions, which do not believe in the Theanthropic nature of Christ and the Holy Trinity. They are influenced by the philosophical dialectic, which has been surpassed by the Revelation of God. These traditions are unaware of the notion of personhood and thus the hypostatic principle. And love, as a fundamental teaching is totally absent. One may find, of course, in these Eastern religions an effort to divest themselves of images and rational thoughts, but this is in fact a movement towards nothingness, to non-existence. There is no path leading their "disciples" to theosis of the whole man. There are many elements of demonic "spirituality" in Eastern religions.
This is why a vast and chaotic gap exists between Orthodox spirituality and the Eastern religions, in spite of certain external similarities in terminology. For example, Eastern religions may employ terms like ecstasy , dispassion, illumination, noetic energy et.c. but they are impregnated with a content different from corresponding terms in Orthodox spirituality.
|
[ BACK ] 3. THE CORE OF ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY |
In the Holy tradition of the Orthodox Church at the centre of Orthodox spirituality is the heart and the nous. It is this centre which needs to be treated so that man's complete psychosomatic constitution is cured. Moreover as the Lord said: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God" (Matt. 5, 8). In order to see what the heart and nous are we must begin by examining the soul.
From the narration of Genesis in the Old Testament, we know that initially God created Adam's body and then He breathed into it and created his soul. By saying "He created the soul" it is made clear that the soul is not a particle of God, the spirit of God, as some people claim. But, as St. Chrysostom says, since the inbreathing of God is the energy of the Holy Spirit, it is this energy of the Holy Spirit which created the soul, without itself being the soul. It is of vital importance to state this, for thus we understand well that the soul cannot be examined autonomously but only in connection with God.
Every man's soul is one and manifold, at the same time, as St. Gregory Palamas says. In another context St. Gregory Palamas teaches that as God is Trinity -Nous, Logos and Spirit- in a corresponding way man's soul has a trinitarian nature: there is the nous -the core of man's existence-, the logos -begotten by the nous- and the spirit -"man's noetic love"-.
The soul is closely linked to man's body. It is not located in only one part of the body.
According to Orthodox teaching God governs the world through his uncreated energies. Just as God acts in nature, so the soul moves and activates each member of the body to perform its function, according to St. Gregory of Sinai. Therefore, just as God governs the world in the same way does the soul govern the body.
As St. Gregory Palamas expresses it, the soul occupies the body with which it was created. It fills the entire body, giving life to the body. In other words, the soul is not enclosed by the body, but it occupies the body to which it is attached.
There is a strong bond between the soul and the body but also a clear distinction. A person is made up of body and soul, both of which coexist simultaneously without any confusion. Thus, it is not just the soul which is called man, neither is it solely the body which is called man, but both of them constitute man. The soul gives life to the whole body of man through its providential powers. However if the human body lacks one of its members, for example if a man has no eyes, this does not mean that the soul's providential powers are of a lesser degree. Moreover the soul is not in and of itself equivalent to her providential powers but she uniquely encloses all the providential powers of the body.
St. Gregory of Nyssa states characteristically that the soul is not held by the body but it is she who contains the body. In other words, the body does not function as a vessel or a wine-skin containing the soul, but rather the body is within her. The soul acts throughout the whole of man's body.
What has been said about the soul may seem highly theoretical, although it is a distinct teaching of the Church, and as such indispensable to the reader's understanding of the matter of heart and nous, which is the centre of Orthodox spirituality. We are not able, otherwise, to comprehend where the Orthodox Church is headed and what she seeks to cure.
As God has essence and energy, so also does the soul -having been made in the image of God- have essence and energy. Essence and energy in God are of course uncreated, whereas the soul's essence and energy are created. Nothing exists without an energy. The sun's essence is beyond the atmosphere of the earth, yet its energy, which gives light, heat and causes burning etc. -reaches to earth and affords her with light, heat etc. The same happens with all objects. The soul's essence is found in the heart not like in a vessel but as if in an organ; its energy operates through the thoughts (logismoi).
According to St. Gregory Palamas, the soul is called the nous as well. Yet, both the essence of the soul -the heart- and its energy -consisting of the thoughts- are called nous.
However, although in the Biblical-Patristic tradition the terms are interchangeable, to avoid any confusion the soul is referred to as the spiritual element of man's existence; the heart, as the essence of the soul, and the nous as the energy of the soul. Thus, when the nous enters the heart and acts therein, there exists a unity between the nous (energy), the heart (essence) and the soul.
All asceticism in the Church aims at man's theosis (divinization), at his communion with God the Trinity. This is accomplished when the energy of the soul (nous) returns to its essence (heart) and ascends to God. For unity with God to be attained, the unity of the soul, through the grace of God, must precede it. Sin in fact is the dispersion of these powers; it is primarily the scattering of the soul's energy, i.e. of the nous, to things, and its separation from the heart.
Having made these clarifications it is important to examine more analytically what the heart and nous are in Orthodox tradition.
The heart is the centre of man's psychosomatic constitution, since, as we noted previously, there is an "unconfused" union between soul and body. The centre of this union is called heart.
The heart is the place which is discovered through ascetic practice in a state of grace; it is the place wherein God is revealed and made manifest. This definition may seem abstract, yet it is a matter of spiritual experience. Noone can fully show the place of the heart by rational and speculative definitions. In any case the heart is a centre and summation of the three faculties of the soul: of the intellect, the appetitive and the irascible. The fact is that when a person lives the inner life -when his nous returns within his inner world from its previous dispersion; when he experiences mourning and in the deepest sense, repentance- he is then conscious of the existence of this centre, i.e. the existence of the heart. He feels therein pain and spiritual sorrow; he experiences the grace of God; there also he even hears the voice of God.
According to patristic tradition, the essence of the soul, which is called heart, is found as if within an organ, not in a vessel where the physical organ of the heart is. This should be interpreted in reference to what it was said before, that the soul holds the body and gives life to it; it is not contained by the body but it contains the person's body. It is within this perspective that St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite speaks of the heart as a biophysical (natural) centre, since the blood is circulated to all parts of the body from there; as an affected (contrary to nature) centre, since the passions prevail therein, and as a supernatural centre since the grace of God operates there, as many passages of the Holy Scripture state:
"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5, 28)
"But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgement of God" (Rom. 2, 5)
"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" (Eph. 3, 17)
"And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us" (Rom. 5, 5)
The nous, on the other hand, is the energy of the soul. According to the Fathers, the nous is also called the eye of the soul. Its natural place is to be found within the heart; to be united with the essence of the soul and to experience the unceasing memory of God. Its movement goes contrary to nature when it is enslaved by the creatures of God and the passions. Orthodox tradition makes a distinction between nous and reason.
Reason is a function in the brain whereas the nous operates out of and is united with the heart in its natural state. In the Saintly person, who is the manifestation and bearer of Orthodox spirituality, reason works and is conscious of the surrounding world while the nous is within the heart, praying unceasingly. The separation of the nous from reason constitutes the state of a spiritually healthy person, and this is the goal of Orthodox spirituality.
Quite illustrative of the above theme are two passages from St. Basil the Great's writings. In one text he says that in the spiritual man -who has become a temple of God and of the Most Holy Spirit- reason and the nous exist and operate simultaneously. Reason is engaged in earthly cares and the nous is engaged in the unceasing remembrance of God. Moreover, because his nous is united with the heart and has communion with God, man is not disturbed by unexpected temptations, that is to say, by temptations caused by the decay and transiency of his nature.
In the other passage St. Basil refers to the return of the nous into the heart and its ascent to God.
The latter passage should be interpreted within the context of the former one and in relationship to all of St. Basil's teaching. The nous which is scattered outwards and diffused through the senses into the world is sick, fallen, prodigal. It must return from its diffused state to its union with and in the heart, its natural state, and then be united with God. Illumined by the uncreated Light (the state of theosis), the nous neglects even its nature, and the soul is not preoccupied with clothing and shelter. This does not mean that man does not care about food, etc. But, because man has attained to the state of theoria (vision of God) and theosis, his bodily forces -not those of the soul- are in a state of suspension; in other words, the soul and nous are not subjugated by the influences of the world and material things. Man is, of course, concerned about them, yet he is not enslaved by them. Additionally, St. Basil the Great clearly states that by this movement of the nous' return within the heart, virtue as a whole is acquired: prudence, bravery, justice, wisdom along with all of the other virtues.
Fr. John Romanides says that all living creatures possess two known memory-systems. First, "there is the cell memory which determines the development and growth of the individual in relationship to itself". This is the known D.N.A. structure which is the genetic code that literally defines everything in the human constitution. Secondly, "there is the brain cell memory which determines the functions and relations of the individual towards himself and his environment". This is the operation of the brain which -being imprinted by all memories of the past as well as by human knowledge acquired through study and investigation- defines man's relations with his fellow-human beings. In addition though, according to Romanides, "there exists within every person a non-functioning or sub-functioning memory within the heart; and when activated through noetic prayer it has perpetual memory of God, which contributes to the normalization of all of a person's other relations.
Consequently the Saint -a bearer of Orthodox spirituality- possesses all three of these memories, which act and function simultaneously without influencing one another. A Saint is the most "natural of men". He is conscious of the world, involved in various concerns, yet -because his nous has attained to its natural function- "he lives on earth but is a citizen of heaven".
Therefore, the centre of Orthodox spirituality is the heart, within which man's nous must inherently operate. The energy of the soul -the nous- must return within the soul's essence -in the heart-; and thus by uniting these powers by the grace of God acquire unity and communion with God the Trinity. A spirituality outside of this perspective is not orthodox but moralistic, pietistic, abstract and rationalistic.
NotesReturn — Theoria: Theoria is the vision of the glory of God. Theoria is identified with the vision of the uncreated Light, the uncreated energy of God, with the union of man with God, with man's theosis (see note below). Thus, theoria, vision and theosis are closely connected. Theoria has various degrees. There is illumination, vision of God, and constant vision (for hours, days, weeks, even months). Noetic prayer is the first stage of theoria. Theoretical man is one who is at this stage. In Patristic theology, the theoretical man is characterised as the shepherd of the sheep.
Return — Theosis-Divinisation: It is the participation in the uncreated grace of God. Theosis is identified and connected with the theoria (vision) of the uncreated Light (see note above). It is called theosis in grace because it is attained through the energy, of the divine grace. It is a co-operation of God with man, since God is He Who operates and man is he who co-operates.
|
|
