1. Why is it that all desires of the flesh are considered bad? This goes somewhat hand in hand with my previous argument against apatheia, since I see them as intrinsic to experience, the flesh being nothing more than a complex set of senses. Now, I am defining such desires to include everything, not just those sexual in nature, and perhaps that's where the problem is originating.
I thought it was fact that Jesus enjoyed physical pleasures, notably eating and good old foot massages. How is this to be reconciled with such a position?
Certainly the notion that all desires of the flesh are bad would not be an orthodox Christian view, since it smacks of Gnosticism. To the degree that some Christians
have said it, though, I think the idea is that you're supposed to be focusing on God, and anything that distracts you is therefore bad - not bad in itself, perhaps, but bad from the point of view of someone wanting to focus upon God. So you find this idea in some of the Desert Fathers, for example, and later monastic writers too. In other words, where it appears in orthodox Christianity, it tends to be a specialised thing, for ascetics, mystics, and other professional God-gazers. I can't think off-hand of any suggestion in orthodox Christianity that
no-one should enjoy physical pleasures. It really goes back to Plato, in one form or another, although the ideal of
apatheia is Stoic. Note also that spiritual teachers have generally taught that even enjoyment of spiritual things can also be a distraction from God. If you're just gazing upon God because it's pleasant to do so, you won't see him at all.
I'm not sure how proponents of such a view would reconcile it with Jesus' engagement in physical activities. They could argue that we are never told that Jesus
enjoyed eating, foot-rubbing etc, only that he did it. Or perhaps Jesus' perfect union with God meant that such things wouldn't distract him as they can other people. Or something like that. Of course, the Gnostics wouldn't have accepted that Jesus really did those things at all - or that the Jesus who did them was not identical with the true saviour. So you can see how a Gnostic tendency in ethics tends to lead to heretical christology.
3. For the gnostics, was spirit almost a simple logical concept and nothing more? What can differentiate it from mind, if mind incorporates subjective experience then? Would there be any way to "know" one had a soul or any difference in experience at all between a souled person and a non-souled one?
I don't know the answers to these questions. The Gnostics would have distinguished between "soul" and "spirit", though. They thought that soul (psyche) is something that everyone has, and it is rather like very rarified matter. That is, if there is a great distinction between matter on the one hand and spirit on the other, soul is allied to matter, not to spirit. It is not divine, does not come from the Pleroma, and is associated with the Demiurge (himself a psychic being). Psyche is where consciousness and self-awareness are found. Spirit (pneuma), by contrast, is your link to the divine; it is in virtue of having spirit that you transcend the earthly realm.
"Mind" (nous) would be part of psyche. Remember that Plato divided psyche into three parts - nous, thymos (courage, kind of) and epithymia (base desire).
4. Plotinus: so self-reflection creates a division between the experience of being a thing and the concept of that thing, what I would consider the most fundamental dichotomy, of subjective and objective, conceptual and sensual. This reflection, assuming he believes in an eternal God, would be an inherent attribute, and would therefore be similar in essence to the concept of the trinity as previously stated? A sort of dual at one basic level but singular at the most basic level sort of thing?
Well, that's not really how the Trinity works. According to the orthodox doctrine, both the unity and the distinction in the Godhead are most basic and fundamental. It's not like God appears as three but is really one: he is really three, and the threeness is just as real as the oneness. Of course they operate at different levels (the unity is at the level of
ousia and the multiplicity at the level of
hypostasis) but neither is more fundamental than the other.
I'm not sure if Plotinus' explanation of multiplicity is exactly about the objective/subjective distinction, but that's only because I don't know enough about Plotinus to say (it's a very, very long time since I read him). Bear in mind, though, that Plotinus' One is not really like God. The One is not personal and indeed has no attributes at all. Divinity, for Plotinus, exists at the next level
below the One, the level of the divine Nous.
5. Wait, so sex wasn't bad for a long time?! My head is spinning... I need to make sure, maybe I've misunderstood?
In orthodox Christianity, sex has
never been bad per se. The claim that it is intrinsically bad is really a Gnostic claim (or a claim by groups similar to the Gnostics, such as the Cathars).
6. What exactly is this love of God? Wouldn't it necessarily change depending on the individual's definition of God? If God is the universe, then wouldn't loving life and all the ways to enjoy life be loving God, and therefore sensual experiences could be a way to this, especially since the senses themselves would then be part of God? Perhaps simply being aware of this fact while enjoying them is sufficient? Or is it sitting in a dark room and thinking of a set of abstract concepts? I guess I'm wondering if there's any actual schools of thought as to what this communion with God actually is, as it has always seemed a wishy-washy sort of thing to me, not ever really explained in much detail.
Of course the idea that God is identical to the universe is hardly an orthodox Christian belief, although some Christians may have come close to it. However, certainly many Christians have believed that God should be encountered
through the world rather than
apart from it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would be a good example of this. Mt 25:31-46 might be confirmation of this sort of view. At the same time, of course, there is the notion that to focus on God properly you must withdraw from the world to at least some degree. Lk 10:38-42 is the classic text for this view.
Much has been written on what the experience of the love of God is like. I suppose the two main traditions, within Christianity, are the cataphatic (saying it is like something, typically light) and the apophatic (saying it transcends any description). Here are some passages from one of the major cataphatic mystics:
Symeon the New Theologian said:
I have frequently seen light, sometimes within me... and sometimes it appeared externally, from afar, or even it was completely hidden, and by its hiddenness caused me unbearable pain, because I thought I would never see it again. But when I again lamented and wept... it appeared like the sun which penetrates through the thickness of the clouds and gradually shows itself as a gently glowing sphere.
At once I was so greatly moved to tears and love for God, that I would be unable to describe the joy and delight I then felt. Immediately I fell prostrate on the ground and saw, behold, a great light that was immaterially shining on me and seized hold of my whole mind and soul, so that I was struck with amazement at the unexpected marvel and was as if in ecstasy. Nor is this all; I forget the place where I stood, and who I was, and where, and could only cry out: “Lord, have mercy,” so that when I came to myself I recognised that I was saying this. But who was speaking in me... I do not know – God knows. Whether I was in the body, or out of the body when I conversed with this light – only the light itself knows this.
I saw again an awesome mystery. Seizing hold of me and ascending to heaven, you took me up with you – whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know, you alone know, who had done this. But when I had spent some time with you there, struck with wonder at the greatness of the glory... and astounded at the measureless height, I was totally awestruck.
God becomes for those who are worthy
Like a divine and luminous pool,
Embracing them all...
The divine Spirit...
Being himself light without sunset,
Transforms all those in whom he lives
Into light...
He shines in my poor heart,
Illumining me from every side by his immortal radiance,
Lightening all my members by his rays...
I partake of his light, I participate in his glory,
And my face shines as the face of my Beloved,
And all my members become light-bearing.
I become then more beautiful than the most beautiful...
And much more precious than all visible things...
God is fire, and he came to send fire on the earth... If it is lit in someone, it grows in him until it becomes a great flame and reaches heaven... The burning of the soul that is inflamed by it does not occur in an unconscious manner... but in full assurance and knowledge... Having entirely purified us from stain of passions, [this fire] becomes our food and drink, illumination and joy within us, and it makes us light by participation... When the soul... is united with the divine and immaterial fire... then the body as well becomes by participation the fire of this divine and unspeakable light.
We practise all this asceticism and all these actions only in order to partake of the divine light, like a lamp, so that we may bring our souls as a single candle to the inaccessible light.
He who has within himself the light of the all-holy Spirit, being unable to bear the sight of it, falls prostrate on the ground, cries out and shouts in amazement and great fear, as one who sees and experiences the thing beyond nature, word or understanding. He becomes like a man whose entrails are touched by fire; being scorched by flame, he is not able to bear this burning, and becomes like one in ecstasy... He pours out more tears and, being purified by their flood, shines with a greater brilliance. And when, being totally inflamed, he becomes light, then is accomplished what is said: “God united with gods and known by them; and this is, probably, to the extent that he is already united with those who are attached to him, and revealed to those who have known him.”
God is light, and to those who have entered into union with him he imparts of his own brightness to the extent that they have been purified... O marvel! Man is united to God spiritually and physically... Through essential unity he also has three hypostases by grace, being a single god by adoption, with body and soul and the divine Spirit, of whom he has become a partaker. Then is fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet David: “I said: you are gods, and you are all the sons of the Most High,” that is, sons of the Most High according to his image and likeness.
Here is a passage from a major apophatic mystic:
Albertus Magnus said:
...To ascend to God means nothing else than to enter into oneself. And, indeed, he who enters into the secret place of his own soul passes beyond himself, and does in very truth ascend to God.
Banish, therefore, from your heart the distractions of earth and turn your eyes to spiritual joys, that you may learn at last to rest in the light of the contemplation of God.
Indeed the soul’s true life and her rest are to abide in God, held fast by love, and sweetly refreshed by the divine consolations.
But many are the obstacles which hinder us from tasting this rest, and of our own strength we could never attain to it. The reason is evident – the mind is distracted and preoccupied; it cannot enter into itself by the aid of the memory, for it is blinded by phantoms; nor can it enter by the intellect, for it is vitiated by the passions. Even the desire of interior joys and spiritual delights fails to draw it inward. It lies so deeply buried in things that are sensed and transitory that it cannot return to itself as to the image of God.
How needful it is, then, that the soul, lifted upon the wings of reverence and humble confidence, should rise above itself and every creature by entire detachment, and should be able to say within itself: He whom I seek, love, desire, among all, more than all, and above all, cannot be perceived by the senses or the imagination, for he is above both the senses and the understanding. He cannot be perceived by the senses, yet he is the object of all our desires; he is without shape, but he is supremely worthy of our heart’s deepest love. He is beyond compare, and to the pure in heart greatly to be desired. Above all else he is sweet and worthy of love; his goodness and perfection are infinite.
When you understand this, your soul will enter into the darkness of the spirit, and will advance further and penetrate more deeply into itself. You will by this means be able more speedily to see in a dark manner the Trinity in Unity, and Unity in Trinity, in Christ Jesus, in proportion as your effort is more inward; and the greater is your love, the more precious the fruit you will reap. For the highest, in spiritual things, is ever that which is most interior. Do not grow weary, therefore, and do not rest from your efforts until you have received some foretaste of the fullness of joy that awaits you, and have obtained some first-fruits of the divine sweetness and delights.
Cease not in your pursuit until “the God of gods will be seen in Sion”...
That passage from Albertus is really just a restatement of the teachings of Pseudo-Dionysius, who is
the big man when it comes to apophatic mysticism. Here are two important passages from his
Mystical theology, arguably the most influential mystical text of all time:
Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite said:
It was not without reason that the blessed Moses was commanded first to undergo purification himself and then to separate himself from those who had not undergone it; and after the entire purification heard many-voiced trumpets and saw many lights streaming forth with pure and manifold rays; and that he was thereafter separated from the multitude, with the elect priests, and pressed forward to the summit of the divine ascent. Nevertheless, he did not attain to the Presence of God himself; he saw not him (for he cannot be looked upon) but the place where he dwells. And this I take to signify that the divinest and highest things seen by the eyes or contemplated by the mind are but the symbolical expressions of those that are immediately beneath him who is above all. Through these, his incomprehensible Presence is manifested upon those heights of his holy places; that then it breaks forth, even from that which is seen and that which sees, and plunges the mystic into the Darkness of Unknowing, whence all perfection of understanding is excluded, and he is enwrapped in that which is altogether intangible and noumenal, being wholly absorbed in him who is beyond all, and in none else (whether himself or another); and through the inactivity of all his reasoning powers is united by his highest faculty to him who is wholly unknowable; thus by knowing nothing he knows that which is beyond his knowledge...
...the higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible; even as now, when plunging into the Darkness which is above the intellect, we pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence, of thoughts as well as of words. Thus, in the former discourse [this is a reference to another book by him], our contemplations descended from the highest to the lowest, embracing an ever-widening number of conceptions, which increased at each stage of the descent; but in the present discourse we mount upwards from below to that which is the highest, and, accordin to the degree of transcendence, so our speech is restrained until, the entire ascent being accomplished, we become wholly voiceless, inasmuch as we are absorbed in him who is totally ineffable.
Pseudo-Dionysius (writing in around AD 500) gets the idea of using Moses as a type of the mystic from Gregory of Nyssa, whose
Life of Moses contains much the same ideas. Gregory is really the first Christian apophatic mystic. And
he gets this interpretation of Moses from Origen, except that Origen believes that the spiritual journey is one of increasing knowledge, not one of increasing
unknowledge. I believe that Origen's use of the text ultimately goes back to Philo.
Origen also uses the Song of Songs as an allegory of the soul's relationship with God, and this too has been a constant theme in Christian mysticism, with medieval writers such as Bernard of Clairvaux doing the same thing. The Bride in the book is taken to represent the mystic's soul, and the Groom is Christ. So Origen writes in a famous passage:
Origen said:
Often - God is my witness - I have felt the Bridegroom come close to me, so that he was almost with me, and then suddenly went away, and I could not find what I was looking for. Again I find myself desiring his coming, and sometimes he returns; and when he appears before me, and I reach my hands out towards him, he escapes me again and disappears, and I must start searching again. He does this again and again, until I hold on to him firmly and ascend, leaning on my beloved.
Descriptions of the experience of God are always like this, highly metaphorical. Make of that what you will!
.
