nili giris

8/22/2019 Nili Giris

1/1186

can alwayssay

revelation

is right andthe

accepted


2/1186

"fact" iswrong. If

scientists

say theuniverse is

fifteen to


3/1186

twentybillion

years old,

andthe Bible

says it's a


4/1186

fewthousand

years old

then, sayfundament

alists,


5/1186

science iswrong and

the Bible

right. Butwhat

happens


6/1186

when thefact

is in

anotherpart of the

revelation?


7/1186

Forexample,

what

happenswhen


8/1186

the Biblecontradicts

itself? This

brings usto the


9/1186

question ofinternal

consistence

: does thebible agree

with itself?


10/1186

Throughout the ages,

many

leadingreligious


11/1186

figureshave said it

does. For

example, inInerrancy

And The


12/1186

Church([I03]) we

read that

Clement ofRome

claimed


13/1186

that theScriptures

were

errorless.([I03],23),

that


14/1186

Tertullianwas swift

to argue . .

. that theScriptures


15/1186

containedno

contradicto

ry materialnor error.

([I03],24),


16/1186

that Origen. . .

perceived

theScriptures


17/1186

as perfectand

noncontrad

ictory . . .([I03],25),


18/1186

and,finally, that

[f]or

Augustine,it was an

article of


19/1186

faith thatthere is no

real

discrepancy or

contradicti


20/1186

on in all ofScripture.

([I03],49).

Augustine's definition


21/1186

of errorwas strict.

When

Augustinedeclared

the Bible to


22/1186

be freefrom

error, he

explicitlyrejected

the


23/1186

presence ofinadvertent

mistakes as

well asconscious


24/1186

deception.([I03],53).

Yet he

knewMatthew

27:9


25/1186

attributes aquote to

Jeremiah

which is


26/1186

It with aGod who is

a Person.

Of Pascal'sMemorial,

Evelyn


27/1186

Underhillin her

classic

workMysticism:

A Study in


28/1186

the Natureand

Developme

nt of Man'sSpiritual


29/1186

Consciousnesswrites:

He seems

always tohave worn


30/1186

it upon hisperson: a

perpetual

memorialof the

supernal


31/1186

experience,the

initiation

intoReality,

which it


32/1186

describes.([U01],188)

.

Shebelieves the


33/1186

experienceconcluded

. . . a long

period ofspiritual


34/1186

stress, inwhich

indifferenc

e to hisordinary


35/1186

interestswas

counterbal

anced byan utter


36/1186

inability tofeel the

attractive

force ofthat Divine

Reality


37/1186

which hisgreat

mind

discernedas the only

adequate


38/1186

object ofdesire.

([U01],189)

.Underhill

mentions


39/1186

otherChristian

mystics

whoseexperience

of


40/1186

Lightparallels

the

experienceof

Augustine,


41/1186

Fox, andPascal.

LIGHT,

ineffableand

uncreated,


42/1186

the perfectsymbol of

pure

undifferentiated

Being:


43/1186

above theintellect, as

St.

Augustinereminds us,

but known


44/1186

to him wholoves.

This

UncreatedLight is the


45/1186

"deep yetdazzling

darkness"

of theDionysian

school,


46/1186

"dark fromits

surpassing

brightness .. . as the


47/1186

shining ofthe sun on

his course

is asdarkness to

weak


48/1186

eyes." It isSt.

Hildegarde

's luxvivens,

Dante's


49/1186

sommaluce,

wherein

he sawmultiplicity

in unity,


50/1186

theingathered

leaves of all

theuniverse:

The


51/1186

EternalFather, or

Fount of

Things."For well

we know,"


52/1186

saysRuysbroec

k, "that the

bosomof the

Father is


53/1186

our groundand origin,

wherein

our lifeand being

is begun."


54/1186

([U01],115).

Is not the

UltimateGround of

Existence


55/1186

our groundand origin,

root and

source aswell? Is not

Energy


56/1186

pureIsness,

pure

Suchness,pure

undifferent


57/1186

iatedExistence?

EasternChristian

Seers


58/1186

Of course,other

religions

speak ofdirect

experience


59/1186

of theEternal

Light.

Hesychasm, a mystical

tradition of


60/1186

the EasternOrthodox

Christian

Church, isparticularl

y explicit.


61/1186

TheEastern

Orthodox

andthe Roman

Catholic


62/1186

churcheswere once

branches of

a singleChristian

church.


63/1186

About1054, the

two

divided.Hesychasm

is the


64/1186

monastictradition of

the Eastern

Orthodoxchurch that


65/1186

expressesits

([M02],106

) "centralmystical

doctrine."


66/1186

Hesychastmonks

claim

directexperience

of God in


67/1186

the form ofUncreated

light.

One of thegreatest

Hesychast


68/1186

saints livedabout a

thousand

yearsago. His

name is


69/1186

Symeon.He's called

"the New

Theologian" to


70/1186

indicate heranks

second

([S26],37)only to


71/1186

theologian"par

excellence,

" Gregoryof

Nazianzus.


72/1186

In hisThird

Theological

Discourse,Symeon

writes:


73/1186

God islight, a

light

infinite andincompreh

ensible . . .


74/1186

one singlelight . .

simple,

non-composite,

timeless,


75/1186

eternal . . .The light is

life. The

light isimmortalit

y. The


76/1186

light is thesource of

life. . . . the

door of thekingdom


77/1186

of heaven.The light is

the very

kingdomitself.

([S25],138).


78/1186

We've seenhow

Energy is

simple andnon-

composite


79/1186

(notcomposed

of parts),

timelessand

eternal.


80/1186

Symeonemphasize

d it's

possible toexperience


81/1186

the Lightwhich is

God.

Our mindis pure and

simple, so


82/1186

when it isstripped of

every alien

thought, itenters the

pure,


83/1186

simple,Divine

light . . .

God is light- the

highest


84/1186

light.([W11],132

),

andFor if

nothing


85/1186

interfereswith its

contemplat

ion, themind - the

eye of the


86/1186

soul - seesGod purely

in a pure

light.([W11],137

).


87/1186

How didSymeon

know that

God is asimple,


88/1186

non-composite,

eternal

Lightwhich can

be seen?


89/1186

He claimedhis

knowledge

wasfirsthand.


90/1186

I haveoften seen

the light,

sometimesit has

appeared


91/1186

to mewithin

myself,

when mysoul


92/1186

possessedpeace

and silence.

. .([L09],118-

9).


93/1186

Symeon'srelation to

the Light

wasanything

but cold


94/1186

andimpersonal

.

In histwenty-


95/1186

fifth hymnhe writes:

- But, Oh,

whatintoxicatio


96/1186

n of light,Oh, what

movements

of fire!Oh, what

swirlings of


97/1186

the flamein me . . .

coming

from


98/1186

You andYour

glory! . . .

Yougranted me

to see the


99/1186

light ofYour

countenanc

e


100/1186

that isunbearable

to all. . . .

Youappeared

as light,


101/1186

illuminating me

completely

from Yourtotal light. .

. .


102/1186

O awesomewonder

which I see

doubly,with my

two


103/1186

sets of eyes,of the body

and of the

soul!([S26],24-

5).


104/1186

And he leftno doubt

he

consideredthis Light

God.


105/1186

Itilluminates

us, this

light thatnever sets,

without


106/1186

change,unalterable

, never

eclipsed; itspeaks, it

acts,


107/1186

it lives andvivifies, it

transforms

into lightthose

whom


108/1186

itillumines.

God is

light, andthose


109/1186

whom hedeems

worthy of

seeing himsee him as


110/1186

light; . . .Those who

have not

seen thislight have

not seen


111/1186

God, forGod is

light.

([L09],121).


112/1186

As mightbe

expected,

theexperience

of the


113/1186

Lightwhich is

God can

be quiteintense.


114/1186

If a manwho

possesses

within himthe light of

the


115/1186

Holy Spiritis unable to

bear its

radiance,he falls


116/1186

prostrateon the

ground and

cries out ingreat fear

and


117/1186

terror, asone who

sees and

experiencessomething


118/1186

beyondnature,

above

words orreason. He

is then like


119/1186

a manwhose

entrails

have beenset on fire

and,


120/1186

unable tobear the

scorching

flame, he isutterly


121/1186

devastatedby it . . .

([W11],113

).Some years

after


122/1186

Symeon,the

orthodoxy

andvalidity of

the


123/1186

Hesychastexperience

of God as

Light wasquestioned.


124/1186

Many roseto

Hesychasm

's defense.Gregory

Palamas


125/1186

(1296-1359) is

perhaps

themost

famous.


126/1186

Palamasgave the

Hesychast

experienceof

Uncreated


127/1186

Energy aphilosophic

al basis

acceptableto

Orthodox


128/1186

Christianity.

Gregory

argued thatthe divine

energies


129/1186

manifestthe

Godhead in

aneffulgence

of light,


130/1186

which it ispossible

for humans

beings tosee, God

willing.


131/1186

The lightthat

the apostles

saw on themount of

the


132/1186

transfiguration

was

uncreatedlight, not a


133/1186

createdeffulgence.

([P15],69).

LikeSymeon,

Palamas


134/1186

insistsUncreated

Light is an

actualexperience,

not a


135/1186

symbol ora metaphor

for

intellectualunderstand

ing.


136/1186

Palamasaffirms the

utter

reality ofthe saints'

vision of


137/1186

God,constantly

repeating

that thegrace that

reveals


138/1186

God, likethe light

that

illuminedthe


139/1186

disciples onMount

Tabor, is

uncreated.([M14],120

).


140/1186

Palamas'sdefense of

the

Hesychastexperience


141/1186

wassuccessful.

The

OrthodoxChurch

([N04],v11,


142/1186

465)accepts his

teachings

and


143/1186

numbershim among

its saints.

Uncreated

Light


144/1186

Hesychastmonks

almost

alwaysdescribe

their


145/1186

experienceof God as

an

experienceof

Uncreated


146/1186

Light.They

associate

that Lightwith the


147/1186

light of ascriptural

incident.

Take forexample

the term


148/1186

"Taboritelight," with

which

hesychastsalways

describe


149/1186

theirexperience

of God.

For theyidentify the

divine


150/1186

reality thatreveals

itself to

the saintswith the

light that


151/1186

appearedto the

Lord's

disciples atHis

Transfigur


152/1186

ation onMount

Tabor.

Suchan

identificati


153/1186

on seems tothem

justified

not merelyas


154/1186

a symbolbut as

something

very real.([M14],116

).


155/1186

But why isthe Light

called

Uncreated?The


156/1186

biblicalaccount

doesn't use

that word.It says

while Jesus


157/1186

waspraying

. . . his face

changed itsappearance


158/1186

, and hisclothes

became

dazzlingwhite. . . .


159/1186

Moses andElijah . . .

appeared

in heavenlyglory . . .

his


160/1186

companions . . .

saw Jesus'

glory . . .([G02],Lk

9:29-32).


161/1186

But Lukedoesn't call

the light

"uncreated" and

neither


162/1186

doesMatthew

(17:1-8) or

Mark (9:2-8).

Matthew


163/1186

uses lightimagery

when he

describesJesus' face

(Mt


164/1186

17:2,[G02],18) as

"shining

like thesun."


165/1186

And Marksays (Mk

9:3,[G02],4

2) Jesus'clothes


166/1186

"becameshining

white -

whiter thananyone in

the world


167/1186

could washthem." But

why is

the lightcalled

Uncreated?


168/1186

Perhaps,the monks'

experience

of theLight

which is


169/1186

Uncreatedcame first,

and

identification with the

light


170/1186

whichshone on

Mount

Taborsecond.


171/1186

Imaginemonks see

a reality

withinthemselves.


172/1186

The realityis a

kind of

Light.They

realize that


173/1186

the realityis God, that

seeing the

Light is anexperience

of God. So


174/1186

theynaturally

identify It

with anincident in

their own


175/1186

scriptures,the Light

that shone

at thetransfigura

tion of


176/1186

JesusChrist on

Mount

Tabor. Butif the same

Light


177/1186

wasexperience

d by a

Hindumystic,

would it be


178/1186

called thelight of

Krishna?

Might nota Buddhist

identify


179/1186

such a lightwith the

pure

Essence ofMind or

the Clear


180/1186

Light ofthe Void?

Could it be

thatmystics of

all times


181/1186

andcultures

have had

visionof the same

Eternal


182/1186

Light? Wasthe Islamic

mystic,

Sumnun,speaking


183/1186

of thatLight when

he wrote

I haveseparated

my heart


184/1186

from thisworld -

My heart

and Thouare not

separate.


185/1186

And whenslumber

closes my

eyes,I find Thee

between


186/1186

the eye andthe lid.

([S04],62)?

And wasAngelus

Silesius, a


187/1186

Christianmystic of

the 17th

centurywhose

simple,


188/1186

clear verseshave a

Zen-like

quality,speaking of

that


189/1186

same Lightwhen he

wrote:


190/1186

A heartawakened

has eyes:

perceivesthe Light


191/1186

in dark ofnight.

([B05],109)

?And how

might a


192/1186

scientistwho

happened

to see thatLight

speak


193/1186

of It? Asthe E in

E=mc2?

Probablynot. If they


194/1186

spoke of Itat all, it

would

probablybe in a


195/1186

religiouscontext.

Essenceand

Energies


196/1186

We'll seeother

mystics'

records ofthe Light,


197/1186

but let'spause to

consider a

question.Of God, St.


198/1186

Paulwrites:

He alone is

immortal;he lives in


199/1186

the lightthat no one

can

approach.No one has

ever seen


200/1186

him; noone can

ever see

him.([G02],1T

m 6:16).


201/1186

If Paul wasright, then

the mystics

are wrong.They didn't

see God at


202/1186

all. Who iswrong,

Paul or

them?Paul, I

believe.


203/1186

It isprobably

worth re-

emphasizing that this


204/1186

book'sworld view

agrees with

somebeliefs of

established


205/1186

religionsand

disagrees

withothers.

Since


206/1186

religionsdisagree

among

themselves,no world

view


207/1186

couldpossibly

agree with

all beliefsof all

religions.


208/1186

So Iusually

don't

remarkwhen a

point I'm


209/1186

makingdisagrees

with some

religion oranother,

except


210/1186

when thedisagreeme

nt, like the

one we'rediscussing


211/1186

now,brings up

an

interestingpoint.


212/1186

Can Godactually be

directly

experienced. Can God

be seen?


213/1186

VladimirLossky in

The

MysticalTheology of


214/1186

the EasternChurch

writes:

It would bepossible to

draw up


215/1186

two sets oftexts taken

from the

Bible andthe

Fathers,


216/1186

contradictory to one

another;

the first toshow the

inaccessibl


217/1186

e characterof

the divine

nature, thesecond

asserting


218/1186

that Goddoes

communica

te Himself,can be

known


219/1186

experimentally,

and can

really beattained to

in union . .


220/1186

.([L08],68).

(Lossky, in

fact, drawsup such a

list in the


221/1186

secondchapter of

The

Vision ofGod

([L09]), a


222/1186

book whichtreats the

above

contradiction in


223/1186

greatdetail.) He

continues:

Thequestion of

the


224/1186

possibilityof any real

union with

God, and,indeed, of

mystical


225/1186

experiencein general,

thus poses

forChristian

theology


226/1186

theantinomy

of the

accessibility of the

inaccessibl


227/1186

e nature.([L08],69).

The

EasternOrthodox

Church


228/1186

resolvesthis

scriptural

contradiction by

distinguishi


229/1186

ng betweenthe essence

of God,

which isinaccessibl

e, and the


230/1186

"energies"of God,

which are

. . . forcesproper to

and


231/1186

inseparablefrom God's

essence, in

which Hegoes forth


232/1186

fromHimself,

manifests,

communicates, and


233/1186

givesHimself.

([L08],70).

Thefamous

philosophe


234/1186

rImmanuel

Kant has a

similaridea: he

defines


235/1186

. . .

noumena,

the thingsin

themselves,


236/1186

which wecan

never

know, andthe

phenomena


237/1186

, theappearance

s,

which areall that our

senses can


238/1186

tell usabout.

([D04],329)

.An analogy

to both


239/1186

ideas mightbe this: No

one has

ever reallyexperience

d fire's


240/1186

essence;they've

only

experienced fire's

energies,


241/1186

that is, seenits light,

felt its heat,

or heardthe sound


242/1186

of itsburning.

Similarly,

the Godwhich is

not a


243/1186

Personmay be

considered

(compare[U01],109)

transcende


244/1186

nt,inaccessibl

e, and

unknowable. From

this


245/1186

viewpoint,Energy is

not

identicalwith the

God which


246/1186

is not aPerson

but rather

is thatGod's first

emanation,


247/1186

theprimary

manifestati

onupon which

the entire


248/1186

universe isbased. This

distinction

may beapplied to

the


249/1186

ChristianTrinity so

that the

Father istranscende

nt


250/1186

can alwayssay

revelation

is right andthe

accepted


251/1186

"fact" iswrong. If

scientists

say theuniverse is

fifteen to


252/1186

twentybillion

years old,

andthe Bible

says it's a


253/1186

fewthousand

years old

then, sayfundament

alists,


254/1186

science iswrong and

the Bible

right. Butwhat

happens


255/1186

when thefact

is in

anotherpart of the

revelation?


256/1186

Forexample,

what

happenswhen


257/1186

the Biblecontradicts

itself? This

brings usto the


258/1186

question ofinternal

consistence

: does thebible agree

with itself?


259/1186

Throughout the ages,

many

leadingreligious


260/1186

figureshave said it

does. For

example, inInerrancy

And The


261/1186

Church([I03]) we

read that

Clement ofRome

claimed


262/1186

that theScriptures

were

errorless.([I03],23),

that


263/1186

Tertullianwas swift

to argue . .

. that theScriptures


264/1186

containedno

contradicto

ry materialnor error.

([I03],24),


265/1186

that Origen. . .

perceived

theScriptures


266/1186

as perfectand

noncontrad

ictory . . .([I03],25),


267/1186

and,finally, that

[f]or

Augustine,it was an

article of


268/1186

faith thatthere is no

real

discrepancy or

contradicti


269/1186

on in all ofScripture.

([I03],49).

Augustine's definition


270/1186

of errorwas strict.

When

Augustinedeclared

the Bible to


271/1186

be freefrom

error, he

explicitlyrejected

the


272/1186

presence ofinadvertent

mistakes as

well asconscious


273/1186

deception.([I03],53).

Yet he

knewMatthew

27:9


274/1186

attributes aquote to

Jeremiah

which is


275/1186

It with aGod who is

a Person.

Of Pascal'sMemorial,

Evelyn


276/1186

Underhill inher classic

work

Mysticism:A Study in

the Nature


277/1186

andDevelopme

nt of Man's

SpiritualConsciousn

ess writes:


278/1186

He seemsalways to

have worn

it upon hisperson: a


279/1186

perpetualmemorial of

the supernal

experience,the


280/1186

initiationinto Reality,

which it

describes.([U01],188)

.


281/1186

Shebelieves the

experience

concluded. . . a long

period of


282/1186

spiritualstress, in

which

indifferenceto his

ordinary


283/1186

interestswas

counterbala

nced by anutter


284/1186

inability tofeel the

attractive

force of thatDivine

Reality


285/1186

which hisgreat

mind

discerned asthe only

adequate


286/1186

object ofdesire.

([U01],189)

.Underhill

mentions


287/1186

otherChristian

mystics

whoseexperience

of


288/1186

Lightparallels the

experience

ofAugustine,


289/1186

Fox, andPascal.

LIGHT,

ineffableand

uncreated,


290/1186

the perfectsymbol of

pure

undifferentiated Being:

above the


291/1186

intellect, asSt.

Augustine

reminds us,but known


292/1186

to him wholoves.

This

UncreatedLight is the


293/1186

"deep yetdazzling

darkness"

of theDionysian

school,


294/1186

"dark fromits

surpassing

brightness .. . as the


295/1186

shining ofthe sun on

his course is

as darknessto weak


296/1186

eyes." It isSt.

Hildegarde'

s lux vivens,Dante's

somma


297/1186

luce,wherein

he saw

multiplicityin unity, the


298/1186

ingatheredleaves of all

the

universe:The Eternal

Father, or


299/1186

Fount ofThings.

"For well

we know,"says

Ruysbroeck


300/1186

, "that thebosom

of the

Father isour ground

and origin,


301/1186

wherein ourlife

and being is

begun."([U01],115)

.


302/1186

Is not theUltimate

Ground of

Existenceour ground

and origin,


303/1186

root andsource as

well? Is not

Energy pureIsness, pure

Suchness,


304/1186

pureundifferenti

ated

Existence?


305/1186

EasternChristian

Seers

Of course,other

religions


306/1186

speak ofdirect

experience

of theEternal


307/1186

Light.Hesychasm,

a mystical

tradition ofthe Eastern

Orthodox


308/1186

ChristianChurch, is

particularly

explicit.The Eastern


309/1186

Orthodoxand

the Roman

Catholicchurches

were once


310/1186

branches ofa single

Christian

church.About

1054, the


311/1186

twodivided.

Hesychasm

is themonastic

tradition of


312/1186

the EasternOrthodox

church that

expressesits


313/1186

([M02],106)"central

mystical

doctrine."Hesychast


314/1186

monksclaim

direct

experienceof God in

the form of


315/1186

Uncreatedlight.

One of the

greatestHesychast

saints lived


316/1186

about athousand

years

ago. Hisname is

Symeon.


317/1186

He's called"the New

Theologian"

toindicate he

ranks


318/1186

second([S26],37)

only to

theologian"par


319/1186

excellence,"Gregory of

Nazianzus.

In his ThirdTheological


320/1186

Discourse,Symeon

writes:

God is light,a light

infinite and


321/1186

incomprehensible . . .

one single

light . .simple,

non-


322/1186

composite,timeless,

eternal . . .

The light islife. The

light is


323/1186

immortality.The

light is the

source oflife. . . . the


324/1186

door of thekingdom

of heaven.

The light isthe very


325/1186

kingdomitself.

([S25],138).

We've seenhow Energy

is simple


326/1186

and non-composite

(not

composed


327/1186

of parts),timeless and

eternal.

Symeonemphasized

it's possible


328/1186

toexperience

the Light

which isGod.


329/1186

Our mind ispure and

simple, so

when it isstripped of


330/1186

every alienthought, it

enters the

pure,simple,

Divine


331/1186

light . . .God is light

- the highest

light.([W11],132

),


332/1186

andFor if

nothing

interfereswith its


333/1186

contemplation, the

mind - the

eye of thesoul - sees


334/1186

God purelyin a pure

light.

([W11],137).


335/1186

How didSymeon

know that

God is asimple,


336/1186

non-composite,

eternal

Light whichcan be

seen? He


337/1186

claimed hisknowledge

was

firsthand.I have often

seen the


338/1186

light,sometimes

it has

appearedto me

within


339/1186

myself,when my

soul

possessedpeace


340/1186

and silence.. .

([L09],118-

9).Symeon's

relation to


341/1186

the Lightwas

anything

but cold andimpersonal.


342/1186

In histwenty-fifth

hymn he

writes:- But, Oh,

what


343/1186

intoxicationof light, Oh,

what

movementsof fire!


344/1186

Oh, whatswirlings of

the flame in

me . . .coming

from


345/1186

You andYour glory!

. . .

You grantedme to see

the light of


346/1186

Yourcountenanc

e

that isunbearable

to all. . . .


347/1186

Youappeared as

light,

illuminatingme

completely


348/1186

from Yourtotal light. .

. .

O awesomewonder

which I see


349/1186

doubly,with my

two

sets of eyes,of the body

and of the


350/1186

soul!([S26],24-

5).

And he leftno doubt he

considered


351/1186

this LightGod.

It

illuminatesus, this light

that never


352/1186

sets,without

change,

unalterable,never

eclipsed; it


353/1186

speaks, itacts,

it lives and

vivifies, ittransforms


354/1186

into lightthose whom

it illumines.

God is light,and those


355/1186

whom hedeems

worthy of

seeing himsee him as


356/1186

light; . . .Those who

have not

seen thislight have

not seen


357/1186

God, forGod is

light.

([L09],121).As might be

expected,


358/1186

theexperience

of the Light

which isGod can


359/1186

be quiteintense.

If a manwho

possesses


360/1186

within himthe light of

the

Holy Spiritis unable to

bear its


361/1186

radiance, hefalls

prostrate on

the groundand cries


362/1186

out in greatfear and

terror, as

one whosees and


363/1186

experiencessomething

beyond

nature,above

words or


364/1186

reason. Heis then like

a man

whoseentrails

have been


365/1186

set on fireand,

unable to

bear thescorching


366/1186

flame, he isutterly

devastated

by it . . .([W11],113

).


367/1186

Some yearsafter

Symeon,

theorthodoxy


368/1186

and validityof the

Hesychast

experienceof God as

Light was


369/1186

questioned.Many rose

to

Hesychasm's defense.

Gregory


370/1186

Palamas(1296-

1359) is

perhaps themost

famous.


371/1186

Palamasgave the

Hesychast

experienceof

Uncreated


372/1186

Energy aphilosophic

al basis

acceptableto Orthodox

Christianity.


373/1186

Gregoryargued that

the divine

energiesmanifest the


374/1186

Godhead inan

effulgence

of light,which it is

possible


375/1186

for humansbeings to

see, God

willing. Thelight that


376/1186

the apostlessaw on the

mount of

thetransfigurati

on


377/1186

wasuncreated

light, not a

createdeffulgence.

([P15],69).


378/1186

LikeSymeon,

Palamas

insistsUncreated


379/1186

Light is anactual

experience,

not asymbol or a

metaphor


380/1186

forintellectual

understandi

ng.Palamas

affirms the


381/1186

utter realityof the

saints'

vision ofGod,

constantly


382/1186

repeatingthat the

grace that

revealsGod, like

the light


383/1186

thatillumined

the disciples

on MountTabor, is

uncreated.


384/1186

([M14],120).

Palamas's

defense ofthe

Hesychast


385/1186

experiencewas

successful.

TheOrthodox

Church


386/1186

([N04],v11,465)

accepts his

teachingsand


387/1186

numbershim among

its saints.

Uncreated

Light


388/1186

Hesychastmonks

almost

alwaysdescribe

their


389/1186

experienceof God as

an

experienceof

Uncreated


390/1186

Light. Theyassociate

that Light

with the


391/1186

light of ascriptural

incident.

Take forexample the

term


392/1186

"Taboritelight," with

which

hesychastsalways

describe


393/1186

theirexperience

of God.

For theyidentify the

divine


394/1186

reality thatreveals

itself to

the saintswith the

light that


395/1186

appeared tothe Lord's

disciples at

HisTransfigurat

ion on


396/1186

MountTabor. Such

an

identification seems to

them


397/1186

justified notmerely as

a symbol

but assomething

very real.


398/1186

([M14],116).

But why is

the Lightcalled

Uncreated?


399/1186

The biblicalaccount

doesn't use

that word. Itsays while


400/1186

Jesus waspraying

. . . his face

changed itsappearance,


401/1186

and hisclothes

became

dazzlingwhite. . . .


402/1186

Moses andElijah . . .

appeared in

heavenlyglory . . .

his


403/1186

companions. . .

saw Jesus'

glory . . .([G02],Lk

9:29-32).


404/1186

But Lukedoesn't call

the light

"uncreated"and neither


405/1186

doesMatthew

(17:1-8) or

Mark (9:2-8). Matthew

uses light


406/1186

imagerywhen he

describes

Jesus' face(Mt

17:2,[G02],


407/1186

18) as"shining

like the

sun."And Mark

says (Mk


408/1186

9:3,[G02],42) Jesus'

clothes

"becameshining


409/1186

white -whiter than

anyone in

the worldcould wash


410/1186

them." Butwhy is

the light

calledUncreated?

Perhaps, the


411/1186

monks'experience

of the

Light whichis

Uncreated


412/1186

came first,and

identificatio

n with thelight


413/1186

whichshone on

Mount

Taborsecond.


414/1186

Imaginemonks see a

reality

withinthemselves.


415/1186

The realityis a

kind of

Light. Theyrealize that

the reality is


416/1186

God, thatseeing the

Light is an

experienceof God. So

they


417/1186

naturallyidentify It

with an

incident intheir own

scriptures,


418/1186

the Lightthat shone

at the

transfiguration of Jesus

Christ on


419/1186

MountTabor. But

if the same

Lightwas

experienced


420/1186

by a Hindumystic,

would it be

called thelight of


421/1186

Krishna?Might not a

Buddhist

identifysuch a light


422/1186

with thepure

Essence of

Mind or theClear Light


423/1186

of theVoid?

Could it be

that mysticsof all times

and cultures


424/1186

have hadvision

of the same

EternalLight? Was

the Islamic


425/1186

mystic,Sumnun,

speaking

of thatLight when

he wrote


426/1186

I haveseparated

my heart

from thisworld -


427/1186

My heartand Thou

are not

separate.And when

slumber


428/1186

closes myeyes,

I find Thee

between theeye and the


429/1186

lid.([S04],62)?

And was

AngelusSilesius, a

Christian


430/1186

mystic ofthe 17th

century

whosesimple,

clear verses


431/1186

have a Zen-like quality,

speaking of

that


432/1186

same Lightwhen he

wrote:


433/1186

A heartawakened

has eyes:

perceivesthe Light


434/1186

in dark ofnight.

([B05],109)

?And how

might a


435/1186

scientistwho

happened to

see thatLight speak


436/1186

of It? As theE in

E=mc2?

Probablynot. If they


437/1186

spoke of Itat all, it

would

probably bein a


438/1186

religiouscontext.

Essenceand

Energies


439/1186

We'll seeother

mystics'

records ofthe Light,


440/1186

but let'spause to

consider a

question. OfGod, St.

Paul writes:


441/1186

He alone isimmortal;

he lives in

the lightthat no one


442/1186

canapproach.

No one has

ever seenhim; no one

can


443/1186

ever seehim.

([G02],1Tm

6:16).If Paul was

right, then


444/1186

the mysticsare wrong.

They didn't

see God atall. Who is

wrong, Paul


445/1186

or them?Paul, I

believe.

It isprobably

worth re-


446/1186

emphasizing that this

book's

world viewagrees with

some


447/1186

beliefs ofestablished

religions

anddisagrees

with


448/1186

others.Since

religions

disagreeamong

themselves,


449/1186

no worldview

could

possiblyagree with

all beliefs


450/1186

of allreligions.

So I usually

don'tremark

when a


451/1186

point I'mmaking

disagrees

with somereligion or


452/1186

another,except

when the

disagreement, like the


453/1186

one we'rediscussing

now, brings

up aninteresting

point.


454/1186

Can Godactually be

directly

experienced. Can God

be seen?


455/1186

VladimirLossky in

The

MysticalTheology of


456/1186

the EasternChurch

writes:

It would bepossible to

draw up


457/1186

two sets oftexts taken

from the

Bible andthe Fathers,


458/1186

contradictory to one

another; the

first toshow the


459/1186

inaccessiblecharacter of

the divine

nature, thesecond

asserting


460/1186

that Goddoes

communicat

e Himself,can be

known


461/1186

experimentally,

and can

really beattained to


462/1186

in union . . .([L08],68).

(Lossky, in

fact, drawsup such a

list in the


463/1186

secondchapter of

The

Vision ofGod

([L09]), a


464/1186

book whichtreats the

above

contradiction in


465/1186

greatdetail.) He

continues:

Thequestion of

the


466/1186

possibilityof any real

union with

God, and,indeed, of

mystical


467/1186

experiencein general,

thus poses

forChristian

theology the


468/1186

antinomy ofthe

accessibility

of theinaccessible


469/1186

nature.([L08],69).

The Eastern

OrthodoxChurch


470/1186

resolves thisscriptural

contradictio

n bydistinguishi

ng between


471/1186

the essenceof God,

which is

inaccessible, and the

"energies"


472/1186

of God,which are

. . . forces

proper toand


473/1186

inseparablefrom God's

essence, in

which Hegoes forth


474/1186

fromHimself,

manifests,

communicates, and


475/1186

givesHimself.

([L08],70).

The famousphilosopher

Immanuel


476/1186

Kant has asimilar idea:

he defines

. . .

noumena,


477/1186

the things inthemselves,

which we

cannever know,

and the


478/1186

phenomena,the

appearances

,which are

all that our


479/1186

senses cantell us

about.

([D04],329).


480/1186

An analogyto both

ideas might

be this: Noone has

ever really


481/1186

experiencedfire's

essence;

they've onlyexperienced


482/1186

fire'senergies,

that is, seen

its light, feltits heat, or

heard the


483/1186

sound of itsburning.

Similarly,

the Godwhich is not

a Person


484/1186

may beconsidered

(compare

[U01],109)transcenden

t,


485/1186

inaccessible, and

unknowable

. From thisviewpoint,

Energy is


486/1186

not identicalwith the

God which

is not aPerson


487/1186

but rather isthat God's

first

emanation,the primary


488/1186

manifestation

upon which

the entireuniverse is

based. This


489/1186

distinctionmay be

applied to

theChristian

Trinity so


490/1186

that theFather is

transcenden

texistence,

and the Son


491/1186

or Logos isthe Father's

first-born,

the firstmanifestatio

n through


492/1186

which theuniverse is

made.

God hasreal

existence in


493/1186

the worldinsofar as

He

creates theworld, i.e.,

gives it


494/1186

existence bygiving it a

share in His

own realexistence in


495/1186

and throughthe

energies.

([M03],72).Therefore,

the Logos is


496/1186

theUncreated

Light

consideredas the


497/1186

Root of theuniverse,

exterior to

one's self.Paul


498/1186

picturesJesus, the

Logos, in

this way:Who is the

image of


499/1186

the invisibleGod, the

firstborn of

everycreature;

For by him


500/1186

were allthings

created . . .

And he isbefore all

things, and


501/1186

by him allthings

consist.

([H08],Col,1:15-17).


502/1186

And what isthe Spirit?

The same

Root andSource seen


503/1186

interiorly,as

one's own

UltimateGround of

Existence.


504/1186

Jewish

Seers

Let's nowturn to other

religions


505/1186

andexamine

what

Jewish,Islamic,


506/1186

Hindu, Sikhand

Buddhist

seers sayabout the


507/1186

Light whichis God.

Jewish

records I'vefound aren't

as explicit


508/1186

asHesychast

descriptions

ofUncreated

Light. Yet,


509/1186

someJewish

mystics do

speakof divine

Light. In


510/1186

fact, RabbiKook

expressed

the mystic'sgoal in


511/1186

terms ofLight.

The divine

lightsustains all


512/1186

life, is to befound in

everything

that exists,and is also


513/1186

the goal ofall

creation . . .

[T]hemystic's

goal is to


514/1186

perceiveand

experience

this divinelight and to


515/1186

be unitedwith the

universe.

([C16],30).Was Kook,

a man who


516/1186

undoubtedly believed

in a God

who is aPerson,

speaking of


517/1186

the Godwhich is not

a Person?

Perhaps. It'shard


518/1186

to see howperceiving

the radiance

of someGod who is

a Person,


519/1186

separatefrom

creation,

would unitea mystic

with the


520/1186

universe.But

perceiving

theuniverse's

ultimate


521/1186

Substanceunites a

mystic with

theuniverse in

an obvious


522/1186

and intimateway.

In any case,

Kookidentifies

light with


523/1186

God. Hewrites of

([K05],221)

"the light ofEn Sof, the

light of the


524/1186

living God"and says

that

holy men,those of

pure


525/1186

thought andcontemplati

on,

jointhemselves,

in their


526/1186

innersensibilities,

with the

spiritualthat

pervades


527/1186

all.Everything

that is

revealedto them is

an


528/1186

emergenceof light, a

disclosure

of the


529/1186

divine . . .([K05],208)

,

and alsowrites of

([K05],225)


530/1186

the "light ofeternity . . .

in which the

temporaland the

eternal


531/1186

merge inone whole."

Might not a

vision ofEternal

Light merge


532/1186

thetemporal

and eternal

- forinstance,

the table


533/1186

and itsEternal

Basis - into

one whole?


534/1186

IslamicSeers

The next

religionwe'll

discuss is


535/1186

Islam. TheKoran,

Islam's

scripture,


536/1186

speaks ofAllah's

Light.

Allah is thelight of the

heavens and


537/1186

the earth.His light

may be

compared toa niche that


538/1186

enshrines alamp,

the lamp

within acrystal of

star-like


539/1186

brilliance. .. . Light

upon light;

Allahguides to

His light


540/1186

whom Hewill.

(Sura 24:35,

[K07],217).And the

Sufis, who


541/1186

are Islam'smystics,

call

themselves([N11],1)

"the


542/1186

followers ofthe Real",

and speak

of "a pillarof light


543/1186

formedfrom the

souls of . . .

saints" and"the

preexistent


544/1186

light ofMuhammad

"

([S04],56),as well as

the "light of


545/1186

God"([S04],60)

which

guides themystic.


546/1186

Ghazzali isone of the

most

famousSufis. His


547/1186

The Nichefor

Lights

([A03])"shows a

highly


548/1186

developedlight

metaphysics

- God isthe Light"

([S04],96).


549/1186

Moreover,Ghazzali

believed

mystics cansee


550/1186

actuallyZechariah

11:13. If

not aconscious

deception,


551/1186

wasn't thisat

least a

mistake?Could

Augustine


552/1186

avoidseeing it as

one or the

other?He could.

Augustine'


553/1186

sexplanatio

n ([I03],44)

was asfollows.


554/1186

Under theinspiration

of the Holy

Spirit, thename


555/1186

"Jeremiah" first

came to

Matthew'smind. Then

Matthew


556/1186

realized thequote was

actually

Zechariah's but

decided the


557/1186

Holy Spirithad

allowed

"Jeremiah" to come

to mind to


558/1186

indicate"the

essential

unity of thewords of

the


559/1186

prophets."So

Matthew

bowed "tothe


560/1186

authorityof the

Holy

Spirit" andwrote

"Jeremiah


561/1186

" instead ofthe correct

reference,

Zechariah.Augustine

illustrates


562/1186

howreligious

believers

defendscripture's


563/1186

"inerrancy" and

"harmoniz

e" itsinconsisten

cies.


564/1186

Augustineknows

Matthew

27:9 iswrong. Yet

he can't


565/1186

make asimple

correction

oracknowled

ge a simple


566/1186

mistake.Why? Why

can't he

improvescripture


567/1186

and makeit more

truthful

andconsistent

by


568/1186

correctinga simple

error?

Because hisway of

knowing


569/1186

doesn'tallow it.

The

principlethat


570/1186

scripture iswritten by

God and

alreadyerror-free


571/1186

preventshim from

acknowled

ging andcorrecting

a simple


572/1186

mistake.Instead,

he's forced

to find an"explanati

on" that


573/1186

upholds theinerrancy

of

scripture.Augustine

takes the


574/1186

safe,though not

entirely

truthful,path.

Rather


575/1186

actuallyZechariah

11:13. If

not aconscious

deception,


576/1186

wasn't thisat

least a

mistake?Could

Augustine


577/1186

avoidseeing it as

one or the

other?He could.

Augustine'


578/1186

sexplanatio

n ([I03],44)

was asfollows.


579/1186

Under theinspiration

of the Holy

Spirit, thename


580/1186

"Jeremiah" first

came to

Matthew'smind. Then

Matthew


581/1186

realized thequote was

actually

Zechariah's but

decided the


582/1186

Holy Spirithad

allowed

"Jeremiah" to come

to mind to


583/1186

indicate"the

essential

unity of thewords of

the


584/1186

prophets."So

Matthew

bowed "tothe


585/1186

authorityof the

Holy

Spirit" andwrote

"Jeremiah


586/1186

" instead ofthe correct

reference,

would liketo turn as

we would


587/1186

like to turnas we

conclude

thischapter.The

first of


588/1186

thesecommontop

ics or

problems isa time-

honoured


589/1186

one,centringround the

idiographic

snomothetic

dichotomy


590/1186

thatseparates

and unites

the socialsciences at

would like


591/1186

to turn aswe

conclude

thischapter.The

first of


592/1186

thesecommontop

ics or

problems isa time-

honoured


593/1186

one,centringround the

idiographic

snomothetic

dichotomy


594/1186

thatseparates

and unites

the socialsciences at


595/1186


we

concludethis

chapter.The


596/1186

first ofthese

commontop

ics orproblems is

a time-


597/1186

honouredone,centring

round the

idiographic

snomothetic


598/1186

dichotomythat

separates

and unitesthe social

sciences at


599/1186


we

concludethis

chapter.The


600/1186

first ofthese

commontop

ics orproblems is

a time-


601/1186

honouredone,centring

round the

idiographic

snomothetic


602/1186

dichotomythat

separates

and unitesthe social

sciences at


603/1186

one and theone and the

same

time.Acentral point of

contention,


604/1186

especiallyduring the

early debate

aboutexceptiona

lismingeog


605/1186

raphy(Schaefer

1953),this

axis hadbeen a

dominant


606/1186

one in thehuman and

socialscienc

es at leastsince the


607/1186

Methodenstreit

in the

GermanStaatswissen

schaften


608/1186

duringthesecond

half of the

nineteenthcentury

(Strohmaye


609/1186

r 1997b).Isgeography a

scienceconc

entrating onthe

specific,on


610/1186

differenceand the

uniqueness

of place(s)?Or is itsgoal

to uncover


611/1186

law-likestructures

that apply

underobservable

conditions


612/1186

andwhichcan

be used for

planningand other

socially


613/1186

relevantpurposes?

Human

geographyhasfound

many


614/1186

differentanswers to

these

questionsduring the

course of


615/1186

thetwentiethce

ntury and

haswitnessed

seemingly


616/1186

stableconfiguratio

ns vanish

every sooften.Take,f

or


617/1186

instance,theresurrection

of a concern

forparticularity

within the


618/1186

postmodernparadigm:w

as this a

return to anearlier

geographica


619/1186

l practice orsomething

altogetherne

w anddifferent?

Was it a


620/1186

child of itstime just

like any

otherepistemolog

ical


621/1186

break andthus

necessarily

a form oflocalknow


622/1186

ledge (Ley2003)?


623/1186

Geographical

visions23

Mention ofparticularit

yshould

remind usnot to


624/1186

overlook asecond axis

thatstructur

edgeographic

theories


625/1186

during thetwentieth

century.Oft

en hiddenbeneath

theidiograp


626/1186

hicnomothetic

divide,the

differencebetween

generality


627/1186

andparticularity

isthought by

many to besynonymou

s with the


628/1186

former.However,one

can well

imagineanomothetic

approach to


629/1186

particulars,just as

idiographic

concerns forgeneralities

exist.Implic


630/1186

it in thisdifference,t

herefore,is

little lessthan the

importance


631/1186

of scale(Marston20

00) or the

reminderthat the

geographies


632/1186

we observechange

depending

oncontext,fra

me of


633/1186

referenceand point of

view.Both

axesmentioned

revolve


634/1186

aroundepistemolog

ical issues

in that theypresent

us with a


635/1186

choicebetween

different

conceptualizations of

what kind


636/1186

of sciencegeography

isand

shouldbe.But there

is a third


637/1186

axis we canidentify that

centres

aroundquestions

of causation


638/1186

.Centrallyimplicated

here is the

dichotomybetween

structure


639/1186

andagency.Larg

ely implicit

in thetheoretical

assumptions


640/1186

of humangeography

up until the

1970s,thisaxis

provided


641/1186

geographerswith a

whole set of

answers tothe question

of what


642/1186

or who wasresponsible

for the

creation andmaintenanc

e of


643/1186

geographicrealities:wa

s itpeoples

preferencesthat shaped

spaces,or


644/1186

was theparticular

context

withinwhich

suchchoices


645/1186

were maderesponsible

for the

geographieswe could

observe


646/1186

empirically? For aslong

as

geographyheld fast to

the kind of


647/1186

checklistmentality

observed

earlier inthischapter,t

his latter


648/1186

part of thequestion

apparently

did notbecome an

issue.Thing


649/1186

sstarted tochange,how

ever,with

the movetowards

more


650/1186

theoretically informed

researchage

ndas:herethe choice

between


651/1186

prioritizingindividual

actors over

socialstructure

(or vice


652/1186

versa) wasoften

perceived to

befundamenta

l.But what


653/1186

about theseaxes? The

real change

in theclosing

decade of


654/1186

thetwentiethce

ntury has

been toview them

less as


655/1186

essentialand

mutually

exclusivechoices and

toappreciate


656/1186

theircommonalit

y of

construction.Here,agai

n,we need


657/1186

toacknowledg

e

theimportance of the

debates


658/1186

surroundingstructuratio

n theory in

the late1970s

andthrough


659/1186

out the1980s for

the overall

shape oftheoretical

discourse


660/1186

within thediscipline(H

arris

1991;Chouinard

1997).Toget


661/1186

her withsimultaneou

s

developments in

feministgeo


662/1186

graphy,itwas in these

debates that

theconnective

nature of


663/1186

allegedopposites

wasfirst

acknowledged:what had

presented


664/1186

itselfpreviously

as a choice

betweenmutually ex

clusive


665/1186

positions ortheoretical

points of

origin wasnow

increasingly


666/1186

viewedandtheorize

d as a field

in whichmutually

constructive


667/1186

elementsacted to

bring

forthgeographic

realities


668/1186

(Thrift1983;Grego

ry 1994).In

fact,theclosing

years of the


669/1186

lastcenturywitnessed a

proliferatio

n of papersthat

analysed a


670/1186

professedinstability

andconstruc

ted natureof the

categories


671/1186

that wereused to

manufactur

e (oftenpolarized)a

xes in the


672/1186

first place(Gibson-

Graham

1996;Battersburyet al


673/1186

.1997;Whatmore

1999).In the

emerginghybrid

world of


674/1186

networks,afuture

generation

ofgeographers

may


675/1186

wellfindmany of the

issues and

conflicts ofold

unresolved,


676/1186

perhapseven

unresolvabl

e(Thrift2000a). We

would like


677/1186

to end byexpressing

our

admittedlyminimalist

hope that a


678/1186

geography for the

twenty-first

century willno longer

have to


679/1186

deny thecontested

nature of

itscategories and move

towards


680/1186

mature andtolerant

manners of

dispute anddiscourse. T

he


681/1186

emergenceof research

in the years

flanking theturn of the

millennium


682/1186

that aimstointegrate

rather than

dividepositions

that were


683/1186

previouslythought to

be only

loosely


684/1186

24Human

Geography: A


685/1186

History for the

21st Century

connected,exclusive or

downright

opposed,might be read


686/1186

as a signthat such

hopes

arenot invain

(Mattingly


687/1186

andFalconer-

Al-Hindi

1995;Dixonand Jones

1998;Barnet


688/1186

t2001;Castree

2003;Jacob

s and Nash2003;Engla

nd


689/1186

2003).However,it

might also

be asign offatigue:only

history can


690/1186

judge usnow.

knowing. One is necessity for salvation, deliverance, or

enlightenment. For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

Revelation is that saving act by which God furnishes

us with the truths which are necessary for our

salvation. ([M07],213).

The other belief is finality.

Christians . . . now await no newpublic revelation from

God. ([D09],4).

God's general public revelation is finished and done, even if private

revelations to an individual are still possible.

These two beliefs - necessity for salvation and finality - are

usually part of the revelational way of knowing even though they

don't necessarily follow from divine authorship. After all, God could

write many books, each helpful for salvation but not necessary. And

God could write another public revelation in the future. Yet most

religions claim that their revelation is final, not to be revised,

extended or superseded, and that it's necessary - required - for


691/1186

salvation, deliverance, or enlightenment.

Of course, religions disagree over which writings are inspired. For

example, the fourteen books of the Apocrypha were in the Bible for

over 1,000 years. They're still in the Roman Catholic bible but other

Christian groups reject them. They aren't included in many modern

Bibles. Do they belong in the Bible or not?

Not only does the Catholic Church include books in its Bible that

Protestants do not, that church also labels some of the writings of

Athanasius, Augustine, John Chrysostom and others ([N09],20) as

"Divine Tradition" and believes that

. . . Divine Tradition has the same force as the Bible . .

Other Christian groups disagree. In fact,

[p]recisely at this point the greatest division in

Christendom occurs: the Bible as the final source

(standard or authority), or the Bible as a source.

([P07],18).

Of course, different religions accept entirely different revelations.

Islam holds the Koran to be revealed. Hindus believe God spoke the

Bhagavad-Gita and other writings. Buddhist accept the Tripitaka.

Though all of the religions we've mentioned may reject the

inspired writings of other religions, they believe their own scripture is

divinely revealed. In particular, religion often makes the following

four claims for their own scriptures: that scriptures:

(1) are consistent and truthful ("without error"),

(2) are complete and final ("all and only those truths . .

. no newpublic revelation"),

(3) are necessary for salvation, enlightenment, or

liberation ("necessary for our salvation").


692/1186

(4) have an inspired or divine author ("God who is

their true Author"),

Are these claims true? Again, theological claims are difficult to

test.Is God the author of any particular book? That's beyond the reach

of logic to decide. Nonetheless, the four claims can be rationally

investigated. And, as we examine and test the four claims we'll come

to a better understanding of the revelational way of knowing. Let's

begin with the first claim, consistency and truthfulness.

Claim 1: External Consistency

An external contradiction is when a scripture contradicts something

outside itself, either some common belief or pra

nili giris

Documents