Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
1re we caught up on to that level we should be wholly transformed into Him. And yet we dis- NATURE OF THE (lODllEAD 5 tii^c^iiisli between ourselves and Him beeausc from our lower plane of finite JJeing we look up and see that ultimate level beyond us. The Super- Inessential Godhead is, in fact, precisely that which modern philosophy describes as the Ab- solute, l^ehind the diversities of this world there must be an Ultimate Unity. And this Ultimate Unity must contain in an undifferentiated condition all the riches of consciousness, life, and existence which are dispersed in broken fragments throughout the world. Yet It is not a particular Consciousness or a particular Existence. It is certainly not Uncon- scious, Dead or, in the ordinary sense, non-Existent, for all these terms imply something below instead of above the states to which they are opposed. Nevertheless It is not, in Its Ultimate Nature, conscious (as we understand the term) for conscious- ness implies a state in which the thinking Subject is aware of himself and so becomes an Object of his own perception. And this is impossible in the ulti- mate Nature of the Undifferentiated Godhead where there is no distinction between thinking Subject and Object of thought, simply because there is at that level no distinction of any kind whatever. Similarly the Godhead does not, in the ordinary sense, live (for life is a process and hence imphes distinctions) nor does It even (in our sense) exist, for Existence is contrasted with non-Existence and thus implies rela- tionship and distinctions. Consciousness, Life, and Existence, as we know them, are finite states, and the Infinite Godhead is beyond them. We cannot even, strictly speaking, attribute to It Unity, for Unity is distinguished from Plurality. W^e must instead describe It as a Super- Unity which is neither One nor Many and yet contains in an undifferenti- ated state that Numerical Principle which we can only grasp in its partial forms as Unity and Plurality. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE III. — The Relation of the Godhead to Creation This principle of Plurality which is thus transcend- ently contained in Its Undifferentiated Nature com- pels It to an eternal act of Creation. For all things pre-exist in It fused and yet distinct, as (shall we say ?) in a single sensation of hunger there are indivisiby felt the several needs for the different elements of food which are wanted respectively to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissues, or as a single emotion contains beforehand the different separate words which issue forth to express it.
2r there are indivisiby felt the several needs for the different elements of food which are wanted respectively to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissues, or as a single emotion contains beforehand the different separate words which issue forth to express it. Even so the Ulti- mate Godhead, brimful with Its Super-Unity, must overflow into multiplicity, must pass from Indifference into Differentiation and must issue out of its Super- Essential state to fashion a world of Being. Now since the Godhead thus pours Itself out on to the plane of Being (which plane itself exists through nothing but this outpouring), it follows that the Godhead comes into relation with this plane : or rather (inasmuch as the act is timeless) stands in some relation to it. If the Godhead acts creatively, then It is related to the world and sphere of creation : eternally to the sphere of creation (which otherwise could not exist), and thus potentially to the world even before the world was made. Hence the God- head, while in Its ultimate Nature It is beyond all differentiations and relationships, and dwells in a region where there is nothing outside of Itself, yet on another side of Its Nature (so to speak) touches and embraces a region of differentiations and rela- tionships, is therefore Itself related to that region, and so in a sense belongs to it. Ultimately the Godhead is undifferentiated and unrelated, but in Its eternal created activity It is manifested under the RELATION TO CREATION 7 form of Differentiation and Rclationshii). It beloni^s concurrentl)- to two worlds : that of Ultimate Reality and that of Manifested Appearance. Hence, there- fore, the possibility not only of Creation but also Revelation (exqmroK;). Just as the Godhead creates all thini^s by virtue of that Aspect of Its Nature which is (as it were) turned towards them, so It is revealed to us by virtue of the same Aspect turned towards our minds which form part of the creation. Hence all the Scriptural Names of God, and this very Name "God" itself, though they apply to the whole Nature of the Godhead and not merely to some particular element or function thereof, yet cannot express that Nature in Its Ultimate Super- essence but only as manifested in Its relative activity. Dionysius, in fact, definitely teaches that doctrine which, when revived independently ofrecent years by Dr. Bradley w^as regarded as a startling blasphemy : that God is but an Appearance^ of the Absolute.
3but only as manifested in Its relative activity. Dionysius, in fact, definitely teaches that doctrine which, when revived independently ofrecent years by Dr. Bradley w^as regarded as a startling blasphemy : that God is but an Appearance^ of the Absolute. And this is, after all, merely a bold way of stating the orthodox truism that the Ultimate Godhead is incomiprehensible : a truism which Theology accepts as an axiom and then is prone to ignore. The various Names of God are thus mere inadequate symbols of That Which transcends all thought and existence. But they are undifferentiated titles because they are symbols which seek (though unsuccessfully) to express the undifferentiated Super-Essence. Though the terms "God," "King," "Good," " Existent," etc., have all different connotations, yet they all denote the same undifferentiated Deity. There are, however, some Names which denote not the undifferentiated Godhead, but certain eternally differentiated Elements in Its Manifestation. These are the Names of the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. Whereas the terms "God," "King," "Good," "Existent," etc., ^ Appeaj-ance and Reality (2nd ed.), pp. 445 ff. 8 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE denote (though they cannot express it) the same Reality: the term "Father" denotes something different from that of " Son," and both of these from that of " Holy Ghost." The whole Manifested Godhead is ''God," "King," "Creator," "Saviour," "Lord," "Eternal," "Living," etc., but only One Persona of the Godhead is Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost. The undifferentiated titles differ from each other merely through our feeble grasp of the Mani- festation, and coalesce as our apprehension of it grows ; the differentiated titles [diaKeKQiudva or dLaxgloeig) represent actual distinctions in the eternal Manifestation Itself. Thus the Absolute Godhead is the Super-Essence ; the eternally Manifested God- head is the Trinity. As to the reasons of this Dionysius deprecates all inquiry. He does not, for instance, suggest that Relationship in this its simplest form cannot but exist within that side of the God- head which embraces and enters into this relative world. Here, as elsewhere, his purpose in spite of his philosophical language, is in the deepest sense purely practical, and mere speculations are left on one side. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed ; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
1re we caught up on to that level we should be wholly transformed into Him. And yet we dis- NATURE OF THE (lODllEAD 5 tii^c^iiisli between ourselves and Him beeausc from our lower plane of finite JJeing we look up and see that ultimate level beyond us. The Super- Inessential Godhead is, in fact, precisely that which modern philosophy describes as the Ab- solute, l^ehind the diversities of this world there must be an Ultimate Unity. And this Ultimate Unity must contain in an undifferentiated condition all the riches of consciousness, life, and existence which are dispersed in broken fragments throughout the world. Yet It is not a particular Consciousness or a particular Existence. It is certainly not Uncon- scious, Dead or, in the ordinary sense, non-Existent, for all these terms imply something below instead of above the states to which they are opposed. Nevertheless It is not, in Its Ultimate Nature, conscious (as we understand the term) for conscious- ness implies a state in which the thinking Subject is aware of himself and so becomes an Object of his own perception. And this is impossible in the ulti- mate Nature of the Undifferentiated Godhead where there is no distinction between thinking Subject and Object of thought, simply because there is at that level no distinction of any kind whatever. Similarly the Godhead does not, in the ordinary sense, live (for life is a process and hence imphes distinctions) nor does It even (in our sense) exist, for Existence is contrasted with non-Existence and thus implies rela- tionship and distinctions. Consciousness, Life, and Existence, as we know them, are finite states, and the Infinite Godhead is beyond them. We cannot even, strictly speaking, attribute to It Unity, for Unity is distinguished from Plurality. W^e must instead describe It as a Super- Unity which is neither One nor Many and yet contains in an undifferenti- ated state that Numerical Principle which we can only grasp in its partial forms as Unity and Plurality. DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE III. — The Relation of the Godhead to Creation This principle of Plurality which is thus transcend- ently contained in Its Undifferentiated Nature com- pels It to an eternal act of Creation. For all things pre-exist in It fused and yet distinct, as (shall we say ?) in a single sensation of hunger there are indivisiby felt the several needs for the different elements of food which are wanted respectively to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissues, or as a single emotion contains beforehand the different separate words which issue forth to express it.
2r there are indivisiby felt the several needs for the different elements of food which are wanted respectively to nourish the various kinds of bodily tissues, or as a single emotion contains beforehand the different separate words which issue forth to express it. Even so the Ulti- mate Godhead, brimful with Its Super-Unity, must overflow into multiplicity, must pass from Indifference into Differentiation and must issue out of its Super- Essential state to fashion a world of Being. Now since the Godhead thus pours Itself out on to the plane of Being (which plane itself exists through nothing but this outpouring), it follows that the Godhead comes into relation with this plane : or rather (inasmuch as the act is timeless) stands in some relation to it. If the Godhead acts creatively, then It is related to the world and sphere of creation : eternally to the sphere of creation (which otherwise could not exist), and thus potentially to the world even before the world was made. Hence the God- head, while in Its ultimate Nature It is beyond all differentiations and relationships, and dwells in a region where there is nothing outside of Itself, yet on another side of Its Nature (so to speak) touches and embraces a region of differentiations and rela- tionships, is therefore Itself related to that region, and so in a sense belongs to it. Ultimately the Godhead is undifferentiated and unrelated, but in Its eternal created activity It is manifested under the RELATION TO CREATION 7 form of Differentiation and Rclationshii). It beloni^s concurrentl)- to two worlds : that of Ultimate Reality and that of Manifested Appearance. Hence, there- fore, the possibility not only of Creation but also Revelation (exqmroK;). Just as the Godhead creates all thini^s by virtue of that Aspect of Its Nature which is (as it were) turned towards them, so It is revealed to us by virtue of the same Aspect turned towards our minds which form part of the creation. Hence all the Scriptural Names of God, and this very Name "God" itself, though they apply to the whole Nature of the Godhead and not merely to some particular element or function thereof, yet cannot express that Nature in Its Ultimate Super- essence but only as manifested in Its relative activity. Dionysius, in fact, definitely teaches that doctrine which, when revived independently ofrecent years by Dr. Bradley w^as regarded as a startling blasphemy : that God is but an Appearance^ of the Absolute.
3but only as manifested in Its relative activity. Dionysius, in fact, definitely teaches that doctrine which, when revived independently ofrecent years by Dr. Bradley w^as regarded as a startling blasphemy : that God is but an Appearance^ of the Absolute. And this is, after all, merely a bold way of stating the orthodox truism that the Ultimate Godhead is incomiprehensible : a truism which Theology accepts as an axiom and then is prone to ignore. The various Names of God are thus mere inadequate symbols of That Which transcends all thought and existence. But they are undifferentiated titles because they are symbols which seek (though unsuccessfully) to express the undifferentiated Super-Essence. Though the terms "God," "King," "Good," " Existent," etc., have all different connotations, yet they all denote the same undifferentiated Deity. There are, however, some Names which denote not the undifferentiated Godhead, but certain eternally differentiated Elements in Its Manifestation. These are the Names of the Three Persons in the Blessed Trinity. Whereas the terms "God," "King," "Good," "Existent," etc., ^ Appeaj-ance and Reality (2nd ed.), pp. 445 ff. 8 DIONYSIUS THE AREOPAGITE denote (though they cannot express it) the same Reality: the term "Father" denotes something different from that of " Son," and both of these from that of " Holy Ghost." The whole Manifested Godhead is ''God," "King," "Creator," "Saviour," "Lord," "Eternal," "Living," etc., but only One Persona of the Godhead is Father, or Son, or Holy Ghost. The undifferentiated titles differ from each other merely through our feeble grasp of the Mani- festation, and coalesce as our apprehension of it grows ; the differentiated titles [diaKeKQiudva or dLaxgloeig) represent actual distinctions in the eternal Manifestation Itself. Thus the Absolute Godhead is the Super-Essence ; the eternally Manifested God- head is the Trinity. As to the reasons of this Dionysius deprecates all inquiry. He does not, for instance, suggest that Relationship in this its simplest form cannot but exist within that side of the God- head which embraces and enters into this relative world. Here, as elsewhere, his purpose in spite of his philosophical language, is in the deepest sense purely practical, and mere speculations are left on one side. He accepts the Eternal Distinctions of the Trinity because They have been revealed ; on the other hand, he sees that they must belong to the sphere of Manifestation or They could not be revealed.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.