Wednesday, March 17, 2021

Careful, Mankind, There's a Beverage Here!

As mentioned a few posts back, I don't like to call myself an "esoterist," even though I find the purely exoteric approach to religion tedious and sometomes frankly off-putting. Not only does it not speak to me, it often pushes me away. 

Now, you may say that this is because I am proud, or willful, or just seeking after frivolous spiritual innertainment. While this could be true, I am inclined to think not, for the simple reason that I used to be all of those things and more --  a proud and willful spiritual adventurer chasing after vertical thrills and spills. 

"It is in the nature of theology," writes Schuon, "to over-accentuate and exclude, and this is why no theology is intellectually perfect, though there are certainly degrees in this." 

For me, Thomas's theology is more perfect than Luther's, but the difference between the two is trivial compared to the gulf between ology and theo, or between our thoughts (which are necessarily finite) and God's being (which is transfinite). Thomas himself vaulted over this latter abyss in 1273, such that his soul left his own corpus behind and below.

There's a saying in Zen that once you've crossed the river, you leave the raft behind. This is in no way to denigrate rafts, since you won't get far without one, and may even drown. 

The image comes to mind of Jesus walking on water -- or of turning water to wine, or of blood and water coming from his side, or slaking one's thirst with living water. 

Maybe you think this post is going nowhere. To which we say: careful, mankind, there's a beverage here!

Come to think of it, images of water are everywhere in revelation history, which is to say, meta-history, beginning even before the beginning with the formless void of the primordial waters: God's very first act is to separate heavens from earth and waters from waters. 

This latter is intriguing, because the text alludes to both horizontal and vertical waters: the former are separated by dry land called earth, while above or beyond the vertical waters is a firmament called heaven, or what we call the Father shore

Some (timeless) time later we are visited by a flood, which is nothing less than the return of primordial chaos. Then there is the Exodus, which is once again made possible by another separation of waters. Here there is an intriguing subtext that links slavery to chaos on the one hand, and order to liberation on the other.  

Which Jordan Peterson often talks about, i.e., our perennial struggle against chaos. Come to think of it, his latest book is Beyond Order. Now, Jordan is the river where Jesus was baptized, and Peter is the rock on which the Son founds his church! Now I'm sounding like Pepe Silvia, and Pepe is a pet form of the Spanish name José, the latter being Spanish for Joseph, the father of Jesus!!!

Jesus's first public act revolves around water, death, and rebirth into a new and higher order. This latter order evokes the firmament (kingdom) of heaven alluded to in the Beginning, but also hearkens back to Exodus. Then Jesus ventures into the desert, which implies a place devoid of water. (I have a literal translation that specifies desert and not "wilderness.")

I'm gonna say that the divine substance must be analogous to water; or rather, water is its adequate symbol. As Schuon characterizes it,

If we compare the Divine Substance with water, accidents may be likened to waves, drops, snow, or ice.

Or fog, clouds, rivers, etc. These latter phenomena are accidental limits or forms which don't alter the substance of water, which is unchanging.

In a comment the other day, I made reference to Schuon's complementary or dual-track metaphysical map of the cosmos. One image involves a point surrounded by concentric circles (which goes to the accidental discontinuity of things), the other a point from which lines radiate outward in all directions (going to substantial continuity).

This latter, radial image can be seen as the watery model, while the concentric model provides the dry land. At risk of sounding all wet, there is obviously a kind of "flow" from the source or ground, i.e., a vertico-central spring without which we would die of thirst, not only spiritually but cognitively and aesthetically. This spring pours forth being.

However, at the same time and on another level, the concentric model provides us with firmament, or islands, so to speak, from sea to shining sea. 

For example, there is a mysterious (but substantial) sea between the islands of physics and biology, in the absence of which the cosmos could never have sailed from one to the other. Truly, we would have been up the creek of lifelessness with no paddle.

Now I'm thinking of the image in Revelation of a throne of living waters that will "wipe away every tear from the eyes." Here again, the waters merge, only the substance shall remove the accident, or the accident (tears) shall return to the substance.

As the Fathers like to say, God becomes man so that man might become God. Or, you could say, that water -- the substance -- becomes form so that the form might become substance.

At any rate, our thirst runs out before the water ever does. Or something. It's a little foggy.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

I imagine a world where the fertile ground isn’t owned by the few, but available for the many, so that seeds can be planted and personal responsibility allowed to do its thing. It’s a little like planting corn in Iowa instead of Nevada. I sure hope that China doesn’t buy up Iowa, someday. Would it be possible to coerce them into buying up Nevada instead, since the Chinese sure do seem to like to blow their money on gambling? I digress.

I think this principle of fertile ground also applies to Christian faith. I know that trying to start a Christian church in Tehran can be a tough slog. But would it be better to start new churches in small MAGA communities, or in BLM hoods? (better not easier) What would the scope and limits of spiritual fertile ground be? Would it be dirt poor churches where the dirt poor parishioners want to sing gleefully like a buncha Whos from Whoville? Or what about wealthy prosperity megachurches where Dear Minister flies in on a G650 each Sunday with gold cufflinks a-shining?

julie said...

The image comes to mind of Jesus walking on water -- or of turning water to wine, or of blood and water coming from his side, or slaking one's thirst with living water.

And thus do we become, as it were, the little fish swimming in the overflowing stream of living water, never knowing thirst because the water is one with our being; or rather, we are like the tree growing next to the stream, with roots always nourished whether the land is in drought or not. Or yet again, baptized and reborn; or swallowed up like Jonah only to be delivered, on the third day, to dry ground...

Anonymous said...

Great post, I'll drink to it.

Water in the morning, and wine at night shall I drink. Content and sated shall I be all the days of my life.

I once crossed a river by stepping on stones. When I looked back, the stones had vanished. This was a peculiar experience. Prone I drank deeply from the bracing cold clear water of this river and my soul delighted in the water and felt ecstatic. This my soul had been lacking; it now drank deeply until fully replete. Where was this wonderful river? I dare not tell.

Go now to find your river; for each of us there is one. And an underground lake as well. You will know these when you see them.

Petey said...

Archetypal forms are but paving stones back to the Substance.

Anonymous said...

So the boy‘s doing a school report about Reagan and wants me to explain Reagans famous quote: “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me.”

I said: "Well, there was that time back in 1968. And that other time in '77. And then '93, and hoo-boy everybody remembers '09." The boy gives me that look (and he’s not even a teenager yet), and coldly says: “Reagan switched parties in 1962”.

So I thought for a bit and wittily replied: “Well now, that is a good question!” And then the boy shook his head and walked away muttering something to himself. Now, I know there are some old timers here. Does anybody know what Reagan was talking about?

Cousin Dupree said...

Don't ask me. I left Reagan's party and it left me.

Anonymous said...

I had several talks with Reagan regarding his defection from the Democrat Party.

Reagan was a centrist; he did not like hippies. He did not like long hair on men. In particular he despised marijuana.

The Democrats were not solid on cracking down on marijuana use, and so Reagan left the Democrat party. He just said no.

There you have it.

-Old Politico

Anonymous said...

Old Politico, but this was 1962 we're talking about, well before long hair, miniskirts, and during John Kennedy's "Camelot". What did JFK ever do to Reagan? Reagan is well known to have admired FDR, well into his own presidency. In '62 Beatlemania hadn't even started and it wasn't until '63 that Americans heard about them with their slightly shaggy hair.

Speaking of leaving parties, the second most notable person to have ever left the Ba'ath Party has died. Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf passed away surrounded by a loved one (his wife, she'd gained a lot of weight). Cause of death, his wife. The suffocation happened some time during the night.

As we might remember, he was also known as "Baghdad Bob" or "Comical Ali". My favorite neologism of his was "International Bastards". I almost named my band that, The International Bastards, but we were outvoted by the others and we were called "The Electric Cucumbers" instead. It was a combination of the tech music we played and how we wanted the women to see us.

Does anybody else have any advice about where I can get other answers about Reagan?

Anonymous said...

There's a new party in town. The Steelhead party. Our platform is that we got to be hard-headed about things, very firm on what we want.

What we want is government subsidized child and lawn care, a guarantee from the government that every household will be in possession of at least one cooking vessel suitable for making soup or stew, and at least one poultry item of 3 pounds or more (after feathers removed).

Each American family should also be given arable land not to exceed 40 acres in area, a utensil suitable for plowing, and a dray animal at minimum the size of an ass age three or more years.

We believe Americans should be have the right to see a doctor who will spend a minimum of 10 minutes shooting the breeze on casual topics during medical appointments.

That is the basic platform. Steelhead party, your day has arrived. A new day is spawning, and we shall ascend the river all the way to the gravel beds. Amen.

-Nathaniel Hawthorne, Party Chair

Daisy said...

Great news! You can buy a whole chicken for $.99/lb. No government subsidy needed.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon, here's what we know about Reagan.

Regarding Reagan's defection from the Democrats in 1962:

Once Ronald Reagan became more successful as a businessman than he actually was as an entertainer and became more involved in politics, it seems he realized that while the Democrat Party was good to enhance individuals, it was not looking out for the best interest of the country or American citizens as a whole.

Now Daisy, where did you find the $.99/lb. chicken? I need to buy some of that. I've been scooping Jiff out the jar for protein. I need to upgrade.

Hello everyone, have a good day. Keep your powder dry. Stay lit. Stay baked. Stay hungry. Peas out.

Anonymous said...

Kennedy became a hero for standing up to the Soviets in the Cuban missile crisis and his "because it is hard" speech about going to the moon. He also increased US involvement in Vietnam. For his part, Reagan would emulate those very statist things so much that they became a major part of GOP ideology.

I'm still not convinced that Ronnie wasn't talking out his ass. Of course, every president since has done so with increasing frequency.

Theme Song

Theme Song