Читать книгу Writing the Icon of the Heart - Maggie Ross - Страница 10

How long shall I be in the world of the voice and not in the world of the word? For everything that is seen is voice and is spoken with the voice, but in the invisible world there is no voice, for not even voice can utter its mystery. How long shall I be voice and not silence, when shall I depart from the voice, no longer remaining in things which the voice proclaims? When shall I become word in an awareness of hidden things, when shall I be raised up to silence, to something which neither voice nor word can bring.1

There is a silence of the tongue, there is a silence of the whole body, there is the silence of the soul, there is the silence of the mind, and there is the silence of the spirit. . . . The silence of the spirit is when the mind ceases even from stirrings caused by spiritual beings, and when all its movements are stirred solely by Being; in this state it is truly silent, aware that the silence which is upon it is itself silent.2

Silence is context and end, beholding the means. In the final analysis, this is all we need to know.

This silence is not the absence of noise; it is the vast interior landscape that invites us to stillness. At its heart, in our heart, it is the Other. Silence is not in itself religious, but to express the ineffable joys found in its depths is almost impossible without metaphors that frequently sound religious.

Silence and beholding coinhere, mutually informing one another.

Beholding, also, is not in itself religious; the primordial silence we engage in beholding is unnameable and not an object. Beholding leaves traces in its context and bestows an energy that is likewise often expressed in religious metaphor.

If the silence and the beholding that underlie these metaphors are not acknowledged and understood, we cannot interpret any of the texts that refer to the processes of the interior life, including Scripture. For example, in the Bible the imperative form of the word behold has more than thirteen hundred occurrences in Hebrew and Greek. After God has blessed the newly created humans, the first word he speaks to them directly is “Behold . . .” (Gen 1:29). This is the first covenant, and the only one necessary; the later covenants are concessions to those who will not behold.

In the NRSV, however, the word behold appears only twenty–seven times in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and not at all in the New Testament. Without the behold, how are we to understand the end of Matthew’s Gospel, “Behold! I am with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20)? For it is in the covenant of beholding that the risen Christ is with us until the end of time. The movement of beholding is a lived recapitulation of the en–Christing of Philippians 2:5–11. Yet, the word the NRSV uses in Matthew 28:20 instead of behold—remember—has nothing of this covenant of engagement or self-emptying. It debases the text and raises the question, “How is the risen Christ with us until the end of time?” Does he flit about like Casper the ghost, saying, “Catch me if you can”? The word remember, among other faults, is one-sided and dualistic. It seeks to circumscribe and control. It struggles unsuccessfully to express what is implicit in the word behold. The NRSV has taken a restatement of the first covenant of Genesis and turned it into an isolated memory that reduces those whom Jesus leaves behind to orphans, abandoned and alienated, contravening Jesus’s promise in John 14:18.

Hebrew and Greek authors are careful to distinguish bodily seeing from beholding or inward vision. Jesus himself comments on the use of the word behold in Luke 17:21, echoed in Matthew 24:26 and Mark 13:21. Having lost the sense of behold, most modern translators make hash of this passage. The New Jerusalem translation is arguably the worst, missing entirely the internal clue whether entos should be translated within or among.3 In the context of what has been said above about beholding, the passage may be interpreted as follows. The kingdom of heaven is not an observable phenomenon of which you might say, “Look, here it is,” or “Look, there it is,” using the analytical observation of the bodily eye. Neither behold nor the kingdom of heaven is subject to linear, worldly analysis. Even if someone says, “Behold, here it is,” or “Behold, there it is,” don’t believe him; it’s a misuse of the word behold. The word behold is appropriate only to the invisible kingdom of heaven within you, and that kingdom is beholding.4 By extension, the kingdom of heaven cannot be manifest among you until it is manifest within you. Beholding entails all the moral and ethical outward behavior that Jesus teaches. To put this another way, ordinary seeing is analytical; it makes hierarchies, discriminates, grasps, and controls. Beholding is inclusive, organic, un­grasping, and self-emptying.

Silence and beholding are our natural state. As Irenaeus puts it, “The glory of God is the human being fully alive, and the glory of the human being is the beholding of God”: the two clauses are interdependent.5 The story of the garden of Eden tells us of the primordial distraction from beholding, the descent into noise, and the bewilderment caused by the projections we call experience. All our ills come from the loss of silence and beholding, our failure to listen, and our insistence on our flawed and limited interpretations. It was in the context of beholding that we were given stewardship of the earth; it is in the context of distraction that we have (mis)managed it. As the pace of contemporary life accelerates and the rising tide of noise degrades the biosphere, the need to recover and, more especially, to practice silence and seek to the beholding becomes ever more critical. This is especially true for institutional religion.

One of the motivations for writing this book is an attempt to make more accessible the assumptions about silence and beholding that underlie the often arcane language of the interior life. To do this, I have referred to key functions of the mind that are familiar to everyone. The paradox of intention is the one most critical to both silence and the religious metaphors that refer to it, and it turns up in these essays in a number of guises. I have illustrated some of these observations about the mind with quotations from Isaac of Nineveh, whose unsurpassed writing on the spiritual life is underpinned with a psychological acuity that was widespread among ancient and medieval writers. In many ways they knew more about the way the mind works than we do; some of the most basic insights—such as how we arrive at insight—have corollaries in recent neurobiological studies.6 This correlation does not “prove” anything, however; it rather shows convergence at a cellular level with what had been common knowledge for millennia until about the middle of the fifteenth century, when the practice of silence was suppressed by the Western church.

As this is a book of essays (a more comprehensive and systematic study is forthcoming), the central themes are prismatic, refracting throughout the book. Thus, it might be useful to list some of the them in orderly fashion.

 We need to recover the lost word behold, to restore it to its central place in the Judeo-Christian textual tradition, and to theology and practice.

 Silence is not an absence of noise (though that sort of silence helps), but a limitless interior space.

 Silence is our natural state. Lack of silence erodes our humanity.

 Silence is religiously neutral; it is the interpretation of what happens in the silence that tends to give rise to religious meta­phor and doctrine. The debate over whether or not religion is innate to human beings has so far overlooked this consideration. It has also ignored the centrality of paradox, which links the superficial, conceptual, and linear mind to the deep, inclusive, and global mind, over which we have no control, but which we can put to use through intention; it is in this mind that connections are made, perspectives changed, and from which insights arise.

 In speaking of the work of silence, the word mind refers to the whole person, not a disembodied energy (which, in this life, anyway, is an impossibility). The work of silence can be done entirely outside religion, though religious metaphors rightly used have the capacity to enlarge interior boundaries. Silence must be fed.

 Through intention we can teach our selves to default to silence; meditation is only a first and very minor step.

Finally, a word about words. The word mystic appears in this book only three times—twice in quotations, and once as a negative. It is a word that, in my view, has become entirely useless. It has acquired nuances of romanticism, exoticism, and self-absorption. In addition, far too many studies of “mysticism” and “spirituality” are based on a modern and narcissistic notion of “experience” as self-authenticating, that corresponds neither to the way the mind works nor to notions of experience in the ancient and medieval worlds, which in fact do correspond to the way the mind works.

The words transcend and transform also do not appear in this book except in quotations. Both words are disincarnating. The interior life leaves nothing behind (“transcend”), nor is one thing changed into another (“transform”). There is no magic involved; frogs do not change into princes or princesses. The use of both of these words has done incalculable harm to the interpretation and transmission of what is meant by spiritual maturity.

Instead, through beholding we are transfigured in every sense: nothing is wasted; nothing is left behind; through our wounds we are healed: our perspective—the way we “figure things out”—is changed. In the resurrection, the wounds of Christ do not disappear; they are glorified. Only the devil appearing as Christ has no wounds, being too vain to bear them.

To summarize: in our core silence, through our beholding, we realize our shared nature with God; we participate in the divine outpouring upon the world: incarnation, transfiguration, and resur­rection become conflated into a single movement of love.

Feast of Julian of Norwich, 8 May, 2010