 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
The Holy Trinity
Table of ContentsForewordChapter1Chapter 2Chapter 3|
|
| FREE AND CONSCIENT EXISTENCE WITHOUT BEGINNING AND CAUSE AND EXISTENCE BEGAN AND CREATED |
 |
| Chapter 1 |
| ||||||
| We cannot immagine that there was a time when there was nothing. Saint Gregory of Nazianzen say this in many places. Once he say: "God say : The whole 'is' Mine(Exo. 3, 14) not having either beginning and not being able to cease". (Hom 31. chap. 23). From where would have appeared the existence if it would not have been from the eternity? The existence without beginning, or from eternity, it is an inexplicably mistery. But in the same time he explains everything. But of her we know from those that we experiment as existences with cause. How would exist those with a cause and a beginning, if there would not be an existence without beginning and without a cause? Thus it can be said: from those with cause, or known we know the existence of God without cause or unknown, adn from the unknown existence we understand those with a cause. It exists a reciporc communication between the cataphatic and apophatic knowledge, the cataphatic being partially known through the cataphatic and the cataphatic being better known through the apophatic. The apophatic it is not completelly unknown, and the cataphatic too he is not completelly understood having as origin the absolute apophatism. Those caused we know them from their laws, from their dependence. But the laws or their dependance supose an existence without cause, independent, "absolute"(unbound from all dependance), remains a great mistery for us. Nevertheless the fact that the existence not only caunteract the caused and dependent, but it is that that explains them too, making us possible a certain knowledge of them, but a knowledge which let them largelly not understood, giving that our undersanding it is in coincidence with the explanation of the caused and dependent through the laws that are imposed on them by an existence that is not submitted to these laws. On the other hand, whenever would have appear that law, if it would have appeared in an existence without beginning would mean that until that apparition was necessary to appear and would have been processed in time. But how could have appear in an existence without beginning, eternal, beginning in time? How could have appear in her in time, as a condition of an evolution that would lead to the appearance of the conscience of self? is incomprehensible how could have appear a 'moment' in an eternity, in which could have appear the time and evolution. Would not that mean that the eternity had always a temporal character? Can thought an eternity with a temporal character? Is not this formula a contradiction in itself? Does not that means on one hand an existence without beginning, and on the other temporal, therefore with a beginning, with an evolution and an end, thus that arrived to the conscience too through the evolution in time? Does not that means a certain limitation, a certain inability in that existence that therefore cannot be through itself without beginning? Is it not logic to think an existence through self from eternity, not submitted to a law and not being necessary to become submitted to a law and through that to think of her not with a conscience on the basis of a superior law to her? It is not absurd to consider that in this existence through self has appear a moment in which appeared from her in a necessary way a law, existent virtually in her before, from eternity, that based on her to arrive to a conscience of self, or to an explanation of his existence? Can appear to in an eternal existence, through self, subsequent a law and a conscience of self based on her? Is not absurd to admit that in an existence from eternity, appeared in a certain moment when she did not wanted, a law and based on her a conscience of self? Would not that mean to reduce in this case that existence through self to an existence that is not through self, but added to a law existent virtually in her? And until when we would go in search of the origin of this law? In fact is impossible to define the is as an existence with beginning through self. One thing should be admitted: she cannot be without conscience of self through herself, through a law to which she must be submitted. She is therefore an existence of a total spiritual order, not having need of anything else to be explained. If cannot appear that existence through self from eternity, she cannot end never either. There cannot appear in it a law of evolution that can lead to the end, once that there was not such a law that would give her a beginning. We observe in ourselves and in the world to which we are bound, some laws and on their basis we, as humans, have a personal explanation on the basis of some laws. But from where would have appear this law and conscience of self, if there would not have been an eternal existence, not submitted to laws, but able to give to an inferior form of existence some laws, as quality of their cause, some laws on which they develop them too towards an end, if it would not be that existence that would lift them above them? Form where it would be therefore the conscience of self that have so many existence submitted to some laws of a superior existence that would have given them? And from where would be their thirst after a conscience of self, united with an increasing knowledge of everybody? What is remarkable that this dependable existence, conscient, do not aspire only after a deep conscience of self, united with an increasing knowledge, also after a direct revelation withe the absolute existence, with the existence through self, in which is everything, or the explication of everything. The man is not content only with the living in his relativity and of the other relative existence, also he wants a relation with the absolute, that he may receive the possibility to live in the unbounded and not passing absolute. The man is an existence that knows that in him is not complete and therefore cannot be without beginning, that in her it does not contain all that can exist. In the first place to her should be proper the omniscience of self. To what would be, not to be conscient of self? If does not know form where is, and first of all to whom it pertain, to what good it would be? Therefore there should be an existence through self, that has everything perfect in eternity, in which does not appear nothing subsequent. Descartes has produced the saying: Cogito ergo sum. He linked through that close the thought or the conscience of the existence. The existence is the condition of thinking. But is not the link more close? And the thinking is not only any form, but the most certain form of existence. The conscience is the most certain form of existence. The conscience is the self-determined existence. If the existence is through self light, the conscience is the light returned through self. Cogito ergo sum does not mean thought, but thinking is the most certain fact of my existence. There are forms of existence that are not manifested in thought, as are the stones, herbs,irrational animals. They are to give a content to the thinking or the conscience of man. First of ll I reflect my existence, or my existence reflect itself. The fact of my conscience is strengthened by the conscient existence of others, then by the inconscient existence of other forms of the world. Isn't this the principal meaning of their existence? The eternal existence that have had in herself, virtually, all the forms of existence, have had only in Himself all the virtualities of existence, she can reflect all, or has the conscience about all. Therefore she ensure the existence of all. I have the knowledge therefore the conscience of what I am, largely obtained through the progress of knowledge of me, through the relation with those different from me. Socrates could affirm: I know that I do not know anything, because he knew only in part the existence. He knows of himself, but he knows of self as of he that does not know nothing completely about the other things. This thirst of knowledge, manifested in the sorrow of the sentence of Socrates, does not show that there is somewhere a complete knowledge that covers all the existence? Does not show that man is made to advance towards the knowledge of everything, therefore there is somewhere a conscience that knows everything, that must advance towards a goal above himself? There was a light without beginning, that has been able to bring to existence the created light through the words: "Let there be light!". All the creation has received the existence in order to increase the light or the conscience of man. In fact all that is, is light. There could not be from eternity a darkened is, that could advance towards an is enlightned for a conscience through evolution. From this result that the time did not appear in the existence that is being through self from eternity, but it should have been made, that it would have been a temporary existence distinguished from that existent form eternity, not as an emanation of her, but created from her. And she cannot be but the creation of the existence of self from eternity. That the time could not be produced through himself, nor as an emanation of the existence trough self from eternity. He must have another cause. Form this results the conclusion that the time did not appear in the existence that is originated from itself form eternity, but must have been produced, must have appeared a temporary existence different from the that existent in eternity, not as an emanation of her, but created by her. She cannot be other than the creation of the existence of self from eternity. Because the time could not have been produced nor through self, neither as an emanation of the existence through self from eternity. He must have another cause. There are two plans of the existence: one eternal, the existence through self, and one temporal, created by that that is originated in eternity from self and which has in her the power to create the second from nothing not as a natural apparition from her. If there would be only the divine form of the existence, she would be deprived of supreme power and generosity. If there would be only the form of the world, or pantheistic, submitted to some laws that do no lead through freedom too another form of the existence to happiness, would represent again another incomplete form of existence. To go back a little to the union of the cataphatic and apophatic, we mention that she can be expressed as union between rationality and mystery. The rational contain in him the mysterious and vice versa, God as well as the created world. But the link is in each of them of another category. In the created world the rational lead us to mystery, to the mystery of the created that is not through the self, but suppose an existence from self from eternity, therefore to the mystery of God, as rational explanation of the mystery of the creation. Our reason too imply as their explanation(which is their mystery) God, as supreme Reason of them. According to Saint Maxim the Confessor, the reasons of the world uncover for us the mysteries of God. Between the mystery of God and the reasons of the world is no contradiction. Our reason is made to know that reasons too, that have their origin in the reasons of God the Word: "The reasons of things, established before ages by God, as He knew, ... are seen though comprehension through beings... Because all the creatures of God, contemplated by us through nature of being, with the help of the appropriate science and knowledge, announce us in a secret way the reasons after which they have been made and discover for us through them the meaning established by God in each creature... From the clever contemplation of the creation we discern the Reason that enlighten us regarding the Holy Trinity, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.(Answer to Thalasius, Philocalia, rom., vol. II, p. 45-46). At the end all the existence, beginning from God without cause and eternal, and finishing with the created world, made to be in God, is rational and mysterious. All the existence is a mystery that man cannot explain it. But all is rational too, having as source and goal the benevolence of God or the happiness in Him. There cannot be a complete goal, neither an existence without sense. The supreme existence, on the basis that she is without beginning, she is happy from ages until the ages through herself, without any developement, and that created in order to arrive there, in union with the existence without beginning, is in need of an effort of freedom. But the freedom that has been given to her, through whic must advance, following to the law as expression of the goodness of God, or the supreme Reason, can use the reason that was given to her in oposition with the suprem Reason of good and his laws, asked from the conscient being. She can use the reason in a wrong way, in order to justify the the orientation through a false good, or through the selfish promotion. The good that is desired is in free harmony of the conscient beings between them and God. But the selfish interest is contrary to this good, therefore to God. He separates from God, from the Reason of God that follows the the harmony between all, between them and God. That shows again that to the union with God through good, the creation should contribute too. This contribution is helped by a God of Trinity, in which exists the most perfect harmony and love, fact that He shows to humanity and help to accomplish it even the Son of God, that His Father use it as Reason on the account of the creation. It can be sais therefore that the God of Trinity is the God of the true Reason, understood as the force of Goodness and harmony, or of the true Reason. The idea we see it developed in Saint Mximos the Confessor. A monopersonal God would not show to the creation the example and the power of a harmony. And would not have Someone equal with Him, that would be able to approach men, accomplishing tyhe role of the Mediator between God and men and between people themselves. Saint Maximos the Confessor present the Son of God not incarnated as the Reason after which reasons were created all, and incarnated, as he that reestablish the harmony of all with a God and among them. This is because the true reason is one with love; and a monopersonal God would not have the Love as Power of creation of the world and a goal of this creation. The world is made by the Son of God Incarnated, that it may receive herself in it. Because all the love, in all the stages that the man would pass, starts from Him, that in Him all to love the Father, therefore to love each other. "Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as Builder(Creator) of all, made the natural law too( the law of nautral harmony( ed. note). As Providencer and Giver of the Law, gave of course, the written law, as well as the Law of the Spirit, that is of the grace(of the Gospel - ed. note). Because "the end of the Law", that is the written law, understood spiritualy, "is Christ"(Rom. 2:16). Therefore if Christ, as Builder(Creator), as Providencer and Giver of the Law and as Redeemer, it is gathered the natural law too and that written and that of the grace, it is confirmed the word of the divine Apostle that "God will judje those hidden of men after His Gospel, that is after what is preached unto them"(Answers to Thalasius, Philocalia, rom. vol.III, p. 58). Remarking the reciproc conditionning between the mystery of God and the rationality of the creation, or seeing in both a mystical content, as well as a rational one, we could live the impression that in the divine Reason, partialy apophatic, is not an apophatic or a mystery that go beyond too much the reason or the mystery of the creation. In fact the divine Reason, beyond reason, as call it Saint Maximos the Confessor, has an apophatic content infinit more profound than her rational transparent ocontent in creation; the apophatic goes beyond in God the rational, in the measure in which the His being goes beyond the rational of the creation. No one of them in easy to understand. Saint Gregory Nazianzen said: "And I have passed through the cloud arriving inside, far form matter and of those material, returning and going deep in me, as far as I could. But when I did received Him there, hardly I could see the back of God(Ex. 33:22). And bending over a bit, I have not seen the primary order and unmixed, as is known by itself and as much as remains under the first curtain and is hidden under the Cherubims, and how much arrives to us." The Back of God" seen by him, called by Saint Gregory Nazianzen, " the greateness of the divine nature from creation and those placed before us "(First Theological Discourse, chap. 3). Contrary to Plato, that said that "God is difficult to understand, but impossible to be expressed"," after me., said Saint Gregory Nazianzen, to express God is possible, but to understand Him is more impossible". "But we do not have the exact understanding of the creation. Because to this we do not know but the shadows...But more before thatis the incomprehensible and uncontained nature, that is beyond those and from which are all. And I say that I do not know that is, but what is. Because our preaching is not in vain, neither our faith(1 Cor. 15:14). ...Because is distinct a lot the conviction that is, from the conscience of what is."(op.cit chap. 4,5). We do not understant perfect neither the rational of the creation, in which reflects the back of God, and in him a kind of apophatic. So much is not understood the nature of God, whose back is reflected in the creation. From this point of view, Socrates had reason to say:" I know that I do not know nothing", if we translated through the espression: " I know that I do not know nothing precise" and therefore I cannot affirm that I do know something as is in reality. For our smallness, as far as we know from the unlimited greateness and uncontainable of God still hhuge. Is very important the fact that we know that is, even if we do not know what is. To know that is the existence of He who is without cause, unspoken above all created and which explains the existence of all - conscience, persons, love - is not in infinitely important fact? To know of the existence of Him that is infinite above all things from the world and from this point of view uncontained and apophatic, is not a fact that throuws a huge light aver all? Is not this a fact that makes me to understand that all the good that I live and the hope of my eternity fill of sense is from her and the salvation that comes to me in Christ is from her/ Is not this enough for my salvation, and this does not give a happy sense to my life? And is not this knowledge, on the other hand, a help in the growing of the knowledge of Him? What a happy knowledge of That existence above my understanding, that does not give all , without us to give something! Do I know the mystery of my neighbour, that loves me and do me a lot of good? Nevertheless, how much happiness gives me his acknowledgement in great part. Is a knowledge that does not lack me neither of my humility through which I acknowledge the unreached deepness, , nor of the multitude for what does give me. I see him as much as unreacheable, as far as he does more good to me. I see myself more full of the pretention that I am equal to him, or greater than him. And as far as I do understand less his existence, that much he does require to serve him, but he serve me more. |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
. |
| Visitors: 00444 |