B. ON COGNIZANCE AND FAITH

B. 意識和信仰

I. On cognizance

I. 關於意識

3. Cognizance through the Son and Logos

3. 經由上帝之子和語詞的意識

In order to comprehend the Fathers’ viewpoint on the problem of the cognizance of God, we must bear in mind the following, historical sequence of events: Initially, there was a belief, which sprung from the meaning of the term “Logos” as introduced by Justinian, around the middle of the 2nd century A.D.. This belief elaborated that the human mind was an instrument intended for comprehending. After Origen’s time however, this line of thought evolved into the form that Evagrios gave to the overall subject of gnosiology, as well as Evagrios’ subsequent influence on monks, which – according to the principles already set down by Justinian – was characterized by the cleansing of one’s mind of all perceptible things… According to this theory, God and the human mind have something in common. One could say that they are related ontologically, but they differ and are opposite to, anything material. God is a spiritual being, non-material and non-corporeal, as is the human mind. Therefore, the link between God and man - and logically, the path or the instrument for acquiring cognizance – would be the mind. However, this doctrine contained the danger, firstly, of excluding from the cognizance of God anything that is perceived by the human senses. This of course may seem quite natural at first; but, remember what we said in previous lessons pertaining to the incarnation: that Christology upholds that Christ is the path that leads to the cognizance of God; that God reveals Himself through Christ in a perceptible way, and that He also makes Himself accessible, to the human senses. This is not the only problem generated by this doctrine. The greater difficulty is that the human mind appears to be able to interpret God, and in a certain way becomes the ground which God touches upon (this being the ancient Greek perception, and mainly Plato’s). This entire doctrine - which resulted in a heresy with Origen’s followers, who were eventually condemned by the 5th Ecumenical Synod – was duly corrected by yet another monk’s doctrine which took on the name of Makarios the Egyptian, whose doctrine introduces another element in the cognizance of God: instead of the mind being the instrument for comprehending, he introduces the heart. The heart is now acknowledged as the cognitive instrument, and no longer the mind. But, because this may be classified by classical psychology as being man’s cognitive instrument in which his emotions are situated, it is quite possible that we may be led to misinterpret this doctrine of Makarios. But, it has nothing to do with emotions versus logic, but another thing altogether. What is this other thing, which is neither emotion, nor logic? What do we mean, when we say the term “heart”? We have already said that, according to the Semitic perception as apparent in the Bible, where the heart is presented as being the cognitive instrument for God, (“….a clean heart within me…”); where the heart is that which recognizes God (“……the clean in heart shall look upon God....”) and with a typical Semitic mentality that naturally permeates the Bible, the heart signifies man’s realm of obedience. It is there, that the yes or the no is decided on. It is the place of freedom, where man decides to concede or refuse, where he says the yes or the no to another’s request, and of course to God’s. This perception, whereby man executes God’s will with his heart, is the Bible’s practical way to the cognizance of God. The cognizance of God is neither a notional nor an emotional issue; to actually do what God wants is a practical and an ethical issue. While this could have satisfied Semitic mentality, it could not satisfy Greek mentality, through which the Bible had to be interpreted. To a Greek, knowledge had to have an ontological content. It had to point towards an identity: i.e., that something exists, and that I acknowledge it as existing; as an entity. I do not recognize it merely as a moral obligation, or as something to which I reply with my yes or no; it is an entity, an identity. The interpretation of this viewpoint of Makarios – that the heart is the cognitive instrument – must necessarily contain ontological elements. Elements that will lead me to the possibility of relating it to something; to say that it exists, that it actually is. Because if it is not, then I do not recognize it. The answer to this question can be found, as early as the time of the Fathers, in one of the great – I would say the greatest – theologians of that time, as regards the conception and the latitude with which he conceived and connected all the major problems: Maximus the Confessor. It is there, that all of Makarios’ doctrine is utilized, to correct Evagrios’ theory. Besides, Maximus does this to Origenism in general, and completely changes its appearance and content in a positive manner. Not with aggressiveness, wherein we often believe that things can be changed by fighting. It is not so. During the Patristic period, changes were made without generating any fuss. Origen had so much authority; that is why Athanasios and the Cappadocians - mainly Maximus - amended him radically, but without actually waging war against him. One of the changes that Maximus made was to amend the meaning of the term “Logos”. With the help of Makarios’ doctrine, Maximus situates the cognitive instrument within the heart, but, with the following content: To Maximus, the Logos is basically the Logos of God; in other words, it is the persona of Christ. And it its through God’s Logos, that one recognizes God. Maximus also develops the idea that the Logos has cosmological extensions; i.e., that all beings have their own logos, within the one Logos of God. But the important thing is, that Maximus perceives this Logos of God as a persona, with whom God the Father has a loving relationship. And here now is the way that the heart – as a seat of love – is transformed into that instrument which does not merely provide emotions as the means of recognizing God; it actually provides a personal relationship, a relationship between two parties, which Maximus named a loving relationship. In other words, only the Logos of God can basically recognize God, because only the Logos is in an eternal loving relationship with God which actually reveals, discloses, makes known, the identity of God as that of a Father, of a persona. Subsequently, the Gospel of John says, “no-one knows the Father, except for the Son, and only through the Son can you know the Father”. But the fact that the Son knows the Father, is an issue - according to Maximus – that has to do with the loving relationship that exists between the Father and the Son eternally, in which relationship God is related to the Father-figure and is revealed, recognized - call it what you will – by the words: “You exist as my Father”. Within this Father-Son relationship, God is revealed and is acknowledged as veracity. Athanasios the Great had already made similar observations when he refuted the Arians, saying that the Son was forever with the Father, and that it was impossible for the Father to have existed without His Son, because – he said – the Son is the Father’s veracity. The Son is the Image and the Veracity of the Father. Image and Veracity are one and the same thing. This is a significant topic of gnosiology: that the Father also recognizes Himself, by looking at His Image, which is His Son. You can never recognize yourself on your own. You need a relationship - let’s say, a sort of reflective relationship, a mirror. God’s mirror is the Son. That is why He is called the Image of God and His veracity, as analyzed by Athanasios the Great in his speech “opposing Arians”. This is approximately the perception that underlies Maximus the Confessor’s viewpoint. A relationship, therefore - a personal, loving one - reveals the truth, and it makes known an entity in a way that no-one would recognize it otherwise. God, therefore, is basically recognized through His Son, and this is why the Son is His Logos. But not because He is the Logos in the notional sense – with the mind – which is the enormous trap that Augustine later fell into, when he incorrectly envisaged the Logos as being God’s logic, God’s intellect (i.e., God has Logos means that God has intellect). The Greek Fathers avoided this. It has nothing to do with the Logos of God in the intellectual sense. We therefore abandon Origenism and Evagrianism altogether: all those doctrines, which upheld that the mind is the cognitive instrument. The Logos is a persona, who loves and is loved, and through this loving relationship, it recognizes and ontologically relates to the other persona. Hence, God is eternally recognized; there is an eternal cognizance of God. We do not wait for the world to be created, in order for God to become known. He is made known through His Son, in His Son, and through the love that exists between the two of them. We shall see what gnosiological consequences this hypothesis has, when we analyze it even more; but we will need to digress a little from the Patristic doctrines in order to interpret it. So, these are the Patristic doctrines. Of course, when we approach the 14th century, at the time when this entire topic is discussed with Saint Gregory Palamas, we are free to once again involve the mind in gnosiology, given that Maximus’ doctrine no longer exists, and we are no longer in danger of espousing Origenism again (just as saint Gregory Palamas didn’t espouse Origenism, precisely because he didn’t pursue Maximus’ tradition). Thus, the mind is no longer the intellectual instrument that it was for Origen and Evagrios; however, when coordinated with the heart, can it become a unified instrument. In other words, the heart essentially acquires intellectual abilities: the heart is able to recognize, but the mind is also able to love, in order to recognize. The mind -on its own- does not recognize. In more technical terms, this meeting of the heart and the mind is referred to as the “descent of the mind into the heart”. It is a Gnosiology, which ultimately takes us far away from Origenism. However, it must never be interpreted without recalling the previously mentioned elements that were introduced by Maximus: that the supreme logos, the mind, the love of God Himself - by which God is eternally recognized - is the Son, and that we too attain cognizance of God through the Son, and only the Son, and not with exercises of the mind or the heart, (as though it were a Buddhist exercise), which make us believe that we know God. You cannot come to know God, outside of the Christ. And what does that mean? It means precisely that the only true revelation, the cognizance of God, is the one that is seated in the loving relationship of the Father and the Son. The Son is the Logos of God; He is the Only-begotten Son, in the sense that He is the one that is uniquely and eternally loved by God, who is likewise revealed through this loving relationship, in which He also recognizes Himself, through the other. This is where the question of interpretation of all these issues, arises. How is it possible for a loving relationship to comprise the knowledge of, or the revelation of the identity, or the relating of a being? In our previous lesson, we examined the way in which we recognize objects. Remember, however, that we said that this method could not be applied, when attempting to recognize God, given that there are certain prerequisites for recognizing those objects, which would directly abrogate the meaning of God. We also said that there is another way, which is always directly linked to our experience. (because if there is no link to our personal experience, we are unable to interpret. It is easy to stop at whatever the Fathers had said. If, however, we attempt to interpret them, we need a link to that experience; it cannot be done in any other way. There can be no knowledge, without some link to experience). And what is that experience of knowledge, which could be applied in God’s case, without encountering the problems that we observed the other time, with objects? It is exactly that which we called a “personal relationship”.

為了能了解教父們所持有的關於對上帝之意識的這個問題的觀點，我們必須牢記住以下的事件的歷史次序： 最初呢，有一個從由 Justinian 在西元二 世紀左右所介紹出的「語詞 (Logos)」這個術語的意思中出現的思想： 依據這個思想， 人的理性(mind) 是一個為了理解事物的工具。在 Origen 的時期之後呢，這種思想则發展成為 Evagrios 所給予知識學 （gnosiology） 這個主題的一般形式，而 Evagiros 對修道士們之後的影響在此也是重要的， 它的要點是 -- 依據 Justinian 所定下的原則來說 -- 將所有可感覺到的事物排出理性意識之外 ...根據這個理論，上帝和人的理性是有一些共同之處的。 我們可說， 它們在存在性 (ontological) 的角度上看來是有關聯的，但是它們是不同於可觸知的物質性的事物的，並且是與這些事物相對的。上帝是一種非物質性的， 非肉體性的， 神靈性的東西，就好像人的理性一樣。因此，上帝與人之間的聯繫 -- 以及，在邏輯上能够獲得到意識的徒徑和工具 -- 则將是理性。 可是，這種思想包含着一些危險，首先，那就是將一切由人的感覺器官所察覺到的東西排除在對上帝之意識之外的危險。當然， 這在起初可能看來是相當自然的；但是，記住我們在之前對於道成肉身這個問題所說過的：基督學 （Christology）教我們， 耶稣基督是引導我們至上帝之意識的路徑；以及，上帝透過基督以便以一種可感觸到的方式顯露自己，並且，上帝也是會使自己變得可見于人的感覺器官的。 而這也不是這種思想所促成的惟一的問題。更重要的問題则是， 人的理性似乎是能够思考和解釋上帝的，並且在某種方式上能够成為上帝所可感觸到的地面（這是古代希臘人的理解，主要是柏拉圖的）。 這種思想在 Origen 的從者手中導致成了一種異論，而這些人最終被第五大公會議所譴責。   一位名叫 Makarios the Egyptian 的修道士则適當地改正了這種思想，他在對上帝之意識的這個問題中介绍了另一個要素：在身為理解用的工具的理性之上，他又加上了心靈 (heart)。心靈現在被認為是意識的工具，不再是理性了。但是，因為古典的心理學或許會將此分類為人的情感所在的意識的工具，我們誤解 了 Makarios 的看法则是非常可能的。但是，這跟邏輯與情感之間的相對， 並沒有任何關係，而是完全另外一件事情。那這另外一件事情又是甚麼， 如果它既不是情感，亦不是邏輯？當我們說「心靈」時， 我們到底是意味著甚麼？ 我們已經說過，根據在聖經中很明顯的閃人族的理解，心靈是認知上帝用的工具（「.... 在我之中的一顆清淨的心 ...」)； 它是用來認識上帝的（「..... . 在心中是清淨的人將可觀看上帝 ....」）。 既然閃人族的意識普及於整個聖經之中，心靈则表示着人的服從所在的境界。服從或不服從， 是在那裡決定的。 對上帝之意識不是概念性的， 也不是情感性的；做上帝所想要你做的，是實用性的和道德性的事情。雖然這對閃人來說， 是足够滿意了的，但它不能使希臘人滿意， 而聖經现在是必須透過希臘人來被理解的。對一個希臘人來說，知識是必須有一個存在性的內容的。 它必須指向一種自我性 (identity)：也就是，某某東西是存在的，而我承認它為存在着；它是一個實體 (entity)。我並不只是將其認識為一項道德義務，或者是我對其回答好或是不好的一件東西；它是一個有自我的實體。這種對 Makarios 的觀點的詮釋  （心是認知用的工具） 一定得包含着存在性的要素。一些會给予我與某某東西聯繫上的可能性的要素；能够說它存在，說它真的有。因為如果它是無，我则不能够認識它。 關於這個問題的答案呢，则早在教父的時代就可被發現於當代的其中一位 （我想說）最偉大的神學家的著作中， Maximus the Confessor。 他偉大，是因為他為了想像和聯繫那些所有主要問題所用的概念以及緯度之故。 在此，全部 Makarios 所作出的理論皆被用上了，以改正 Evagrios 的理論。另外， Maximus 也為 Origenism 作出改正，並且徹底地改良了其容貌和內容。它將不再是有攻勢性的，使我們相信事情是可以經過戰鬥而被改變的。事實不是如此的。在教父的時代期間，變化並未對人制造出任何不安。Origen 是具有多麼大的權威的；那就是為甚麼 Athanasios 以及那些 Cappadocians （主要是 Maximus ）等人在 根本地修改着他，但又没有對他發戰。Maximus 所做出的改正中的其中一個， 乃是修改「Logos」這辭的意思。在 Makarios 的思想的幫助下， Maximus 將認知的工具認為是在於心中的，但是，這是以以下的內容的： 對 Maximus 來說，Logos （語詞）在基本上是上帝的 Logos；換句話說，它就是基督的人格 (person)。 並且， 我們是透過上帝的 Logos 來認識上帝的。Maximus 也發展出 Logos 是具有宇宙性的程度的這種想法；也就是，所有的東西皆有它們自己的 Logos，而這些全部的 Logos 则又都在上帝的 Logos 之內。但是， 在此最重要的是， Maximus 認為這個上帝的 Logos 是一種人格，而上帝天父與其则有一種親愛的關係。所以，在這裡我們可以看到，心 -- 也就是愛所在之處 -- 是如何被轉化成一個不僅僅是提供情感以便認識上帝的工具；它甚至提供着一種在兩者之間的個人性的關係， Maximus 並且將其認為是一種親愛的關係。換句話說，在基本上，只有上帝的 Logos 才是能夠認識上帝的，因為只有 Logos 才跟上帝有永恒的親愛的關係，而上帝之身為天父以及人格這回事即是在這個關係中所被顯露， 發現， 和公開的。隨後，約翰福音說道，「沒有人可以認識天父，除了天子以外； 只有經過天子你才可能認識天父」。 但是兒子認識天父這回事能够是一個問題 （對 Maximus來說） --  那是與在天父和兒子之間所存在的永恒的親愛關係有關的。在這個關係中，上帝是與父親性的身份相聯繫上的，他並且是以以下的文字而被透露和認識的 （任你怎麼樣說）：「你是以我的父親的身份而存在的」。 在這種父親與兒子的關係之中，上帝被透露和承認為是真實的。Athanasios the Great 在反駁阿裡烏斯信徒 （Arians）時已經做出了類似的觀點，說道，兒子是永遠跟天父在一起的， 並且天父是不可能没有兒子而存在的，因為 -- 他說 -- 兒子就是父親的真實性。兒子是天父的影像和真實性。影像和真實性则是同一回事。 這是在知識學（ Gnosiology）中的一個非常重要的主題：天父也是由看著他自己的形象，也就是他的兒子， 來認識自己的。你绝不能够獨自地認識自己。你需要一種與它物的關係 -- 讓我們說，一種能够提供回照的關係，一面鏡子。上帝的鏡子是兒子。 那就是為甚麼他被叫做上帝的影像和真實性，就如 Athanasios the Great 在他的「反對阿裡烏斯信徒」中所分析過的。這也大約是 Maximus the Confessor 的觀點的基礎。所以呢，一種個人性的，親愛的關係透露出真理，它並且使得一個要不然無人可認識到的實體成為可以被識得的。 所以呢，上帝在基本上是透過他的兒子而被認識的，這也就是為甚麼他的兒子是他的 Logos。但是這不是因為他是那種概念性的意思中的 Logos -- 與理智有關的 Logos： 這就是 Augustine 後來所陷入的巨大的陷阱，當他不正確地將 Logos 想像為上帝的邏輯 (Logic)，上帝的智能（也就是說，上帝有 Logos 的這回事意味著上帝是有智能的）。希臘的教父們則迴避了這點。這與上帝的智能性的 Logos 沒有任何關係。我們因此得完全放棄 Origenism 以及 Evagrianism：全部這些學說皆贊成理智是認知的工具。而 Logos 是一種人格，它愛以及被愛，並且呢，經由這種親愛的關係，它認識到其他的人格以及在存在性的方面上與它們聯繫上。因此，上帝是永遠地被認識的；我們有一個永恒的關于上帝的意識。我們不需要等侯世界之創造，以便能認識到上帝。 我們是在他的兒子之中， 經由他的兒子， 並透過存在于他們之間的愛而認識到上帝的。 當我們更加分析這點時， 我們將看到，這個說法將有甚麼種的知識學性的結果；但是為了解釋這些，我們得需要離開教父們的學說的一題。所以，這些是教父們的學說。當然，當我們接近第 14 世紀之時，也就是當這整個主題是與 Saint Gregory Palamas 討論的時候，我們又可以自由地在知識學中加上了理智，因為 Maximus 的說法已不再存在了，並且我們不再有再度支持 Origenism 的危險（就好像 Saint Gregory Palamas 並不支持 Origenism，因為他沒有在追求 Maximus 的學說傳統）。因此，理性 (mind) 已不再是 Origen 和 Evagrios 將其作為的智能的工具  ；但是，若與心協調在一起，理性则能夠成為一個統一的工具。 換句話說，心獲得到了智能能力：為了能認識他人，心可以被用來認識，但是理智也可以愛。理智若是只靠自己是不能够認識東西的。在更加技術性的說法中，心和理智的這個會面是被稱為「理智下降于心靈之中」(the descent of the mind into the heart)。這是一種將我們遠遠帶離開 Origenism  的知識學。可是，我們若是想將其解釋的話， 我們必须回想起以經提及到的Maximus 所介紹出的要素：那就是，最高等的 Logos，理智，或者是對上帝的愛 （上帝是由其而能永遠地被認識的），  就是兒子，並且， 我們是經由聖子而獲得到對上帝的意識的； 我們是僅僅經由聖子才能如此的，而不是靠著那種使我們相信我們認識到上帝的理智或心靈的使用（好比在佛教中所使用的方法）。在基督之外， 你是不能够認識到上帝的。 那這是甚麼意思呢？這意味著， 惟一真正的啟示，對上帝的意識，是位于天父和兒子的親愛關係之中的。兒子是上帝的 Logos；他是上帝惟一的生子，以這個意思：他是上帝所獨特地和永遠地愛着的一者，而上帝自己也是經過這種親愛的關係而被顯露的，並且他也是在這個關係中經由另一者而認識到自己的。 所有這些詮釋的問題就是出現在這裡。一種親愛的關係是如何能够包含着對一件事物的知識，對其身分的啟示，以及與其之聯系的呢？ 在我們之前的授業中，我們學到了我們認識一般物體的事物的方式。可是，記住，我們說過， 我們在嘗試着認識上帝之時， 是不能夠應用這種方法的，因為， 認識那些物體所必要的先決條件，會直接廢除掉上帝的意思。我們也說過， 還有另外一種直接與我們的體驗有聯繫的方式。（因為， 如果某某與我們個人私有的體驗没有聯繫，我們將不能夠解釋它。 念着任何教父們所說過的東西是很容易的。 可是，如果我們想解釋他們，我們则需要與那種體驗有所聯繫；我們是不能由任何其他的方法來完成這事的。，若是没有與某某經驗的聯繫， 是不會有知識的。） 那麼， 能够用于上帝的、 而又不會遇到我們所看到的關於一般物體的問題的、知識的體驗是甚麼呢？那就是我們所稱的「個人私有的關係」 (personal relationship)。