C. ON God

C. 上帝

II. Basic principles of Patristic teaching

II. 教父之授業的基本原則

5. Existential Interpretation

5. 存在性的解釋

Bearing all the above in mind, we shall proceed to make certain observations as regards their significance, not just for us theologians who speak a ‘language’ of our own, but for every human being. What is the meaning of this Dogma on God? Does our existence change, if God wasn’t this or that? And what is the meaning of all these details? First of all, let’s take the question of whether the essence expresses the unison of God or not. If, in other words, we were to follow Augustine’s theology, where would it lead us? ( I Am Referring to our existence in general ). When a teenager asks “who asked me if I wanted to come into this life?”, he is elevating his freedom above his existence. He does not take his existence as something given. He would like to have been asked. He wasn’t asked. Hence, he sees his existence as something restrictive to his freedom. And indeed, there are no greater shackles, than those of existence itself. Don’t think of this as something strange. We have become accustomed to the moral concept of freedom; we believe that we are happy if we can choose between two, three pieces and then vote (this is what we call political freedom, or , in the moral sphere we understand freedom as being the ability to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’). But a bigger challenge for freedom is that I cannot say ‘no’ to my existence. And should I wish to say ‘no’ to my existence, then I cease to exist and my freedom is also retracted. My freedom becomes self-annulled. But what is this attributed to? It is attributed to the fact that my persona does not precede my essence; that my essence comes before my persona. Should you apply this to God, and create a theology in which the essence precedes the persona of God, you would have – ontologically - the most un-free being of all. God would then also be shackled by His existence. Don’t let it surprise you that something like this would preoccupy us. It should preoccupy us, because if God were not free to exist, then what could we expect? Why do we seek this freedom? Or is this perhaps an impermissible thing to do? No, it is not impermissible. It is within the notion of freedom. That is why we express it by creating new identities (as we mentioned in a previous chapter ), which we freely choose. And it is significant, that at the exact moment that the teenager asks “who asked me if I wanted to come into this life?”, he is going through the crisis of abandoning his given identities which are his family members, as well as his tendency to create his own identity, his own identities, that will be based on the unfettered relationships that he wants to define; these are defined by nature and given by the family. Consequently, freedom – with regard to identity, to identifying with something and for something to exist for us - is a basic element of our having been created free by God and that we are in God’s image, therefore if God Himself isn’t free according to this aspect, then we too cannot hope or expect that we shall become - or shall be – free, hence freedom is a totally groundless thing. We must know whether the God in Whom we believe, and Whose images we want to be, is shackled to His existence or not; also, whether He exists because He has to exist; because He exists and cannot do otherwise. This very important subject is hidden behind the persona’s priority. If that which makes God exist is not His essence, but the Persona of the Father, then we definitely have freedom. God does not exist because He can’t do otherwise. He exists, means: “He is”. He is hypostasized freely. A Persona is that which hypostatizes Him. Just as I can freely say to someone: “To me, you don’t exist”. To us, this ability to say: “you exist” or “you don’t exist”, is paradoxical. If you have read the “Theatre of the Absurd”, you will see in there how intense this speculation is. You will see in there that tendency to ignore and to say that: to me, that person doesn’t exist; I ignore him. That is the absurd (of course) yet so natural element of existence: you cannot ignore it. To us it is absurd, because existence precedes essence, as an obligatory reality. And the persona comes after that, because it is reacting to that obligatory reality; it wants to independently create its own identities. It ignores the objective essence and reality, but creates something absurd, because it can’t actually do it. This absurdness is the logic of Triadic Theology. Logic is now the illogical ! Because in there, it is no longer illogical. It is the reasoning within God’s Being. It is because the essence does not precede, nor does it define, existence. If we think in an unorthodox way of God in this area, and we say that the essence precedes existence, then all these existential consequences appear. And God? Well, we must then either introduce the absurd element into God, or we ignore the personal speculation, and the speculation on freedom that the absurd element creates within us. Of course, to a certain point this can be done, and we do, in general terms, put aside this absurd element. But I don’t think it is possible – unless we deprive mankind of freedom altogether – to deprive it of its protest towards the phenomenon of the obligatory fact of his existence, which implies, as I said, the precedence of the essence to the persona. So, if God exists because the Father exists, and not because the essence exists, then we too have the hope that this absurd thing that we seek, may quite possibly be logical in reality; it may become logical. The logic of Theology therefore, is the reversal or the denial of this absurd element. This absolute freedom of God is expressed in the specific way of the Triadic relationship, and here we have another existential consequence, which is the continuation of the previous one. Because for us existence is a given thing and therefore obligatory, our freedom is exercised in a double way; either by our unshackled acceptance of our freedom, or the denial of our existence, i.e. to not be able to deny my existence, to commit suicide, just as Dostoevsky analyzes it in his book “The Possessed”. In this way, you will be fully proving your freedom. It is only then that you prove your freedom fully: when you deny your existence. Well, for us there is the possibility to exercise freedom, at any rate there is the temptation to exercise our freedom in a negative manner, because our existence is a given thing, by someone else, hence our reaction to this existence. In the case of God, how can God be free? How can God exercise His freedom, if His existence is not a given thing? He has only one way to exercise it: affirmatively, positively. For God, freedom is a one-way street; it is always affirmation. God cannot say ‘no’. What would He say ‘no’ to? His freedom is only affirmative, and that’s why God’s freedom is expressed with His Triadic existence. The Father’s freedom is expressed by saying ‘yes’ to the Son, the Son saying ‘yes’ to the Father. It is the ‘yes – yes’ that Paul says was brought to us by Christ (Corinthians II, 1:19). You cannot say ‘no’ within the framework of the freedom that is not provoked by given existence, nor is it given ‘from without’ (that framework). With God, nothing can be given ‘from without’. Even His own self, His own existence, is not the result of His essence. Consequently, not even His existence is obligatory. He wouldn’t have been free otherwise. On the other hand, if we were deprived of the ability to say ‘no’, we would cease to be free. Seeing how existence for us is a given fact, we must have the option of being able to say ‘no’ to anything that is given to us ‘from without’. But to God, there is no such option of choice; freedom is not exercised by God as a choice; it is exercised voluntarily, and only as Love, in its affirmative sense. Now, if you apply this to the human existence – as a fulfillment by the image of God, or as that which was revealed by Christ, or as it will be fulfilled eschatologically in the state of theosis – you will see that even then, freedom is forever a one-way street (as expounded by Saint Maximus extensively). It is forever affirmative. Freedom is not the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’. It is only the ‘yes’. The relative verse in Corinthians II is very revealing. Paul says there: “Jesus Christ who is amongst you and is preached by you, did not become ‘yes’ and ‘no’, but within Him was the ‘yes’” (Corinthians II, 1:19). God’s ‘yes’ and Christ’s ‘yes’ is now the freedom of affirmation. It is from the Triadic dogma that this aspect of existence called ‘freedom’ springs from – or rather, is illuminated by. And how is it illuminated? By what conclusion? The conclusion is that there is only one way to exercise freedom to prove that you are free, and that is LOVE. The positive kind; the affirmation towards another being, other than yourself. To freely say that “I acknowledge that this exists for me, and that it becomes a part of my existence.” This is how the Trinity exists. The Father freely consents that He wants to have a Son, and He has that Son, freely. God exercises His freedom when the Father begets the Son, also when He sends forth the Holy Spirit. And he exercises it in one form alone: as LOVE, as an affirmative action, and not a negative one. His negative freedom would have been His saying that He doesn’t exist; He would deny Himself. But He would be saying that, only if the essence preceded - and therefore defined – His existence. Thus, a way of existence is created for man also, which is comprised of expressing, of exercising our freedom affirmatively, as love, and not negatively. This is the “likeness of God”. The image of God is fulfilled, precisely this self-government of man, which has the ability to say ‘no’, but when it says ‘yes’, it is exercising freedom in a divine manner. This is how one also reaches those great connoisseurs of God and mankind as well, who are none other than the monks, whose existence begins and is supported by their eradication of their personal wills, and by their ‘yes’ to the other person, and their Elder. All the above are revelations of Triadic Theology from the aspect of experience which we spoke of in the first lessons. You see now, that God - whom we theologians speak of dogmatically and have difficulty in making sense out of all this – to a saint, it is just a very simple experience. He most probably won’t be able to put everything in words, the way that we do, but if you observe what I just told you, when I analyzed the existential consequences of the Triadic dogma, you will immediately see that a saint comprehends them automatically; he experiences them.

將所有上述的記在腦子裡，我們將繼續作出些有關於這些的意義的觀察，不僅僅是為了我們這些有我們自己的語言的神學家，而是為了每一個人。這個關於上帝的教義是甚麼意思呢？我們的存有是否會有變化，如果上帝不是這樣或是那樣的話？以及這些全部的細節又是著甚麼意思呢？ 首先，讓我們看一看本質是否會表達出上帝的一體性。換句話說，如果我們依照 Augustine 的神學，它將會帶領我們到哪裡？（我是指我們一般的存在性）。當一位少年問道： 「誰問過我是否我想來到這個世界」的時候，他即是將他的自由放置在他的存有之上。他不再是把他的存有作為一件已有的東西。他希望有被問過。他沒有被問過。 因此，他把他的存有看視為一件限制了他的自由的東西。而，確實地，世上沒有比存有更强力的束縛。不要把這看作是一件很奇怪的事情。我們對於自由的這個道德概念是已經習慣的了；我們相信，如果我們能夠在兩，三片之間選擇然後選舉， 我們就會是很高興的 （這就是我們所謂的政治自由，或者，在道德的範圍内，我們理解自由為是能說 ' 是 ' 或是 ' 不是 '的能力）。但是自由所面對的一個更大的挑戰則是，我不能對我的存有說 ' 不 '。如果我想對我的存有說 ' 不 '，那，我的存有就會停止， 而我的自由也會被收起掉。 我的自由因而被自我取消。但是這是因甚麼之故？ 這是歸因於，我的人格不是在我的本質之前； 反而，我的本質是在我的人格之前。如果你把這應用於上帝身上，因而制造出一個在其中上帝的本質是在於他的人格之前的神學的話，你就會有 -- 從存在論的角度上看 -- 一個最不自由之者。上帝會被他的存有束縛。你不要對此感到驚訝，這樣的事會使我們費盡心思。 這也應該使我們費盡心思，因為如果上帝沒有存在的自由，我們則能夠預待著甚麼呢？我們為何尋求這種自由？或者，這不是一件我們允許去做的事？不，這不是不允許去作的事。這是在自由的概念的范圍之內的。那就是為甚麼我們制造出新的自我個性等等 （如同我們在之前的章中已提及到的： 而我們自由地選擇這些新的自我身份） 以能將此表達出。 這是很有意義的： 當那位少年問道： 「誰問過我是否我想來到這個世界」的時候，他是在經歷著一個危機，以至放棄了他的自我個性，也就是他的家庭成員，以及他能够創造他自己的自我身分的傾向，以他所想要定義出的不受束縛的關係等等為基礎； 這些是由大自然所定義出的，並且是由家庭所給予的。 所以，自由 -- 在有關於自我身分的方面，也就是將自我與某些事物相連接上的能力，或是使某些事物為我們而存在的能力 -- 是我們被上帝創造為有自由之者之事中的一個基本的要素， 表示著我們是存在於上帝的形像中的； 因此如果上帝他自己在這個方面上不是自由的話，我們就也不能期待著或希望著我們將成為 -- 或將是 -- 自由的。 所以，自由就會是一件完全無根據的事情。 我們必須知道， 我們所相信的上帝，以及我們想要成為其之形像的上帝，是否是束縛於他的存有的； 以及，是否他存在只是因為他必須存在； 只是因為他存在而不能不如此。這個非常重要的主題是隱藏於人格的優先權這事之後的。 如果那個使上帝存在的東西不是他的本質，而是父親的人格，那我們就肯定地有著自由。上帝不是因為他不能不存在而存在著。他存在著，這意味著：「有他」。他是實現為自由的。是人格實現他的。就好像我能夠自由地對某人說：「對我而言，你是不存在的」。對我們而言，能說 「你存在」或「你不存在」的這種能力，是很神秘的。 如果你讀過「荒謬戲劇」，你就曾看到，在那裡，這種推想是多麼地激烈。你在那裡有看到那種忽略一切的傾向，並且說： 對我而言，那個人不存在；我不理他。那是荒謬的（當然啦） 而這又是存在中的很自然的要素：你不能忽略它。對我們而言那是荒謬的，因為存在是在本質之前，有如一個必要的現實。 而人格是在那些之後，因為他是對於那個必要的現實作出反應的； 他想要獨自地創造出其自己的身份。他忽略了客觀的本質和現實，而創造出一些荒謬的東西，因為他其實不能够這樣子做。這個荒謬性是三位一體性的神學的邏輯。邏輯現在是不合邏輯的了！因為在那裡，這不再是不合邏輯的了。 這是在上帝的存有之中的推論法。這是因為本質不能在存有之前，也不能定義存有。 如果我們在這個區域以一種不正統的方式去想上帝，並且說本質是在存有之前，那，所有這些存在性的結果就會出現。 然而，上帝呢？或者呢，我們也必須在上帝中介紹出一個荒謬的要素，或者呢，我們不去理私人性的推測， 以及那個荒謬的要素為我們所造成的關於自由的推測。當然，在某種程度上這能夠被完成，而， 一般而言，我們實際上也撇開著這個荒謬的要素。 但是 -- 除非我們完全剝奪掉人類的自由 -- 剝奪掉對於上帝的存有的必要性的這個現象的抗議其之荒謬的要素 （而這個必要性意味著，我已說過，本質是在人格之前的）， 我想那是不可能的。 所以，如果上帝存在是因為父親存在，而不是因為本質存在，那，我們可能仍有我們所在尋求的這件荒謬的事情真的是合乎邏輯的希望；它却能變得真的是合乎邏輯的。神學的邏輯因此則是反轉或拒絕這個荒謬的要素。上帝的這種絕對性的自由是在他的三位一體性的關係的這個特殊方式中表達出的，而在這裡我們則有另一個存在性的結果，而這是繼續於以前的那一個的。 因為，對我們而言，存有是一件已有的以及必要的事情，所以我們的自由是運用於一種雙重的方法；或者呢，我們完全開放地接受我們的自由，或者呢，我們拒絕我們的存有，也就是，不能够否認我的存在，以至自殺，正如妥也夫斯基在他的「被擁有」一書中所分析過的。以這方式，你將完全地證明了你的自由。只有在那時你才完全地證明了你的自由：當你否定了你的存有的時候。 或許我們是有運用自由的可能性； 無論如何，我們常被誘惑著以否定性的方式來運用我們的自由，因為我們的存有是一件已由他人所給予的東西，因此我們對這個存有會如此反應。而上帝呢，他是如何自由的？上帝是如何能夠運用他的自由，如果他的存有不是一件已給予的東西？他只有一種方式去運用自由：肯定的方式。對上帝來說，自由是一條單行路； 它只有是肯定性的。上帝不能說 '不 '。 他會對甚麼說 ' 不 '？他的自由只有是肯定性的，那就是為甚麼上帝的自由是以他的三位一體性的存有方式表達出的。父親的自由是以對兒子說 '是的' 而表達出的，然後兒子再對父親說 ' 是的 '。 保羅說，基督所帶給我們的是那個 ' 是的 - 是的 ' （歌林多後書， 1 ： 19）。你在於不是由已給予的存有所促成的自由的結構以內不能說 ' 不 ' ，而它也不是由那結構外面所給予的。對上帝來說，沒有東西是能夠由外面所給予的。即使是他自己的自我，他自己的存有，也不是他的本質的結果。所以，連他的存有也不是一件必要的義務。他要是不是如此就不會是自由的。 而在另一方面上，如果我們被剝奪掉說 ' 不 '的能力，我們就不再是自由的。因為我們的存有是一件已給予我們的事實之故，我們一定得有能對由外面所給予我們的任何東西說 '不' 的選擇。但是上帝則沒有這樣的選擇的余地；對上帝來說，自由之運用不是一種選擇；他是自願地運用自由的，並且是以其肯定的意義，以愛的形式。 現在，如果你將這應用於人類的存有身上 -- 人類的存有： 好比是上帝的形像之實現，或者是基督所顯露之事，或者是當末日時在神化 （theosis） 中所實現的形像 -- 你將看到，即使在這種情況下，自由也永遠是一條單行路 （如 Saint Maximus 所解釋過的）。它永遠是肯定性的。自由不是 ' 是的 '以及 ' 不 '。它只是 ' 是的 '。 在歌林多後書中的相對的一文是很有啟示性的。保羅在那裡說：「在你們中間所傳神的兒子耶穌基督，總沒有是而又非的，在他只有一是。」（歌林多後書， 1 ： 19）。上帝的 ' 是 ' 以及基督的 ' 是 ' 現在則是肯定之自由。 這個是為 ' 自由 ' 的存有之方面是來自於 -- 或者說， 是照明於 -- 三位一體的教條的。而它是如何被照明的？被甚麼結論？結論則是，僅僅只有一種運用自由的方式，以證明你是自由的，那就是愛。肯定性的愛； 對於另一者的確認和肯定，不是自己。自由地說： 「我承認這為我存在，以及它已成為我的存有之一部分。」 這就是三位一體之性存在的方式。父親自由地同意有一個兒子，他並且自由地有了那個兒子。上帝在父親生兒子之時，以及當他發送出聖靈的時候，運用他的自由。而他只是以一種方式來運用自由的 ：愛，也就是一種肯定性的方式，而不是否定性的方式。他的否定性的自由會是他說他不存在；他會否認自己。但是他只有當本質在存有之前 -- 因而定義出存有 -- 之時，才會如此說。 因此，人也有一種存在的方式，以肯定性的方式運用和表達出我們的自由，也就是以愛，而不是以否定性的方式。這就是「上帝的形像」。上帝的形像被實現了，這個人的自我治理，他有能力說 ' 不'，但是當他說 ' 是的 '的時候，他是以一種神聖的方式運用著他的自由的。這也是一個人如何能達到那個上帝和人類的偉大的鑒賞家的境界，也就是修道士； 他們的存有是由消除自我意志、以及對他人和長老說 ' 是的 '之行，而開始以及所支持的。 所有上述之事皆是三位一體神學從我們在第一堂課中所談到的體驗的方面所作出 的啟示。你現在明白，我們神學家一直講關於上帝的教義並且很難把這些搞清楚，然而，對一位聖徒而言，上帝只是一個很簡單的體驗。他大概不能够把一切皆由語言表達出，如同我們在此做到的，但是如果你仔細觀察一下我已告訴你的事情等等，在分析關於三位一體之性的教義之存在性的結果之時，你將立即看到，一位聖徒很自動地已理解了這些；他已體驗到了這些。