Contemplation for a Sunday: God as Wondrous Being
The relationship between God the Father and the Son of God normally has been conceived as the Son having been begotten of the Father outside of time, that is, the Son has been begotten of the Father in eternity. The relationship between the two is seen as analogous to human understanding of the relationship between a parent and a child, but not exactly the same[1]. The eternal begetting of the Son by the Father gives all that the Father has to the Son, so that, as the Nicene Creed states, the Son is “God from God” and “Light from Light.” Or, as the Gospel of John states, the life of the Father is given unto the Son and becomes the life of the Son, so that “…just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”[2] In regards to the relationship of the persons of the Trinity, St. Augustine sees this as a way to understand the procession of the Spirit from the Son – that as the Spirit is said to proceed from the Father, so it must be understood, that the Son also has that same procession[3].
However, if we apply the Mahayana approach of emptiness, we can see that the generation of the Son is seen to be the emptying of the Father into the Son, but we must not confuse this emptying of the Father as being temporal.[4] The glorifying of the Father, of God, of the Absolute, is the self-emptying of the Absolute into the Son, and the very glory of the Son is, in parallel, the emptying of the Son back into the Father. As Masao Abe beautifully puts it, “God the Father and God the Son glorify each other through an inverse correspondence, through an ‘other-self’ affirmation via own-self negation.”[5] The Father’s glorifying the Son is the production, the generation of the Son, by the Father’s eternal self-negation and emptying of all the Father into the Son. The Father, the absolute sunyata, empties himself completely into the Son, giving to the Son all that is the Father, all that is had in the pure suchness of the dharmadhatu. This should lead us to understand Abe’s consideration of true emptiness as the emptiness which empties itself so that it can be called Wondrous Being; for this is how Being transcending the dualities of being and non-being, of affirmation and negation, by being both self-negating (becoming empty of itself) and glorification at once. “True emptiness is the ever self-emptying activity that is incessantly turning into being. Thus true Emptiness is neither being nor nothing, and both being and nothing at one and the same time. That is why True Emptiness is called Wondrous Being.”[6]
Wondrous Being. The Glory of the Father who gives his all to the Son. The Glory of the Son Who Gives His All to the Father. The Glory of the Spirit who completely turns himself over to the Father through the Son. That is indeed the God we worship, for that is what we find in the God who is love. The persons whose wondrous self-giving receive back their very all, a giving and receiving which is eternal and therefore without end.
Footnotes
[1] “As we have said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men…” St. Athanasius, Discourse I, 1 in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Volume 4 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), VIII.28, p.322.
[2] John 5:26. With this also is the relationship of the Father and the Son understood, when the Gospel of John indicates that if you have seen the Son you have seen the Father (John 14:7) – for the Son has within himself all that the Father has within himself.
[3]“Let him, I say, understand, that as the Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, so has He given to the Son that same Holy Spirit should proceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father that it is to be understood that His proceeding from the Son, is a property derived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has whatever the Father has, then He certainly has of the Father, that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Him.” St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 1 in The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, First Series, Volume 3 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), XV.47, p.225. It is therefore to be understood that St. Augustine sees two distinct aspects of the procession of the Spirit – first in that the Spirit proceeds directly from the Father, but it proceeds from the Son in the shared possession of the attributes of the Father. At least following St. Augustine’s understanding, the East does not need to fear that the special function of the Father is denigrated by the filioque clause in the Western creed, because the relational primacy is still shown to reside in the Father.
[4] Time is a part of samsara, it is a part of the imputations of reality, but reality in its pure suchness transcends the dualistic temporal distinction between “now” and “another time.” But this Mahayana interpretation of the generation of the Son finds support in the works of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Sergius Bulgakov both – for Balthasar, in presenting the kenosis of the Father refers to Bulgakov’s notion of kenosis: “It is possible to say, with Bulgakov, that the Father’s self-utterance in the generation of the Son is an initial ‘kenosis’ within the Godhead that underpins all subsequent kenosis,” Hans Urs von Balthasar, Theo-Drama IV: The Action. trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 323.
[5] Masao Abe “Beyond Buddhism and Christianity: Dazzling Darkness” in Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist Jewish Christian Conversation with Masao Abe, ed. Christopher Ives. (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), p.229.
[6] Masao Abe, “Double Negation as an Essential for Attaining Ultimate Reality: Comparing Tillich and Buddhism,” in Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue. Ed. Steven Heine. (Honolulu: University of Honolulu Press: 1995), p.107.
Comments are closed.
Can way say that IN the complete self-emptying of the divine persons IS the very fulness of divine life? The Father is himself most in his completely giving himself over to the Son; the Son is himself most in his reciprocal emptying himself fully, as the complete expression of his Father; and the Spirit IS the fruition(?) of this mutual, total self-emptying?
Mark
Only when we see the Divine Life as Love — but if we do, then it is seen as the fullness of love — and this would be, as Bulgakov would remind us, Sophia, Wisdom.
BTW, as a short aside, this is from a very brief selection from my notes I made for my MA Thesis several years ago; the only bit I added was the Balthasar and I fixed some typos. It goes to show why I was able to find Balthasar’s work so fruitful.
Henry, I remember reading in the ’70′s that Buddha’s awakening occurred when he was able to experience the suffering of humanity without having an aversion to it, he then opened to the reality that love was at the source of all creation. However, in his thinking he believed that to join with this love he would lose himself. These are vague memories. In The Path of Purification I remember generally that one begins with losing attachments to everything one identifies with as a source of a personal self. This emptying then results in a rebirth in relationship to self, others and all of creation.
I must read Balthasar’s work. Can you recommend something for me to start with.
Thanks.
Ronald,
That’s always a tough question — since Balthasar was one of the most prolific of writers, but, from your background, and your interest, I would think Heart of the World might be a good start; it’s one of his most poetic works, and it is one of his earliest works as well, but it expresses in a a concentrated form, much of his thought.
What you said about Siddhartha follows what Mahayana in general would say– he first had to give up Nirvana to attain Buddhahood — and in this way, he would be able to find out form is emptiness, emptiness is form; samsara is Nirvana. I think it is the right direction, even for us Christians, and indeed, highlights a key which we often forget. St Paul, for example, seems to be of that attitude in his letters!
Have you read any of the works of John Keenan? Or Paul Griffiths? If not, you might find them interesting, too.
Another good post Henry. Thanks! Amazing how well that works with Balthasar.
JB
This week I’m trying to bring (with a little editing) things I’ve written before, which strike me as having greater implications than I first had with them when I wrote them — Balthasar, to be sure, knew of Abe and read his stuff (and, obviously, had criticism of Abe because Abe could be seen more as a process theologian in his attempt to dialogue with Christianity), but I still think the two would have learned much from each other, if they had met in person (for as you said, there is much which strikes of Balthasar in this quote).
I look forward to more!
Henry, I haven’t read Keenan or Griffiths. I think I must retire in order to find the time to read more. I do appreciate this site and all of the contributors here for their kindness, intelligence and openness to a mystical life within our faith that influences me to formulate into words what has been guiding me throughout my life to this late point in my life. However, I did not know what or Who was guiding me until around Christmas of 2004. Before that I only knew that whatever created me and everything else was and is essentially love.
Love and light seemed to come together at one point in ’04 and filled the ceiling of my room one night and said in a voice that was neither female nor male “I love you.” This light was luminous and it entered my darkness or was it always there without my knowing it. Anyway, I digress.
Ronald
True, there is always more and more to read, but I thought, with your move from Buddhism to Christianity, those Christians who looked to Buddhism might have been an influence. I find both have valuable insights; I have found both of Keenan’s Mahayana commentaries on Scripture to be great (though I find his Christology to be problematic).
Thanks, Henry, for taking the time to respond. I will be taking a week off soon so I will be going to the bookstore.
I find so many parallels in Buddhism and Christianity. The major difference is the exploration of God. In Christianity, we relate to God in our limited way. Buddhism neither denies nor affirms God’s existence but states that the finite cannot know the infinite.
Another point of interest in my recall of Siddartha’s story is the death of his mother at his birth. It is compelling for me to relate this to his experience of love being the source of creation yet if he were to join with this creative love the belief was a loss of self identity would result. Correct me if I am wrong.
The continuing reflection for me is based on the idea that the mother’s love prepares us for that union with God’s Love in which the soul becomes familiar with the creative love of everything through the unique and mysterious ongoing unity of mother and child. The concept of the Mother Church seems to apply in this way.
Ronald
You will like Balthasar, I think, because of his connection with being and love, and self-consciousness being founded upon love — the love of one’s mother (or the one who takes the role) smiling at them.
But you are right, there are many things which connect between Buddhism and Christianity, though there are differences, and the differences are important — God being a major one. It is through God, Christianity is able to affirm the “person” — though of course, I think both in general are trying for the same thing in avoiding a reification of the self.
Thanks Henry. One thing I want to say is, I hope that I am not intruding into this site with anything that is unwanted. I have very little free time and resources to discuss what formulates from my rosary runs and my reading concerning faith and interpersonal neurobiology and the interaction of the two.
If I am an intrusion just let me know and I will stop. Thanks again for your kindness.
Ronald,
You are no intrusion at all; we might not always have the time to do the reading (or writing — including proper responses) as we wish, but your interests and considerations I think are quite good.
Ronald,
Your input is very penetrating. You bring a powerful perspective that merits careful reflection.