THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE

[joasia]

Anybody interested in discussing this book? I found it so fascinating.

I was especially affected by the explanation of how we can acheive the state of theosis.

Any thoughts?

Joanna

[Kollyvas]

I was less than enthused with his end and the fact he kept on associating Orthodoxy with other heathen religions. The talks with the Elder I will be putting in a journal, however, and it is well written and engaging.

R

[joasia]

I wasn't impressed with the comparisons either; I skimmed over them. Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt. He might have been trying to explain Orthodoxy to the non-Orthodox; perhaps creating a bridge. His explanations of the Orthodox viewpoint was right on target, though.

I think Kyriacos was very much in touch with his Orthodox heritage. What I mean is that, I saw that he came to understand the deeper meaning of Orthodoxy.

I'm very critical about non-Orthodox views, but this book was very well written, which means that it reflects a deep spiritually Orthodox heart. I think he did a wonderful job in expressing the Orthodox faith.

[Kollyvas]

That's where I have questions. I think the book was his attempt to convince himself that Orthodoxy was for him, and then when he couldn't find his niche in the method of his Elder, he bagan to question and ultimately reject the methodology he was talking about. I was unsatisfied with the end of it.

R

[joasia]

Kollyvas,

Which particular statement are you referring to? What I mean is, what did he write, that gave you that impression?

[Kollyvas]

I picked it up again and here's just one of the things in a nutshell I find objectionable:
R

...one of the key differences between the spirituality of the Christian elders and some Buddhist beliefs concerning the final destination of the human soul. From the perspective of the Christian elders, what is annihilated through Catharsis is not the inner, self-aware "I"-ness but the sum-total of egotistical passions that obstruct our vision of God. Saint Seraphim of Sarov may be in a state of oneness with God, but he still remains autonomous within that oneness as a self-aware soul, as St. Seraphim serving God's plan. In saying that, one needs to be reminded that the best of all the wisdom traditions warn that the nature of the final destination is beyond all humanly constructed notions, all dogmas and beliefs. Therefore, whatever we say about God and Theosis must be a priori insufficient, if no false. (218)
/See also his ecclesiological quagmire on 235/

(What this means to me is that he recapitulates what he had been putting forward and contrasts it with Buddhist thought, assuming a moral equivalence between the two, and he puts forward a synthesis which offers nothing but a relativism which recapitulates a fundamental Buddhist tenant, ie "all dogma is delusion." By extension he states Orthodoxy is insufficient if not false and that is unacceptible. So that and other things led me to my assessment.)

[joasia]

What this means to me is that he recapitulates what he had been putting forward and contrasts it with Buddhist thought, assuming a moral equivalence between the two, and he puts forward a synthesis which offers nothing but a relativism which recapitulates a fundamental Buddhist tenant, ie "all dogma is delusion." By extension he states Orthodoxy is insufficient if not false and that is unacceptible. So that and other things led me to my assessment.

I disagree. Let me first point out, that I only follow the Orthodox teachings. I am not expressing any outside influence.

I don't think he was "assuming a moral equivalence". He was expressing his thoughts about what he was learning. I admit I was uncomfortable about his comparisons, but I put that aside(despite my Orthodox dogmatic beliefs) so that I could appreciate his insight with the conversations he had with "Fr. Maximos".

I remember reading this passage. My impression was that Kyriacos was referring to our human nature of containing rules and circumstances to an equation. This is a limitation that is imposed on us, by God because we cannot live outside of it. Just like the Jews were given rules to follow. Whether we can admit it or not, we need guidance and structure.

When the saints experienced their union with God(theosis) and lived in it, they saw a realm that was beyond anything created. We pray and ask for supplications and give praise and give thanksgivings. We live in a created state and surrounded by a created world, but when a person is given a glimpse of a life beyond these boundaries, he sees an existence that transends dogma. He sees a state of existence that can only be describe as unlimited love...that is what God is and the saints had a taste of that, in the flesh, even in the smallest capacity. Imagine an existence that is not bound by the physical and only exists for the presence of God...

Dogma is essential for us to understand why we worship, but when the saints were surrounded by the Holy Spirit (for lack of a better term), there was no dogma to think about, there was only God. Because when they were in the state of theosis, they were with God and the rest of the world became nothing... even their own bodies were considered nothing.

Living in the state of theosis is beyond our understanding. It even transends prayer because when we pray we are sending a message to God, from our hearts, but in the state of theosis, a saint is united with God(for lack of a better term), but retains his individuality. He doesn't need to pray anymore, because that is the state of being apart from God.

A feable example is as follows. You have a loved one who lives apart from you...you call him on the phone and talk. When you visit him or he visits you, you don't go to the phone to call him, do you? No. Because you are in his presence.

Kyriacos took the chance to publish this book and put alot of his feelings into it. He was searching for something and I think he found it. I hear that he has another book coming out about monastism. I think he's found his Orthodox niche.

Joanna