From Soul to Self to Annihilation of Self.8

Cont'd

Ware  next examines whether the notion of the "soul" is coterminous with reason or can extends "downwards" to include the Greek notion of "pathos" (emotions and the passions, there being no English word corresponding exactly with the Greek "pathos" ) and upwards to include the faculty of spiritual insight or vision higher than discursive reason.  As far as "pathos" is concerned, some Greek Fathers follow the Stoics and see it negatively as a disease of the soul, something unnatural, excessive and disordered which needs to be eliminated through "apatheia" (dispassion or passionlessness or absence of passion) e.g. Clement of Alexandria states that the truly good person has no passions ( Stromateis 7:11 ed. Stahlin 47:1) and Evagrius of Pontus (d.399) highly influential amongst the Greek ascetic tradition, associates them with the "daimon" ("demon", not to be confused with "devil" but more in the sense of uncontrollable passions) and excludes them from the soul but other Greek Fathers, following Plato and Aristotle rather than the Stoics e.g. Theodore of Cyrus (c 393-460) and Abba Isaias (d.489) and Maximus the Confessor (c 580-662)  (Triads 3.3. 15 ) view the passions as neutral such that whether they are good or bad depends to how we use them. Thus when they use the word "apatheia", they mean not the elimination of passion but their purification and per Palamas, our aim with regard to the passions is not "nekrosis" or their "mortification" but rather "metathesis" or their "transposition" or "redirection" and "epithymia" (desire) is to be turned into "eros" (an intense longing for God) and "thymos" (wrath or anger) is to become unselfish agape (an generalized love or unconditional love for even strangers) ( On Love 248)) and thus, on such views, the passions are not in themselves parasitic distortions but have a place in the true nature of the soul. Instead of eliminating, suppressing, and destroying our passion, we are to educate, re-orient, re-direct and transfigure them.

Can we re-orient our passions and our emotions and transfigure to achieve a spiritual understanding superior to the our reasoning. Some Greek Christians follow Plato in distinguishing between thinking (dianoia) in the sense of reasoning from premises to a conclusion and intellect or intellection (nous, noesis) but view that through the nous (serving as an eye of the soul), truth is simply “seen” to be true and whilst "dianoia" is marked by plurality, "noesis "is seen as unified so that at its higher level, the subject-object dichotomy vanishes: through dianoia we "know about" God but through "nous", we know God. Whilst "dianoia" forms general concepts by a process of abstractions from the data of sense-perception, by manipulating these concepts, dianoia then argues to a conclusion through the use of classification and analysis. In dianoia, the mind derives its information from outside of itself but on the level of nous, we participate directly in the reality we contemplate: “the direct experience (peira) of a thing suppresses the concept (logos) which represents that thing” per Maximus: we do not simply contemplate about the thing but we ourselves enter into it or it enters into us, so our knowledge ceases to be multiform and becomes simple and integrated. (To Thalassius, question 60 PG 90.624A; ed. Laga and Steel, 77).

It is often said  that "language" is the "essence" of the human "mind". Maximus would readily agree that this is true of the "dianoia" but they would be more hesitant to say such a thing about the "nous" because at higher levels, intellection may reach out beyond language, visual images and mental concepts to include what we today would call “mystical experience” (which doesn't include such things as levitation, telepathy, trances or other paranormal phenomena) but includes the "direct awareness" of "supra-normal reality": we are never more authentically human when through this exercise of noesis, we "transcend" ourselves and enter into communion with the Eternal and in this sense, "nous" as our highest and our most God-like faculty, expresses our own "true self". If so then, the imagination (phantasia) understood by" the Greek Fathers as the image-forming faculty dependent on sense-perception, stands on a level below "noesis". Ware notes that all the references to "phantasia" in Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon carry a pejorative meaning. In fact, Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain (1748-1809) states that “the devil has a very close relationship and familiarity with the imagination” and goes so far as to style the "phantasia" as “a bridge of the devils”. This analysis shows that to the Greek Fathers, there are two kinds of thinking in the human "soul": a natural and rational thinking not involving any emotions and a more emotionally committed and more intuitive type of thinking which enables us to "know" and to "encounter" God.

Can the concept of "soul" be extended to include animals? Do animals have souls? There is no lack of texts which suggest that animals do have some kind of soul too. In the Euchologion (or Book of Prayers) used officially in the contemporary Greek Orthodox Church, there are several prayers for animals “…if a righteous man shows pity to the souls of his animals (cf. Prov.12:10), how should you not take pity on them, for you created them and you provide for them? In your compassion, you did not forget the animals in the ark. ..Through the good health and the plentiful number of oxen and other four-footed creatures, the earth is cultivated and its fruits increase; and your servants, who call upon your name, enjoy in full abundance the products of their farming." (Prayer of St. Modestos which is attributed to Nikodimos of the Holy Mountain) Origen argues at some lengths that animals have souls: “No one, I suppose, will doubt that all living creatures whatever, even those that live in water, have souls” and quotes Scripture in support of his view (Gen. 1: 21, 24 (LXX); Lev. 17:14 (LXX) On First Principles 2.8.1). In addition, Origen thinks that the animal souls has certain similarities with the human soul: “The instinct (physis) in hunting dogs and in war horses comes near, if I may say so, to reason itself” (ibid 3.1.3)  but Theophilus of Antioch (c180) goes further and say that the instinct in all animals, wild and domesticated, which leads them to mate and care for their offspring shows they possess understanding” (To Autolycus 1.6). Other Greek Fathers maintain that animals share with humans, not only a certain reason and understanding but also memory and a wide range of emotions and affections e. g. Basil of Caesarea. says that they display feelings of joy and grief and they recognize those whom they have met previously (Hexaemoron 8.2 PG 29.168A) and John Climacus says they express love for each other, for “they often bewail the loss of their companions” (Ladder of Divine Ascent 26 PG 88.102A) and we might add, recalling the story of Balaam’s ass in the Book of Numbers  22: 22-34 that animals also possess spiritual vision, sometimes perceiving things to which we humans are blind  and the Italian G-P Monti (1713-83) even thinks that animals can have a genuine spiritual life though only at a rudimentary level (See E Amann Dictionnaire de theologie catholique 10:2 (1929) col 2394). If so, Nemesius of Emesa is right to affirm that all living things—plants, animals and human beings share together the same vital energy (zoe); creation as a whole constitutes a single unity. This seems to also to be the view of the Buddha. But to Origen, ,there is a crucial difference: the human soul is made in the image of God but not the animal soul (Against Celsus 4.83 ): they have no conscious relationship with God and are not endowed with immortality. According to Basil, the animal soul is made from the earth and after death is dissolved into earth again (Hexaemeron 8.2 PG 29.168A) but human being possessed “the breath of life” breathed into them directly by God (Gen 2:7) and it is this which enables them to attain the realm of eternity: they expect individual human beings in all their particular personal characteristics, will rise from the dead but not the animals.Christ did say that not a single sparrow is “forgotten in God’s sight” and God is concerned about the death of each of them (Lk. 12:6; Matt. 10:29) but that human beings are of more value than the sparrows (Lk.12:7; Matt. 10:31) but though he did not say that birds have souls, neither did he exclude such a possibility. In any even, the Greek Christians believe in a hierarchical univierse in which humans, by virtue of their being created in the divine image, have dominion over the animals (Gen. 1:27-8). To Ware, dominion does not mean arbitrary dominion or cruel exploitation although this is the way it has been interpreted by many Christians through the ages. He thinks that dominion is "dominion according to the image and likeness of God" and such power as we have must be exercised solely in obedience to God. Therefore, we must show the same loving kindness and compassion God show us: note the respect shown to animals in the Jewish tradition (Robert Murray: The Cosmic Covenant  1992 pp 94-125)

The Greek Christians believe that at one time before the fall, Adam and Eve lived at peace with the animals in the garden of Eden but sin destroyed this harmony but in the eschatological kingdom at the end of time the primal harmony will be restored: “The wolf shall live with the lamb, the leopard shall lie down with the kid…and a little child shall lead them” (Isa 11:6). In paradise humans and also the animals, ate only plants (Gen. 1:29-30) and presumably, this will be the case in the eschatolgocal kingdom and meat eating was allowed to humankind by God only after the fall (Gen.9::3) and thus not in itself sinful but it represents a decline from perfection: thus the Orthodox Church has never been vegetarian as a matter of principle and they usually abstain from meat and they just eat cold blooded fish, as Christ himself did (Lk 24: 42-43). Though animals do not have an immortal soul, that does not mean that they should not be treated with respect. On the contrary, the lives of many Christians abound in stories of close fellowship between men and beasts. They are not merely sentimental stories, but make a theological point according to Crabbe: it recalls the understanding and respect between human beings and animals before the Fall and points forward to the end time when such harmony may be restored. Isaac of Nineveh, honored in the Greek tradition as Isaac the Syrian (7thC) said,  “the humble man approaches the wild animals, and the moment they catch sight of him, their ferocity is tamed. They come up and cling to him as to their master, wagging their tails and licking his hands and feet. For they smell on him the same smell that came from Adam before the transgression...What is a merciful heart?…It is a heart on fire for the whole of creation, for humanity, for the birds, for the animals, for the demons, and for all that exists…As a result of his deep mercy, the heart of such a person shrinks and cannot bear the  hear t to look on any injury or the slightest suffering of anything in creation. That is why he constantly offers up prayer full of tears even for the irrational animals…He even prays for the reptiles as a result of the great compassion that is poured out beyond measure in his heart, after the likeness of God” (Homily 74 ibid 341). Silouan the Athonite (1866-1938), a 20thC Orthodox saint, expresses the same intensity of compassion:  “The Lord bestows such rich grace on his chosen that they embrace the whole earth, the whole world, with their love…One day…I saw a dead snake on my path which had been chopped in pieces and each piece writhed convulsively and I was filled with pity for every living creature, every suffering thing in creation and I wept bitterly before God” (Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakhrov)  Saint Silouan the Athonite 1991 p367, 469)

(To be cont'd)