In which we review Christian Gnosis: From St. Paul to Meister Eckhart by Wolfgang Smith.
Click here for Christian Gnosis Part II
St. Thomas Aquinas was not the only one. Just as he arrived at contemplation through scholastic reasoning, so did the peak of the scholastic wave reach gnosis [mystique], that is to say, intuition or the state of union of faith and intelligence, which is the aim of scholasticism. A Meister Eckhart, a Ruysbroeck, the Admirable Doctor, a St. John of the Cross are in fact spirits amongst whom you will search in vain for a spirit of opposition to scholasticism. For them also it was true that scholasticism was “like straw”, but they knew at the same time from their own experience that this straw is an excellent combustible. They certainly surpassed scholasticism, but after having attained its aim. For the aim of scholastic effort is contemplation, and it is gnosis [mystique] which is the fruit of the scholastic tree. ~ Valentin Tomberg, Letter XIX The Sun
The idea of a Christian gnosis is not widely accepted. That is as it should be, since gnosis is not something that can be taught but must be experienced. It is not necessary for salvation, so it may be safely ignored if it means nothing to you, and it should be ignored. Nevertheless, there are some who are called to follow the path of gnosis.
If you are not convinced of the existence of a Christian gnosis, there are resources you can turn to. Knowledge & the Sacred by Seyyed Hossein Nasr is a near encyclopedic compendium of gnosis. The Transcendental Universe by C. G. Harrison deals with specific issues of Christian Gnosis. Finally, Christianity: Dogmatic Faith & Gnostic Vivifying Knowledge by George Heart deals with the transmutation of faith to gnosis.
Here, we will review Christian Gnosis: From St. Paul to Meister Eckhart by Wolfgang Smith. Unlike other men of Tradition who accept a more or less universal gnosis, Smith will show that a specifically Christian gnosis goes beyond what other sapiential traditions can offer. He bases this on the doctrine of the Trinity, especially as it appears in Meister Eckhart.
We can but point out the highlights of Dr. Smith’s book, and we do it with the following goals in mind:
- To encourage you to read Dr. Smith’s book yourself
- To encourage you to read the saints and sages mentioned by Smith
- To encourage you to follow the path of gnosis yourself, if you are called to it
Paul
Woe to you lawyers, for you have taken away the key of gnosis: you yourselves have not entered in, and those that were entering in, you have hindered. ~ Luke 11:52
Smith announces his intent
is to understand, as clearly as we can, what gnosis is, and what role it plays in the perfection of Christian life.
First of all, he justifies the notion of “gnosis” against the prejudice against it. As Christ points out, the “legalists” are those who take away the key of gnosis. On the other hand, there is a gnosis that “puffs up”, and another that is “knowing as we should.” (1 Corinthians 8:1,2)
The issue is simple: gnosis is for the few (1 Cor. 13:8-10), it is the “meat” of doctrine, not the “milk”. Hence, it will be hidden from most, who then will plausibly deny its existence. St Thomas Aquinas defines gnosis this way:
As God works miracles in corporeal things, so also he does supernatural wonders above the natural order, raising the minds of some living in the flesh beyond the use of sense, even up to the vision of his own essence.
Clement
Smith then refers to Clement of Alexandria as the “expositor par excellence of gnosis”, since he embodies both the wisdom of the Greeks and the gnosis bestowed by Christ. Clement refers to an oral tradition that came to him directly through the Apostles (pace Sola Scriptura). Hence, Clement admits that some things cannot be written down.
Clement describes the qualities of the “perfect man”, which bears comparison to the “true man” of Taoism. Such a man is “impassible”, i.e., transcends the movements of pleasure and pain, fear and desire, and so on. He is in a state of “gnostic love”.
Clement describes a conversion, a metanoia, that happens in the “twinkling of an eye”. The conversion is to a divine vision characterized by the negation of duality. Smith draws out the consequences of nonduality. Nonduality is not a “monism” like the night in which all cows are black. Rather gnosis is to be united to God while ignorance or disbelief is to be separated and divided.
Vedanta
Besides Christian gnosis, Smith acknowledges three other traditions of gnosis: Kabbalah, Tantrism, and Vedanta. We discussed Tantrism earlier when reviewing Oscar Hinze. The Vedanta, according to Smith, constitutes the oldest living tradition of gnosis. Therefore, there are ultimately two choices for doctrinal gnosis: the Christian and the Vedantic. Doctrinal gnosis is what can be spoken about, bearing in mind that true gnosis is beyond words and thoughts.
Without dismissing the Vedanta, Smith denies that Christian gnosis is merely a form of the Vedanta. Rather, it likewise is nondualist, yet the Trinitarian aspect adds a new dimension that is not reducible to the metaphysics of the Vedanta. Nevertheless, the encounter with the Vedanta is providential. The goal of that encounter is not to borrow from Eastern sources, Rather it is an anamnesis, a remembering of what had been forgotten.
The Kabbalah embodies the oral transmission pertaining to the Mosaic Revelation, providing access to the esoteric sense of the Torah. Smith devotes two chapters to the Kabbalah, concluding with its Christian development.
The next part of the review will consider the topics of Cosmology, Christian Kabbalah, Jacob Boehme, and Meister Eckhart.
See Part II
I can see now that I need to have my posts reviewed by a committee for vocabulary and tone prior to publication. LMK if anyone wants the job.
When you start using “Gnosis” to refer to non-Christian esotericism, it would be better simply to speak of the esoteric or mystic, and to understand that the Esoteric within Hinduism is not at all the same as the Esoteric within Christianity.
good translation.
thank you.
but i am still waiting for an answer to the question concerning trinity….
veritas omnia vincit.
peace.
“It is quite true that the triplicity of the principle aspects of Ishwara which constitutes the Trimurti does not correspond to the Christian Trinity, nor did I claim that. There is in Hindu doctrine something else that has a closer relationship with the Trinity; however, I have not spoken of that at all, and intentionally.” (Letter to Denis Boulet)
l est très vrai que la triplicité des aspects principaux d’Îshwara qui constitue la Trimûrti ne correspond pas à la Trinité chrétienne, mais je ne l’ai pas prétendu non plus. Il y a dans la doctrine hindoue autre chose qui a beaucoup plus de rapports avec la Trinité ; seulement, je n’en ai pas parlé du tout, et avec intention.
lettre de René Guenon à Denis Boulet 28 juillet 1921.
does this mean that “sat / chit / ananda” is this aspect of hindu doctrine which is similar to christian trinity?
slalom alleycum
” Il est très vrai que la triplicité des aspects principaux d’Îshwara qui constitue la Trimûrti ne correspond pas à la Trinité chrétienne, mais je ne l’ai pas prétendu non plus. Il y a dans la doctrine hindoue autre chose qui a beaucoup plus de rapports avec la Trinité ; seulement, je n’en ai pas parlé du tout, et avec intention”
lettre René Guenon à Denis Boulet 28 juillet 21
does this means that sat/chit/ananda,as triple aspect of The Supreme,is this “something which is more similar to trinity ?
@Cassiodorus, we will get to Smith’s Trinitarian nondualism, although he attributes it to Eckhart, not himself. I don’t know Borella’s view on it, although Smith does mention him several times.
You are correct, it is a deviation from Guenon, yet not in the way of a refutation.
Keep in mind the dogmas like the Trinity used to be restricted to initiates, and were not intended for the general public.
Colegero,
I an hoping that you will be discussing Smith’s Trinitarian nondualism. I am not sure- but I think it is not actually in alignment with Guenon and Schuon’s metaphysical point of view. It seems to me that Wolfgang Smith’s position resembles that of Jean Borella’s or perhaps Robert Bolton?
This is a great book dear Friend. It’s great you’ve recently taken Wolfgang Smith’s opuses in deeper examination. Was it me who first recommend it to you? I have given this book two times from my bookshelf to dear friends, as a Christmas present and so on. I’ve read and bought all Susijengi Sepän (Wolfgang Smith’s) books and they have been life’s changing lately. I loaned three of his books to psychologist-fyscicist Friend of mine and he became interested. Well, to cut the story short, namaste.