http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset_offsit...10034.html
Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Sufis: From Puritanism to Transcendentalism
By Farhang Jahanpour, Oxford University, UK
Source: Journal of Globalization for the Common Good
"I suppose it is not wise, not being natural, to belong to any religious party. In the Bible you are not directed to be a Unitarian, or a Calvinist or an Episcopalian. Now if a man is wise, he will not only not profess himself to be a Unitarian, but he will say to himself, I am not a member of that or of any party. I am God's child, and disciple of Christ, or, in the eye of God, a fellow disciple with Christ."
"Unitarianism is so broad in its concept that it is sometimes regarded as a departure from the widely accepted traditional Christian beliefs. Nevertheless, the gap separating Unitarianism from Transcendentalism is as wide as that which separates Unitarianism from any Trinitarian Church."
"Although Unitarians rejected the divinity of Christ, still they believed that his station was unique in the history of the world. He was the mediator between God and man, and true salvation could be achieved only through belief in him. "
"The Transcendentalists, on the other hand, regarded Christ like any other prophet. His difference was that of a degree, not of quality. The author of the important article in The Dial proclaimed: "Christ differs from other men only in degree, and the miracles he wrought differ from other men's acts, only as he differs from them. He is to other religious teachers – to Moses, Zoroaster, Socrates, Confucius – what Shakespeare is to other poets."
"The second difference, somewhat related to the first one, was about God's revelation. To the Unitarians, although the Bible had to be read in the light of reason, still its authenticity and importance as a source of guidance could not be doubted. Even more than that, in Channing's view it was "the last and the most perfect revelation" of God to man. But the Transcendentalists believed that man was essentially divine and consequently was himself open to inspiration. "
cont: The Dial - "The Unitarian Movement"
"The first fact that fixed the attention of these inquiries was the recognition of innate ideas, - a source of truth and spiritual influence hidden in the depth of the soul."
Chandogya Upanishad:
"There is a Spirit which is mind and life, light and truth and vast spaces. He contains all works and desires and all perfumes and all tastes. He enfolds the whole universe, and in silence is loving to all. This is the Spirit that is in my heart, smaller than a grain of rice, or a grain of barley, or a grain of mustard-seed, or a grain of canary-seed. This is the Spirit that is in my heart, greater than heaven itself, greater than all these worlds. This is the Spirit that is in my heart, this is Brahma."
The second inquiry concerned "the idea of the Infinite, the Eternal, the Absolute, the Necessary."
"By holding to a unity of essence", the article remarked, "underlying as the basis all the diversities of things existent in nature, it rejects the doctrine of the Trinity, not like the Unitarians, by denying it, but by making it omni-unity, - not a three in one, but as all-in-one."
"The third lesson that they learned from the literature of foreign countries is that evil is negative. It has no independent existence of itself, but it is the absence of good. There is no such thing as hereditary sin. The Transcendentalists then believed: "As we grow wise, just and pure, - in a word, holy, we grow to be one with Him in mode, as we always were in essence."
"Our young people are diseased with the theological problems of original sin, origin of evil, predestination and the like. These never presented a practical difficulty to any man, - never darkened across any man's road who did not go out of his way to seek them. These are the soul's mumps and measles and whooping coughs, and those who have not caught them cannot describe their health or prescribe the cure. A simple mind will not know these enemies."
Re Sufism...........
R. A. Vaughan:
"Oriental mysticism has become famous for its poets; and into poetry it has thrown all its force and fire. The mysticism of the West has produced prophecies and interpretations of prophecy, soliloquies, sermons, and treatises of divinity; - it has found solace in autobiography, and breathed out its sorrow in hymns; - it has essayed, in earnest prose, to revive and to reform the sleeping Church; - but it has never elaborated great poems. In none of the languages of Europe has mysticism achieved the success which crowned it in Persia, and prevailed to raise and rule the poetic culture of a nation. Yet the occidental mysticism has not been wholly lacking in poets of its own order. The seventeenth century can furnish one, and the nineteenth another, - Angelus Silesius and Ralph Waldo Emerson."
"Unlike the cold and intellectual mysticism of Hindu and Buddhist sources or the monkish and pious mysticism of Christian saints, Emerson found the vibrant, poetic and exuberant mysticism of the Sufis much more appealing. Like the Sufis, his mysticism was not a devout, quietist, otherworldly form of mysticism. It was a mysticism that celebrated the glory of God in the beauty of His creation, based on individual responsibility and expressed in the language of poetry. This was the biggest influence the Sufi poets exerted on Emerson's work."
Nice posts, thanks for sharing them.
Interesting posts indeed...what are everyone's thoughts on the Christianity vs. Transcendentalism approach within Unitarianism?
My own personal views on the matter are somewhat mixed. I share the belief in the idea of the Spirit of God as living within every man (what the Quakers call the "Inner Light") and have always admired mysticism (whether in its Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian or Sufi forms-and I haven't found the Hindu or Buddhist forms of mysticism cold, just more low-key than the Sufi mysticism) as I believe all people can directly experience God's presence. Mysticism is the way of loving God with our souls, direct communion with God, living and experience Her presence. That being said I have never viewed mysticism as the only source of Truth-in fact I believe mysticism should be balanced with other forms of revelation, be they religious teachings, practices and traditions, nature, philosophy, reason, etc. As such it keeps mysticism "in check"-both the left and the right brain, head, heart and soul, have their say in the discernment of Truth.
As for the piece on Christology...I personally find it impossible to place Jesus Christ on the same plane as other prophets and teachers. In the words of scholar N.T. Wright "there was something different about Jesus". I don't think traditional Christian orthodoxy has the right answer as to exactly how he was different, but there was something about Jesus that transformed a small, scattered group of people into a major religion; his living presence still experienced by many today; a struggle to rectify the divinity that Christ embodied (a theological debate no other religious founder can claim); and of course the ever-present mystery of the Resurrection. I cannot accept, personally, that Jesus was just another leader-there was something different, something unique, about him.
My own personal view is that all people contain the light of God, and the ability to "unify with God". I believe that Jesus alone actually attained this potential-that he was a human sacrament of God during his life (as Marcus Borg notes Christianity finds God in the person of its founder, not just his teachings), divinized to become the example of the Divine-Man, raised up to new life (he lives), and essentially the "blueprint" of what we all will be. That being said I also believe that despite the fact that Jesus held an exalted status (i.e. he was the Messiah, the Christ) the heart of his mission was to show what it meant to be truly human, to show us that we are all "Sons of God" and to set the pattern through which all of us could attain divinity.
Loosely translated I believe Jesus's mission was to open the door for us, and to show us how to do it. While this Christology is probably higher than that of most Unitarians (it is essentially the beliefs of the Christian Universalist Association) I have found it is what I believe-a system neither orthodox nor heresy, neither true Unitarian nor true Trinitarian. Yes Jesus was special but also utterly like us-a historical man, a human. He embodied divinity in some mysterious way-I don't believe that really "made him God" per se but one can look at him and still see God. I'd also add for the record I believe that many religious traditions, writings and holy figures (the Buddha, Krishna, Muhammed, etc) all offer valuable teachings perfectly compatible with Christianity. In that sense I am a "Jesus Plus" kind of Christian.
Wow...that was longer than I thought it would be. Ummm...any thoughts, anyone?
Great distillation of your ideas...I share many them....mysticism, sorely lacking in much of the West, has played a key role in the lives of many of those we point to as being 'divinely inspired'....just as rationalism is not entirely sufficient, neither is mysticism or devotion etc...all are "integral" to a healthy practice.
Jesus remains an enigma....but I like your statements that: "Jesus's mission was to open the door for us, and to show us how to do it.....the heart of his mission was to show what it meant to be truly human, to show us that we are all "Sons of God" and to set the pattern through which all of us could attain divinity.
However, the man Jesus was a Jew, speaking to Jews, for Jews and within a Jewish eschatology.....when I read the New Testament I see Jesus as a man of his times who was utterly frustrated by the society of his day.....I recognize the power and mystery of his post-crucifixion history...I cannot explain it away yet I cannot fully accept it either. His life, message (most of it anyway) and even spiritual presence can be the focus of your spiritual path even if considered unorthodox....these beliefs are still within the greater historic Unitarian theology as noted above....while being a "...a "Jesus Plus" kind of Christian."
Not too different from Emerson when he stated " I am God's child, and disciple of Christ, or, in the eye of God, a fellow disciple with Christ."
Thanks Eruonen. I do recognize that in seeing Jesus as a historical man it is important to recognize his cultural context as that explains how he spoke and to whom he was speaking. Unlike some people today I don't divide his words into those of the "historical Jesus" or "Christ of Faith/Cosmic Christ", which seems to be a popular trend today. Rather I think many of Jesus' teachings continue to transcend his time (I still seem his greatest relevance to us as his being primarily a moral and spiritual Teacher), while others of his teachings may have been relevant only to those to whom he spoke.
It is an interesting matter as to how Jesus saw himself, since Scripture seems to suggest that he didn't have a particularly clear understanding of who he was (at some moments it seemed clearer than others but Jesus definitely wasn't a systematic theologian). Based on a reading of the Gospels it appears that Jesus first saw his mission directed primarily at the "Lost Sheep" of Israel and only later towards all of humanity-suggesting he himself had a revelation of sorts. It is only interesting to wonder exactly how much access to the mind of God he had (whether he was just an exceptional mystic or something more)-did he know more than his contemporaries or was his scope of understanding about equal to other Jewish prophets? Some Scriptures hint that he did in fact know more but withheld telling his disciples these things since he knew they would need to be progressively revealed.
One last thing I thought I'd add: Since I still love reading the thoughts of early Unitarians I'd attach a link to the following essay:
http://www.americanunitarian.org/sunderl...nation.htm The following parts of particular interest:
In other words, it affirms the divine incarnation not only in Christ but also in all humanity
What then is to be presumed as antecedently probable regarding an incarnation? If God is to incarnate himself, will it be likely to take place in manner different from anything else in nature—in a corner, in some one special age, in some single special land, in a little special town in that land, in some one human being born in an unusual and exceptional way? Is that according to the manner of God's great works and ways? I think we must say that at least the presumption is against an incarnation in such a special, limited, and unnatural manner.
What, then, follows from all this? Does it follow that God was not in Christ? By no means. Does it follow that Christ was not divine? Far from that. What follows is that Christ's divineness of nature was not different in kind, but only in degree, from yours and mine. God was in him, but also God is in all humanity. Jesus was simply the tallest soul among his brethren, one in whom the divine spirit rose to an unwonted fullness and power of manifestation, a man of rare genius, nobleness and strength, but whose crowning spiritual quality lay in his seemingly perfect union in mind and will with the mind and will of God, so that he was able to say with a deeper and loftier meaning than had ever been given to the words before, "I and my Father are one."
If Jesus was "Son of God," in this he was not exceptional. His sonship lay not in any such questionable claim as that of being born of a virgin, and therefore differently from his brethren, but in the deep and essential divineness of the nature of man. It lay not in his being less a man than others, but more a man than others. He called himself "Son of God" and "Son of Man"—shall we not say he was preeminent as Son of God because he was preeminent as Son of Man?
Brilliant piece....
"Jesus was simply the tallest soul among his brethren, one in whom the divine spirit rose to an unwonted fullness and power of manifestation, a man of rare genius, nobleness and strength, but whose crowning spiritual quality lay in his seemingly perfect union in mind and will with the mind and will of God, so that he was able to say with a deeper and loftier meaning than had ever been given to the words before, "I and my Father are one."