Cusa's "On the Hidden God"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Marc_Anthony

Guest
schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/921_Cusa_Hidden_God.html

A Dialogue of Two Men
The One a Gentile, the Other a Christian
On The Hidden God
(1444)
Nicolaus of Cusa

A very interesting piece written by Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa (born in 1401). It depicts a fascinating dialogue between a gentile and a Christian.

I want to learn more about this Cardinal. He seemed like an incredible man, very much ahead of his time.

What do you guys take from the article?

Catholics? Atheists? Those of other religions?

I think…this is certainly a very polite gentile.
 
The great mystic St John of the Cross wrote “That thou mayest know everything,seek to know nothing”. St Thomas Aquinas also advocated the via negativa because God is not an object in the universe and it is not possible to describe the Deus absconditus with words or to grasp Supreme Reality with our finite intelligence. The highest form of knowledge is not via the intellect but through love…
 
Thanks, Marc! I read that in it’s entirety and was very moved. And Tonyrey, I agree wtih your quote form St. John. But I am baffled by something:

When Cusa, St, John, or some others of the Catholic mysitcs say this exact thing, or very very similar, it is blessed, holy, and acceptable. If Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, or any of a litany of other non-Catholics East or West, past or present, say this exact, precisely same thing, it is suddeny anathema. Why is that?
 
Turlock2 said:
Thanks, Marc! I read that in it’s entirety and was very moved. And Tonyrey, I agree wtih your quote form St. John. But I am baffled by something:

When Cusa, St, John, or some others of the Catholic mysitcs say this exact thing, or very very similar, it is blessed, holy, and acceptable. If Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, or any of a litany of other non-Catholics East or West, past or present, say this exact, precisely same thing, it is suddeny anathema. Why is that?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum!

Who said it is anathema? The truth is not confined to Catholics.
 
The whole dialogue strikes me as inane. For example, the Christian speaking:

C: I know, that everything which I know, is not God, and that everything I conceive, is no comparison to Him, but rather He excels it.

Compare that, for example with Genesis, where it says God made Adam and Eve in His image and likeness. That is a compelling argument from Scripture that we can recognize aspects of God in ourselves. Likewise, we know that the Son of God took on human nature, so that we could know God better.

Mysticism is good up to a point, and then it becomes a love affair with shadows.
 
Yes, Charlemagne II, that argument works for anyone who has not done the work to experience the reproducible and definable stages of mysticism leading to the insights we are citing. You can criticize all you want as an excercise in intellectual assertion. But why not do the work and join the conversation from an experiential point of view?
 
@Tonyrey: Yes, my friend, but you evidently are far more open to the Universal that underlies theology. If Cusa had not been labeled a Catholic in this case, he would be easily be in the company (he is already) of those non dualists I mentioned before. And that seems to cause some controversy amongst many of our Catholic bretheren and sisteren, 🙂
 
Turlock

*Yes, Charlemagne II, that argument works for anyone who has not done the work to experience the reproducible and definable stages of mysticism leading to the insights we are citing. You can criticize all you want as an excercise in intellectual assertion. But why not do the work and join the conversation from an experiential point of view? *

Your remarks are nearly as vague as the good Cardinal’s. More dancing with shadows? 😉

Could you be more specific about** “experiential point of view”**?

By the way, what does “former Roman Catholic” mean? Or is that supposed to be a mystery too? :confused:
 
Hi Charlemagne II,

Former Roman Catholic might be somewhat self exploanatory for many; it means that I no longer practice as a member of the Church, having found something more inclusive.

Can I be more specific about an “experiential point of view?” Yes, I can. It means that you can experience for yourself what Cusa and the others mean when they talk that way if you do the work. If you don’t, it will remain opaque to you. Pretty simple. It’s like telling someone that they can’t know what Catholicism is until they experience it. You might have recommended exactly that to some. I don’t know.

But if you wish to explore a map or guideline relative to what I’m saying, the simplest Q&A formats are in two places, depending on your intellectual preference. One is Part 2, chapter 12 of Ken Wilber’s A Brief History of Everything, or Jac O’Keefe’s Born to be Free. Like I said pretty simple. The first one will take some thought to read, as it corelates many streams that appear to many to be divergant, though they are not. The second is rather straight forward. Enjoy, if you can alloow yourself.
 
Turlock

Former Roman Catholic might be somewhat self exploanatory for many; it means that I no longer practice as a member of the Church, having found something more inclusive.

Looks like I’ll have to be satisfied with an unsolved mystery. 😉
 
Charlemagne II

More correctly stated, perhaps: “I choose to be satisfied with an unslolved mystery.” You are the one, like the Cardinal, deciding not to look through Galileo’s telescope. At least take responsibility. I did.
 
Turlock

I’m taking responsibility for fleeing this black hole of mystery! So long. :sad_bye:
 
Jesus came into the world precisely because we find it difficult to grasp the abstract concept of an intangible Deity. He referred constantly to the **Father, **a closer and more intimate Person than the remote Yahweh of the Old Testament. Yet He insisted that God is Spirit to dispel any anthropomophic notions people may have. His reply to the Sadduccees’ question about the woman with seven husbands made it clear that life in heaven is quite different from life on earth. We are told to worship God in spirit and truth - a precept which disposes for once and for all of primitive practices like sacrificing animals.
“I want mercy not sacrifice…”

The culmination of His mission was the Resurrection, an event which establishes the continuity of this life with the next but also takes us into a completely different realm we cannot hope to understand. Love is the only form of knowledge that guides us through the dark night of the soul - and unites us to God and one another…
 
The Cardinal of Cusa sounds exactly like the non dualists of both East and West, eg Jac O’Keefe, Franklin Merell-Wolff, Ramana Maharshi, etc. Also sounds exactly like what Jesus sounds like from their standpoint. So why does the Church seem to have such a huge problem with such as Tolle and others? He is no way my favorite, but furor about him seems like protesting too much.
 
"C: I know, that everything which I know, is not God, and that everything I conceive, is no comparison to Him, but rather He excels it.

Compare that, for example with Genesis, where it says God made Adam and Eve in His image and likeness. That is a compelling argument from Scripture that we can recognize aspects of God in ourselves. Likewise, we know that the Son of God took on human nature, so that we could know God better."

I don’t understand. Apophatic theology has always been a big part of catholic theology. Dionysius the Areopagite negative theology has greatly influenced the middle age, and he is the most quoted author in Thomas Aquinas writings.
God’s essence is unknowable and he is indeed above everything we can conceive.
I don’t think Cusa was saying something else.
 
I agree with Aquinas, especially his stance after his final revelation of record.
 
azerty said:
"C: I know, that everything which I know, is not God, and that everything I conceive, is no comparison to Him, but rather He excels it.

Compare that, for example with Genesis, where it says God made Adam and Eve in His image and likeness. That is a compelling argument from Scripture that we can recognize aspects of God in ourselves. Likewise, we know that the Son of God took on human nature, so that we could know God better."

I don’t understand. Apophatic theology has always been a big part of catholic theology. Dionysius the Areopagite negative theology has greatly influenced the middle age, and he is the most quoted author in Thomas Aquinas writings.
God’s essence is unknowable and he is indeed above everything we can conceive.
I don’t think Cusa was saying something else.
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction between the unknowability of God and the recognition of aspects of God in ourselves. God is not absolutely unknowable - even inanimate objects point to His existence and creative power. His love is evident in the immense value of life and our love for Him is itself a form of knowledge. As Pascal wrote:

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas…
 
tonyrey said:
There is no contradiction between the unknowability of God and the recognition of aspects of God in ourselves. God is not absolutely unknowable - even inanimate objects point to His existence and creative power. His love is evident in the immense value of life and our love for Him is itself a form of knowledge. As Pascal wrote:

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connait pas…
Click to expand...
That is a quotation of great practicality and accuracy. It is exactly why we approach God through the inquiry of self knowledge used by the mystic. Faith and belief are of the mind and are contentious and seperatist. Just look at the news and the history of religions, save perhaps a few. Yet all the mystics of whatever faith or philosophy are essentially in agreement regardless of time, culture, location, or any other factor. The litany of those who have independently arrived at the core of meaning is long and ancient and amazing of its consistency. It is little surprise that many of them have said “I was not deceived!”
 
winagain said:
That is a quotation of great practicality and accuracy. It is exactly why we approach God through the inquiry of self knowledge used by the mystic. Faith and belief are of the mind and are contentious and seperatist. Just look at the news and the history of religions, save perhaps a few. Yet all the mystics of whatever faith or philosophy are essentially in agreement regardless of time, culture, location, or any other factor. The litany of those who have independently arrived at the core of meaning is long and ancient and amazing of its consistency. It is little surprise that many of them have said “I was not deceived!”
Click to expand...
It is what Aldous Huxley and others have called the Perennial Philosophy. In our secular society many people live in a spiritual desert because they believe science is the only form of knowledge. They are unaware of the laws of personal development…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top