2021/11/19

Logos (Christianity) - Wikipedia


로고스 (기독교)
위키백과, 우리 모두의 백과사전.


둘러보기로 이동검색으로 이동

남 캐롤리나, 찰스턴 세인트 매튜의 독일 복음주의 루터 교회에서 하느님의 말씀 창문

그리스도론에서, 
로고스(그리스어: Λόγος 로고스, "말씀", "담론" 또는 "이유" i.e., 순리성 또는 추리)는

  삼위일체 신의 두 번째 선재 존재로 간주되는, 예수 그리스도의 이름 혹은 칭호이다. 이는 신격과 도덕 예수 그리스도와 칼케돈 신조에 명시된 대로 삼위일체 신학자들에 의해 삼위일체의 성자로서 자신의 위치의 교리를 확립하는 노력에 중요했다.






Logos (Christianity) - Wikipedia

Logos (Christianity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
For the concept in philosophy, rhetoric, linguistics, psychology, and theology, see Logos.
Word of God Window at St. Matthew's German Evangelical Lutheran Church in Charleston, South Carolina
In principio erat verbum, Latin for In the beginning was the Word, from the Clementine Vulgate, Gospel of John, 1:1–18.

In Christology, the Logos (Greek: Λόγος, lit. 'word, discourse, or reason')[1] is a name or title of Jesus Christ, seen as the pre-existent second person of the Trinity. The concept derives from John 1:1, which in the Douay–Rheims, King James, New International, and other versions of the Bible, reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.[2][3][4]

In the translations, Word is used for Λόγος, although the term is often used transliterated but untranslated in theological discourse.

According to Irenaeus of Lyon (c 130–202) a student of John's disciple Polycarp (c pre-69-156), John the Apostle wrote these words specifically to refute the teachings of Cerinthus,[5] who both resided and taught at Ephesus, the city John settled in following his return from exile on Patmos.[6] Cerinthus believed that the world was created by a power far removed from and ignorant of the Father, and that the Christ descended upon the man Jesus at his baptism, and that strict adherence to the Mosaic Law was absolutely necessary for salvation. Irenaeus writes;

The disciple of the Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."[7]

Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator

Bible[edit]

Johannine literature[edit]

Further information: John 1:1 § John 1:1 in English versions

Stephen L. Harris claims that John adapted Philo's concept of the Logos, identifying Jesus as an incarnation of the divine Logos that formed the universe.[8]

While John 1:1 is generally considered the first mention of the Logos in the New Testament, chronologically the first reference occurs is in the book of Revelation (c 85).[citation needed] In it the Logos is spoken of as the name of Jesus, who at the Second Coming rides a white horse into the Battle of Armageddon wearing many crowns, and is identified as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords:[19:11-16]

He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God . . . And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "king of kings, and lord of lords".[9]

John 1's subject is developed in the First Epistle of John.[10][11][12][13]

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life.

— 1 John 1:1 (NIV)

Luke 1:2[edit]

David Lyle Jeffrey[14] and Leon Morris[15] have seen in Luke 1:2 a first reference to Logos and beginning:

... just as those who from the beginning (Greek archē) were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Greek logos) have delivered them to us.

— Luke 1:2 (ESV)

Septuagint[edit]

Certain references to the term logos in the Septuagint in Christian theology are taken as prefiguring New Testament usage such as Psalm 33:6, which relates directly to the Genesis creation narrative.[16] Theophilus of Antioch references the connection in To Autolycus 1:7.[17] Irenaeus of Lyon demonstrates from this passage that the Logos, which is the Son, and Wisdom, which is the Spirit, were present with the Father "anterior to all creation," and by them the Father made all things.[18] Origen of Alexandria likewise sees in it the operation of the Trinity, a mystery intimated beforehand by the Psalmist David.[19] Augustine of Hippo considered that in Ps.33:6 both logos and pneuma were "on the verge of being personified".[20]

τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν

By the word logos of the Lord were the heavens established, and all the host of them by the spirit (pneuma) of his mouth

— Psalm 33:6

Early Christianity[edit]

Ignatius of Antioch[edit]

The first extant Christian reference to the Logos found in writings outside of the Johannine literature belongs to John's disciple Ignatius (c 35-108), Bishop of Antioch, who in his epistle to the Magnesians, writes, "there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word, not proceeding forth from silence,"[21] (i.e., there was not a time when he did not exist). In similar fashion, he speaks to the Ephesians of the son as "possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible"[22]

Justin Martyr[edit]

Following John 1, the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr (c 150) identifies Jesus as the Logos.[23][24][25] Like Philo, Justin also identified the Logos with the Angel of the Lord, and he also identified the Logos with the many other theophanies of the Old Testament, and used this as a way of arguing for Christianity to Jews:

I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;[26][27]


In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin relates how Christians maintain that the Logos,

...is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He makes it return to Himself . . . And that this power which the prophetic word calls God . . . is not numbered [as different] in name only like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct, I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same.[28][29]

In his First Apology, Justin used the Stoic concept of the Logos to his advantage as a way of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. Since a Greek audience would accept this concept, his argument could concentrate on identifying this Logos with Jesus.[23]

Theophilus of Antioch[edit]

Theophilus of Antioch

Theophilus, the Patriarch of Antioch, (died c 180) likewise, in his Apology to Autolycus, identifies the Logos as the Son of God, who was at one time internal within the Father, but was begotten by the Father before creation:

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing. God, then, having His own Word internal within His own bowels, begot Him, emitting Him along with His own wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were created by Him, and by Him He made all things . . . Not as the poets and writers of myths talk of the sons of gods begotten from intercourse [with women], but as truth expounds, the Word, that always exists, residing within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He had Him as a counsellor, being His own mind and thought. But when God wished to make all that He determined on, He begot this Word, uttered, the first-born of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word [Reason], but having begotten Reason, and always conversing with His Reason.[30]

He sees in the text of Psalm 33:6 the operation of the Trinity, following the early practice as identifying the Holy Spirit as the Wisdom (Sophia) of God,[31] when he writes that "God by His own Word and Wisdom made all things; for by His Word were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the Spirit of His mouth"[32] So he expresses in his second letter to Autolycus, "In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom."[33]

Athenagoras of Athens[edit]

By the third quarter of the second century, persecution had been waged against Christianity in many forms. Because of their denial of the Roman gods, and their refusal to participate in sacrifices of the Imperial cult, Christians were suffering persecution as "atheists."[34] Therefore the early Christian apologist Athenagoras (c 133 – c 190 AD), in his Embassy or Plea to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus on behalf of Christianity (c 176), makes defense by an expression of the Christian faith against this claim. As a part of this defense, he articulates the doctrine of the Logos, expressing the paradox of the Logos being both "the Son of God" as well as "God the Son," and of the Logos being both the Son of the Father as well as being one with the Father,[35] saying,

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order? . . . the Son of God is the Word [Logos] of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the understanding [Nous] and reason [Logos] of the Father is the Son of God. But if, in your surpassing intelligence, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by the Son, I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father, not as having been brought into existence (for from the beginning, God, who is the eternal mind [Nous], had the Word in Himself, being from eternity rational [Logikos]; but inasmuch as He came forth to be the idea and energizing power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes, and an inactive earth, the grosser particles being mixed up with the lighter...)[36]

Athenagoras further appeals to the joint rule of the Roman Emperor with his son Commodus, as an illustration of the Father and the Word, his Son, to whom he maintains all things are subjected, saying,

For as all things are subservient to you, father and son, who have received the kingdom from above (for "the king's soul is in the hand of God," says the prophetic Spirit), so to the one God and the Word proceeding from Him, the Son, apprehended by us as inseparable from Him, all things are in like manner subjected.[37]

In this defense he uses terminology common with the philosophies of his day (Nous, Logos, Logikos, Sophia) as a means of making the Christian doctrine relatable to the philosophies of his day.

Irenaeus of Lyon[edit]

Irenaeus (c 130–202), a student of the Apostle John's disciple, Polycarp, identifies the Logos as Jesus, by whom all things were made,[38] and who before his incarnation appeared to men in the theophany, conversing with the ante-Mosaic Patriarchs,[39] with Moses at the burning bush,[40] with Abraham at Mamre,[41] et al.,[42] manifesting to them the unseen things of the Father.[43] After these things, the Logos became man and suffered the death of the cross.[44] In his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus defines the second point of the faith, after the Father, as this:

The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man.[45]

Irenaeus writes that Logos is and always has been the Son, is uncreated, eternally-coexistent[46] and one with the Father,[47][48][38][49] to whom the Father spoke at creation saying, "Let us make man."[50] As such, he distinguishes between creature and Creator, so that,

He indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which belongs to the Creator [51]

Again, in his fourth book against heresies, after identifying Christ as the Word, who spoke to Moses at the burning bush, he writes, "Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was manifested to the fathers."[52]

Gnosticism[edit]

In the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also known as the Gospel of the Egyptians), a text from early Christian Gnosticism, the Logos appears as a divine emanation or aeon of the great spirit or Monad and mingles with the primordial Adam.[53]

Post-Nicene Christianity[edit]

Further information: Neoplatonism and Christianity

The Logos is God, begotten and therefore distinguishable from the Father, but, being God, of the same substance (essence). This was decreed at the First Council of Constantinople (381).[citation needed]

Photinus denied that the Logos as the Wisdom of God had an existence of its own before the birth of Christ.[54]

Post-apostolic Christian writers struggled with the question of the identity of Jesus and the Logos, but the Church's doctrine never changed that Jesus was the Logos. Each of the first six councils defined Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human, from the First Council of Nicea (325) to the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681).[55] Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is evil, and that therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Neither did it accept any of the Platonic beliefs that would have made Jesus something less than fully God and fully human at the same time. The original teaching of John's gospel is, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.... And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us."[56] The final Christology of Chalcedon (confirmed by Constantinople III) was that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and that these two natures are inseparable, indivisible, unconfused, and unchangeable.[57]

Modern references[edit]

On April 1, 2005, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI just over two weeks later) referred to the Christian religion as the religion of the Logos:

Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the "Logos." It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything that exists. Today, this should be precisely its philosophical strength, in so far as the problem is whether the world comes from the irrational, and reason is not, therefore, other than a "sub-product," on occasion even harmful of its development or whether the world comes from reason, and is, as a consequence, its criterion and goal. The Christian faith inclines toward this second thesis, thus having, from the purely philosophical point of view, really good cards to play, despite the fact that many today consider only the first thesis as the only modern and rational one par excellence. However, a reason that springs from the irrational, and that is, in the final analysis, itself irrational, does not constitute a solution for our problems. Only creative reason, which in the crucified God is manifested as love, can really show us the way. In the so necessary dialogue between secularists and Catholics, we Christians must be very careful to remain faithful to this fundamental line: to live a faith that comes from the "Logos," from creative reason, and that, because of this, is also open to all that is truly rational.[58]

Catholics can use Logos to refer to the moral law written in human hearts.[citation needed] This comes from Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): "I will write my law on their hearts." St. Justin wrote that those who have not accepted Christ but follow the moral law of their hearts (Logos) follow God, because it is God who has written the moral law in each person's heart. Although man may not explicitly recognize God, he has the spirit of Christ if he follows Jesus' moral laws, written in his heart.[citation needed]

Michael Heller has argued "that Christ is the logos implies that God’s immanence in the world is his rationality".[59]

For Fausto Sozzini, Christ was the Logos, but he denied His pre-existence; He was the Word of God as being His Interpreter (Latin: interpres divinae voluntatis).[60] Nathaniel Lardner and Joseph Priestley considered the Logos a personification of God's wisdom.[61]

Translation[edit]

The Greek term logos is translated in the Vulgate with the Latin verbum. Both logos and verbum are used to translate דבר‎ dabar in the Hebrew Bible.

The translation of last four words of John 1:1 (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) has been a particular topic of debate in Western Christianity in the modern period. This debate mostly centers over the usage of the article ὁ within the clause, where some have argued that the absence of the article before θεός ("God") makes it indefinite and should therefore result in the translation, "and the Word was a god. This translation can be found in the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation,[62] and the Unitarian Thomas Belsham's 1808 revision of William Newcome's translation.[63][64]

Others, ignoring the function of the article altogether, have proposed the translation, "and God was the Word," confusing subject and predicate. Colwell's rule dictates that in this construct, involving an equative verb as well as a predicate nominative in the emphatic position, the article serves to distinguish subject ("the Word") from the predicate ("God"). In such a construction, the predicate, being in the emphatic position, is not to be considered indefinite.[65][66] Therefore the most common English translation is, "the Word was God",[67] although even more emphatic translations such as "the Word was God Himself" (Amplified Bible) or "the Word ... was truly God" (Contemporary English Version) also exist.

Although "word" is the most common translation of the noun logos, other less accepted translations have been used, which have more or less fallen by the grammatical wayside as understanding of the Greek language has increased in the Western world.[68][69] Gordon Clark (1902–1985), for instance, a Calvinist theologian and expert on pre-Socratic philosophy, famously translated Logos as "Logic": "In the beginning was the Logic, and the Logic was with God and the Logic was God."[70] He meant to imply by this translation that the laws of logic were derived from God and formed part of creation, and were therefore not a secular principle imposed on the Christian world view.[citation needed]

Some other translations, such as An American Translation (1935)[71] and Moffatt, New Translation,[72] render it as "the Word was divine".[73]

The question of how to translate Logos is also treated in Goethe's Faust, with lead character Heinrich Faust finally opting for die Tat, ("deed/action"). This interpretation owes itself to the Hebrew דָּבָר (dabhar), which not only means "word", but can also be understood as a deed or thing accomplished: that is, "the word is the highest and noblest function of man and is, for that reason, identical with his action. 'Word' and 'Deed' are thus not two different meanings of dabhar, but the 'deed' is the consequence of the basic meaning inherent in dabhar."[74]

The concept of Logos also appears in the Targums (Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible dating to the first centuries AD), where the term memra (Aramaic for "word") is often used instead of 'the Lord', especially when referring to a manifestation of God that could be construed as anthropomorphic.[75]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Entry λόγος at LSJ online.
  2. ^ John 1:1
  3. ^ John 1:1
  4. ^ John 1:1
  5. ^ Irenaeus. "Against Heresies, 3.11".
  6. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.4
  7. ^ Irenaeus. "Against Heresies, 3.11.1".
  8. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "John" pp. 302–310
  9. ^ Bibleref2|Revelation|19:13, 16 (NASB)}}
  10. ^ John Painter, Daniel J. Harrington 1, 2, and 3 John 2002 p131 "The opening verse of the Gospel shares with 1 John 1:1 the important words arche, "beginning," and logos, "word.""
  11. ^ Dwight Moody Smith First, Second, and Third John 1991 p48 "parallel is perhaps the identification of Jesus as the word (logos) in 1 John 1:1 and John 1:14."
  12. ^ Georg Strecker, Friedrich Wilhelm Horn Theology of the New Testament 2000 p 473 "1–2; not in this absolute sense: 2 John 5–6; 1 John 1:1, ... The subject of the hymn is the divine Logos, who is portrayed as the preexistent mediator..."
  13. ^ Stephen S. Smalley 1, 2, 3 John 2008 p25 "The first clause in 1 John 1:1 will then refer to the pre-existent Logos, and the following three clauses "to the incarnate Logos" "
  14. ^ David L. Jeffrey A Dictionary of biblical tradition in English literature 1992 Page 460 "in his reference to "eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (Luke 1:2) he is certainly speaking of the person as well as the words"
  15. ^ Leon Morris The Gospel according to John 1995 Page 110 "when Luke speaks of those who were "eyewitnesses and servants of the word" (Luke 1:2), it is difficult to escape the impression that by "the word" he means more than the teaching."
  16. ^ 32:6 τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν
  17. ^ Oskar Skarsaune In the shadow of the temple: Jewish influences on early Christianity p342
  18. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 5
  19. ^ Origen, De Principiis, 1.3.7, 4.30
  20. ^ Augustine The Trinity Edmund Hill, John E. Rotelle 1991 p35
  21. ^ Ignatius of Antioch. "Epistle to the Magnesians, 8".
  22. ^ Ignatius of Antioch. "Epistle to the Ephesians, 7".
  23. ^ Jump up to:a b Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr, 1923 (reprint on demand BiblioBazaar, LLC, pp. 139–175. ISBN 1-113-91427-0)
  24. ^ Jules Lebreton, 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Justin Martyr.
  25. ^ Philippe Bobichon, "Filiation divine du Christ et filiation divine des chrétiens dans les écrits de Justin Martyr" in P. de Navascués Benlloch, M. Crespo Losada, A. Sáez Gutiérrez (dir.), Filiación. Cultura pagana, religión de Israel, orígenes del cristianismo, vol. III, Madrid, pp. 337-378 online
  26. ^ Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 61.
  27. ^ Greek critical edition by Philippe Bobichon dialogue online
  28. ^ Justin Martyr. "Dialogue With Trypho, 128, 129".
  29. ^ Greek edition Ph. Bobichon
  30. ^ Theophilus of Antioch. "To Autolycus, 2.10, 22".
  31. ^ His contemporary, Irenaeus of Lyon, citing this same passage, writes,

    By the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by his spirit all their power. Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and grants the reality of being, and the Spirit gives order and form to the diversity of the powers; rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son, and the Spirit the Wisdom of God.” (Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 5).

    This is in contrast with later Christian writings, where "Wisdom" came to be more prominently identified as the Son.

  32. ^ Theophilus of Antioch. "To Autolycus, 1.7".
  33. ^ Theophilus of Antioch. "To Autolycus, 2.15".
  34. ^ Athenagoras, Plea For the Christians, 4
  35. ^ See also Plea, 24: For, as we acknowledge God, and the Logos his Son, and a Holy Spirit, united in power—the Father, the Son, the Spirit, because the Son is the Intelligence [Nous], Word [Logos], Wisdom [Sophia] of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from a fire Adapted from the translation of B.P. Pratten, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, being corrected according to the original Greek.
  36. ^ Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, 10
  37. ^ Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, 18
  38. ^ Jump up to:a b Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.8.3
  39. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.8, "And the Word of God Himself used to converse with the ante-Mosaic patriarchs, in accordance with His divinity and glory . . . Afterwards, being made man for us, He sent the gift of the celestial Spirit over all the earth, protecting us with His wings"
  40. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 2
  41. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.6.1
  42. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 43-47
  43. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.30.9
  44. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 53
  45. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 6
  46. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2.30.9. (see also, 2.25.3; 4.6.2) "He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ: through His Word, who is His Son, through Him He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed; for those [only] know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally co-existing with the Father, from of old, yea, from the beginning, always reveals the Father to Angels, Archangels, Powers, Virtues, and all to whom He wills that God should be revealed."
  47. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 45-47
  48. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2
  49. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.22.1, "But the Word of God is the superior above all, He who is loudly proclaimed in the law: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God'"
  50. ^ Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 55
  51. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.8.3
  52. ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.5.2
  53. ^ Alexander Böhlig; Frederik Wisse (1975). Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2 - The Gospel of the Egyptians (the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) - Volumes 2-3. Brill. Retrieved 2021-10-20.
  54. ^ C. W. Wolfskeel introduction to De immortalitate animae of Augustine: text, translation and commentary 1977 p19
  55. ^ New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia: The 21 Ecumenical Councils, available at 14388.
  56. ^ John 1:1;14 NIV with Greek inserted.
  57. ^ Donald Macleod: The Person of Christ, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998), 185.
  58. ^ Ratzinger, Cardinal Joseph (April 1, 2005). "Cardinal Ratzinger On Europe's Crisis of Culture". Catholic Education Resource Center. Archived from the original on December 3, 2018. }}
  59. ^ Heller, Michael. Creative Tension: Essays on Religion and Science. Philadelphia, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2003. ISBN 1-932031-34-0.
  60. ^ The Catholic encyclopedia
  61. ^ Isabel Rivers, David L. Wykes Joseph Priestley, scientist, philosopher, and theologian 2008 p36 "As historians have pointed out, it does seem surprising that Priestley should have been influenced to change his opinions at this date by A Letter...Concerning...the Logos by the Biblical scholar Nathaniel Lardner (1684–1768)"
  62. ^ New World Translation.
  63. ^ "The New Testament: in an improved version upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation, with a corrected text, and notes critical and explanatory". Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  64. ^ For problems with this translation, see Bruce M. Metzger, "The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal" Theology Today 10/1 (April 1953), pp. 65-85.
  65. ^ Wallace, Daniel (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan. pp. 40–43, 256–262.
  66. ^ E. C. Colwell. “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 13, 21; 12-21 for full duscussion. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, “On the Translation of John i. 1.” Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.
  67. ^ e.g. King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, and Young's Literal Translation,
  68. ^ Wallace, Daniel (1996). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Zondervan. p. 258. ISBN 0-310-21895-0.
  69. ^ E. C. Colwell. “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LII (1933), 12-21. Cf. also B. M. Metzger, “On the Translation of John i. 1.” Expository Times, LXIII (1951-52), 125 f., and C. F. D. Moule, The Language of the New Testament, Inaugural Lecture, delivered at Cambridge University on May 23, 1952, pp. 12-14.
  70. ^ Daniel B. Wallace and M. James Sawyer (eds), Who's Afraid of the Holy Spirit?, Biblical Studies Press, 2005, p. 269, ISBN 0-7375-0068-9.
  71. ^ "An American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed)". Innvista. Retrieved 2015-04-27.
  72. ^ "Moffatt, New Translation". Innvista. Archived from the original on 2012-03-14. Retrieved 2012-03-14.
  73. ^ Francis J. Moloney and Daniel J. Harrington, The Gospel of John, Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 35. ISBN 0-8146-5806-7.
  74. ^ Boman, Thorleif (1960). Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 65, 66. ISBN 978-0-393-00534-9.
  75. ^ Kohler, Kauffman (1901–1906). "Memra (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos")". In Singer, Isidore; Funk, Isaac K.; Vizetelly, Frank H. (eds.). Jewish Encyclopedia. 8. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. pp. 464–465.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Borgen, Peder. Early Christianity and Hellenistic Judaism. Edinburgh: T & T Clark Publishing. 1996.
  • Brown, Raymond. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday. 1997.
  • Butler, Clark. G.W.F. Hegel. Boston: Twayne Publishing. 1977.
  • Dillion, J. M. “Plato/Platonism." in The Dictionary of the New Testament Background. ed. by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. (CD-ROM) Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2000.
  • Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature. ed. by Henry A. Fischel. New York: KTAV Publishing House. 1977.
  • Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1993.
  • Freund, Richard A. Secrets of the Cave of Letters. Amherst, New York: Humanity Books. 2004.
  • Greene, Colin J. D. Christology in Cultural Perspective: Marking Out the Horizons. Grand Rapids: InterVarsity Press. Eerdmans Publishing. 2003.
  • Hillar, Marian. Philo of Alexandria (20BCE – 50CE). in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. 2006. Available at iep.edu[permanent dead link]
  • Hillar, Marian. From Logos to Trinity. The Evolution of Religious Beliefs from Pythagoras to Tertullian. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
  • Holt, Bradley P. Thirsty for God: A Brief History of Christian Spirituality. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2005.
  • Josephus, Flavius. Complete Works. trans. and ed. by William Whiston. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publishing. 1960.
  • Lebreton, J. (1910). The Logos. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 29, 2011 from New Advent.
  • Letham, Robert. The Work of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1993.
  • Macleod, Donald. The Person of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1998.
  • McGrath, Alister. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. 1998.
  • Moore, Edwin. “Neoplatonism." in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ed. by James Fieser and Bradley Dowden. 2006. Available at iep.edu[permanent dead link]
  • Neusner, Jacob. From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism. Providence, R. I.: Brown University. 1973.
  • Norris, Richard A. Jr. The Christological Controversy. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1980.
  • O'Collins, Gerald. Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 2009.
  • Pelikan, Jaroslav. Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena. London: Yale University Press. 1969.
  • _______ The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1971.
  • Robertson, J. A. T. Redating the New Testament. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. 1985.
  • Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. ed, by Steven Fine. New York: Oxford Press. 1996.
  • Schweitzer, Albert. Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of the Progress from Reimarus to Wrede. trans. by W. Montgomery. London: A & C Black. 1931.
  • Turner, William. “Neo-Platonism." in New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia. ed by John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York, 2006. Available at http://newadvent.org./cathen/10742b.htm.
  • Tyson, John R. Invitation to Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Anthology. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999.
  • Westerholm, S. “Pharisees." in The Dictionary of New Testament Background. ed. by Craig A. Evans and Stanley E. Porter. (CD-ROM) Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 2000.
  • Wilson, R. Mcl. Gnosis and the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1968.
  • Witherington, Ben III. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1995.
  • _______ “The Gospel of John." in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. by Joel Greene, Scot McKnight and I. Howard
  • Marshall. (CD-ROM) Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press. 1992.
  • Yamauchi, Edwin. Pre-Christian Gnosticism: A Survey of the Proposed Evidence. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing. 1973.

External links[edit]

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

Benet Canfield - Wikipedia

Benet Canfield - Wikipedia

Benet Canfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search

Benet Canfield, also known as Father Benet, Benoit of Canfield, or Benoît de Canfeld, (1562–1610), was an English Recusant and mystic. His Rule of Perfection served as a manual two or three generations of mystics.[1] For his influence on Madame Acarie, Pierre de Bérulle, André Duval, and Vincent de Paul he has been called the "Masters of masters".[2]

Life[edit]

Benet was born William Fitch at Little Canfield in Essex, the third of four sons of his father's second marriage. Around 1579 he began studies in London, at New Inn, one of the eight Inns of Chancery, and then at Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court.[3] A discussion with a Dissenter convinced him that all Reformed theology was flawed (including that of his own Anglican Church).

Fitch came upon Robert Persons's "The first booke of the Christian exercise, appertayning to Resolution",[4] an important devotional work of the time, and decided to convert to Catholicism, then illegal in England. He went to study at the English Catholic college at Douai in Belgium, a major centre for English Recusants, or Catholics in exile, during the Elizabethan period. He entered the Capuchin order as a Friar in 1587 and was given the religious name of Benoît de Canfeld, "Benoît" the French form of Benedict, but in English he used the older form, Benet.[3]

Completing his theological studies in Italy, he returned to Britain around 1599 and was immediately imprisoned, where he wrote his theological allegory, Le chevalier Chrestien. He was banished to France on an appeal by Henry IV of France in the spring of 1603. He became Master of Novices at Rouen in 1608, and was well known in the French Court. Benet was a teacher of Pierre de Bérulle, founder of the French school of spirituality, and of many interested in the spiritual renewal of France.[5] Benet died in Paris on 21 November 1610.[6]

Works[edit]

In 1609, towards the end of his life, Benet published his masterpiece, Règle de perfection réduite au seul point de la volonté divine (Rule of Perfection). This work fell under the disapproval of the Church in the early 17th century, and is therefore less well-known than Holy Wisdom by his contemporary and associate Augustine Baker. Both authors deal with the subject of contemplative prayer, the deep form of prayer followed in monastic orders. Canfield was probably influenced by the Flemish mystic Jan Ruusbroec.[5]

His Way of Perfection began to circulate widely in manuscript and even more widely in unauthorised printed editions. A letter of approbation printed at the beginning of The Rule of Perfection is signed by a number of doctors of the Sorbonne, including André Duval,[3] who introduced it to Vincent de Paul. Vincent's words, "Do not tread on the heels of Providence," are taken from Canfield.[5] This treatise "The Will of God" was translated into Latin in 1625 by order of the Minister General of the Order.[7]

Benet brought out official editions of the first two parts of his work, but unfortunately not of the third, because he sensed stirrings of criticism from orthodox theologians about the boldness of his teachings on the higher levels of prayer. As a result, this third part is known only in its French and Italian translations, in which Benet had incorporated more conventional devotional elements to ensure its acceptability as an ascetical handbook. In this he failed as it was put on the Index of the Catholic Church in 1689 on the grounds that it came too close to the ideas of the Quietists who were then the subject of a major controversy, although it was not considered to be actually heretical.

The book was rediscovered by Aldous Huxley in the 1940s and summarised in his book Grey Eminence as an example of the common ground between Eastern and Western mysticism. In the 1950s he came back to the attention of Catholics with the republication of The Lives of Ange De Joyeuse and Benet Canfield (1623), given as by Jacques Brousse, but actually containing a large part of Father Benet's autobiography.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Bremond, Henri. History of Religious Feeling in France, Chap. 3, Paris, 1923
  2. ^ Newkirk OCDS, Terry. "The Mantle of Elijah, The Martyrs of Compiègne, Institute of Carmelite Studies, 1995 Archived 12 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c "Canfield, Benet of", Vincentian Encyclopedia
  4. ^ Robert Persons S.J.: The Christian Directory (1582): The First Booke of the Christian Exercise, Appertayning to Resolution. BRILL. 1998. ISBN 978-90-04-11009-0. Retrieved 17 July 2013.
  5. ^ Jump up to:a b c O'Donnell, Hugh C.M. (1995) "Apostolic Reflection," Vincentian Heritage Journal: Vol. 16: Iss. 2, Article 2
  6. ^ Innes, Stephen (2004). "Fitch, William [Benet of Canfield] (1562–1610)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/4550. Retrieved 26 March 2013. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  7. ^ Hess, Lawrence. "William Benedict Fytch." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 6. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. 24 January 2016

External links[edit]


Posted by at
Labels: ,

동사섭 – DocuHut

동사섭 – DocuHut


명상

동사섭

16
5월

dongsasub.org

 

마음알기, 마음 다루기, 마음 나누기

 

사슬 중 왕초 사슬은 ‘나는 사장이다’라거나

‘나는 교사다’라거나 ‘나는 어른이다’ 등의

‘나는 ~이다’

사슬입니다.

‘~이다’ 라며 자신을 옥죄고 있는 사슬을 던져버리십시오.

 

딸기, 노을, 달님······. 자기가 새로 지은 생소한 이름표에, 처음 만난 사람들, 충남 논산 삼동원에서 동사섭 법회에 참가한 이들은 반별 모임에서도 서먹서먹한 기분을 감추지 못했다. 거울님(용타 스님) 반의 덕유산도, 흐름도, 별님도 자신의 껍질을 깨려 하지 않았다.

동사섭(同事欇)이란 스스로 실천을 통해 선업을 쌓는 보살의 수행으로 권장하는 불교의 사섭법(四攝法) 가운데 하나로, 고통 받는 중생과 희노애락을 함께하는 것을 말한다. 사섭법에는 중생이 바라는 바를 베푸는 보시섭(布施欇), 부드럽고 따뜻한 말을 하는 애어섭(愛語欇), 중생을 이익되게 하는 이행섭(利行欇), 그리고 중생의 고통을 아파하고 어려움에 처해 있는 사람의 아픔을 어루만져주는 동사섭이 있다.

먼저 ‘마음 나누기’ 시간이었다. 10여 명씩 조를 나눠 각 방에 빙 둘러 앉았다. 용타 스님은 무엇보다 다른 사람의 말을 경청하게 했다. 다른 이들의 말이 채 끝나기도 전에 말을 가로채는 경우가 적지 않기 때문이다. 그리고 말을 이어받은 사람은 앞사람이 한 말을 똑같이 되풀이하고 그의 말에 공감을 표한 뒤 자신의 의견을 낸다.

그러나 상대의 말을 가로채거나, 급히 자신의 주장에만 목소리를 높이는 대화 습관에 젖어 있던 사람들은 용타 스님이 제시하는 대화법에 적응하지 못해 금세 얼굴이 일그러지곤 했다. 더구나 용타 스님은 말을 할 때 단지 인지한 사실만을 얘기하지 말고 가슴속의 느낌까지 표현하라고 독려했다. 예를 들어 외출했다 돌아온 아버지에게 ‘오셨어요’라며 ‘사실’만을 얘기할 게 아니라 ‘아버지가 오셔서 기분 좋아요. 얼마나 보고싶었는데요’라며 마음속 느낌까지 표현할 수 있어야 마음 나누기가 된다는 것이다.

중학교 교사인 ‘고딩’과 초등학교 교사인 ‘바다새’는 속내를 드러내고 마음을 나누기가 얼마나 거북했던지 중간에 이곳을 떠나려고까지 했다.

“처음 만난 분들과 얘기하려니 쑥스럽군요.”

“처음 만난 사람들과 얘기하려니 쑥스러우시다고요. 그러시겠지요. 그런데도 처음 본 사람들도 친근하게 느낄 만큼 따뜻하신 것 같아서 제 마음이 포근해요.”

참가자들은 서서히 어색함을 털어내고 상대방의 말에 일단 공감한 뒤 자신의 느낌을 말했다. 그렇게 대화가 시작된 지 한 시간이 지나지 않아 하나둘 참가자들의 얼굴에서 변화가 감지됐다. 자기 말을 끝까지 경청해주고 공감해주는 상대에게 눈빛을 반짝이며 호감을 보이기 시작한 것이다.

“그렇게 말해주니 기쁩니다.”

솔직한 감정 표현이 가져다주는 훈훈한 분위기에 도취되면서 참가자들은 부부간에 ‘사랑한다’ 는 말도 한 번 하지 못하고, 가족 간에도 자신의 속마음을 전혀 표현하지 못한 채 냉랭하게 살아온 지난날을 떠올리며 안타까워했다. 대화할 때 상대방의 마음이나 말은 전혀 살피지 못한 채 일방통행식으로 자기주장만 했던 지난날을 뼈저리게 깨닫는 시간이었다. 특히 권위주의적 습성에 젖어 자신의 미세한 정서를 표현하기는커녕 오히려 감추고 부끄러워하느라 잔잔한 삶의 맛을 전혀 느끼지 못하고, 상대방도 살뜰하게 대하지 못한 걸 절감했다. 처음엔 미세한 느낌까지 표현한다는 것이 어색하기 이를 데 없었지만, 그런 기분까지 숨김 없이 얘기하다 보니 어느새 비밀이 사라지고, 한이 풀리고, 생리적 부자유에서 해방되고, 마음이 밝아지는 것을 스스로 느낄 수 있었다.

어느 정도 자신의 느낌을 표현하는 데 익숙해지자 주위 사람들에 대한 ‘감사 명상’ 시간이 주어졌다. 잠시 불만에서 벗어나 감사하는 내용을 작성해보는 것이다. 이들은 감사의 목록을 하나하나 작성해봄으로써 그동안 미워하고 원망했던 사람들도 사실은 얼마나 고마운 사람들인지 깨달으며, 어떤 사람에 대해서든 ‘마음먹기’에 따라 전혀 달리 생각할 수 있다는 것을 알게 되었다. 그런 깨달음에 따라 주위 사람들에게 잘못한 것을 사과하는 명상의 시간을 가졌다. 그리고 마음을 다해 용서를 빌었다.

“다른 사람을 가장 행복하게 해주는 것은 무엇일까요. 상대방의 에고(이기심)를 성취시켜주는 것입니다. 사랑받고 싶고, 존경받고 싶고, 칭찬받고 싶은 마음을 충족시켜주는 것입니다. 상대의 좋은 점에 대해 ‘당신은 이런 점이 좋아요’라고 아낌 없이 칭찬하십시오.”

처음엔 칭찬하는 것과 칭찬받는 것에 몹시 어색해했지만, 안내자의 지도에 따라 돌아가며 지명한 상대에게 자신이 느낀 점을 칭찬하기 시작했다.

“큰바람님, 점잔만 빼는 대개의 여성들과 달리 정말 그 닉네임처럼 바람같이 걸림 없이 활수한 모습을 보여주니 신선하게 느껴집니다.”

“아가님은 매사에 적극적이어서 어두운 구석을 밝게 변화시키는 것 같아 보는 사람도 기분이 밝아집니다.”

‘칭찬’이 계속 되는 사이, 방 안 분위기는 놀라울 정도로 밝아지고 있었다. 칭찬의 마력이었다. 칭찬은 마음을 여는 열쇠였다. 이들은 ‘마치 마약을 먹은 기분’이라며, 그 황홀함을 숨기지 않고 고백하기도 했다. 그동안 쭈뼛쭈뼛하며 마음을 열지 않던 사람들도 모두가 자신의 긍정적인 면에 대해 칭찬을 아끼지 않자 처음의 쑥스러움은 사라지고, 어느새 얼굴이 환하게 밝아졌다.

‘칭찬 명상’을 계기로 그때까지 어색했던 분위기는 전혀 새로운 방향으로 흘러갔다. 서먹했던 감정을 극복하고 불과 이틀을 함께 보낸 다른참가자들과 칭찬을 주고받으면서 마치 백년지기처럼 마음을 열고 깊은 속내를 주고받기 시작했다.

하루 한나절씩 진행되는 용타 스님의 강의도 새로운 세상을 열어주었다.

“삶의 목적은 무엇일까? 삶의 목적은 행복입니다. 어떻게 행복을 얻을 수 있을까요? 자기 마음을 잘 알고, 잘 다루고, 다른 사람과 그 마음을 잘 나눌 수 있으면 지고한 행복을 얻습니다. 그러면 명예와 권력과 건강과 돈은 부수적으로 얻어집니다.”

그는 행복을 얻는 방법으로 마음 알기와 마음 다루기, 마음 나누기를 제시했다.

“운명의 최대 걸림돌은 무엇입니까? 바로 자기 자신입니다. 사슬로 자기 자신을 묶어놓고 있기 때문입니다. 내 안의 사슬을 알아야 합니다. 자기 운명을 방해하는 사슬들은 무엇입니까? 목에 깁스를 한 경화 사슬, 온갖 사념의 사슬, 모든 것을 부정적으로 보는 음시각 사슬, 신뢰하지 못하는 불신 사슬, 남의 표정만 살피는 눈치 사슬, 자신을 떳떳이 보여주지 못하는 은폐 사슬이 행복으로 가는 길을 방해하고 있습니다. 사슬을 끊어야 합니다. 과감히 저질러야 합니다. 과거는 제치고, 미래는 저지르십시오.”

사슬을 끊는 시범을 보인 이는 놀랍게도 용타 스님 자신이었다.

“왜 촐랑대지 못합니까.”

용타 스님은 그날 밤 참가자들이 빙 둘러앉은 법당에서 ‘이곳을 중앙시장으로 생각하라’며 중앙시장 장사치 역할을 자청하고 나섰다.

“골라,골라,골라.”

남대문 시장의 좌판 상인을 연상시키는 모습으로, 스님 체면일랑 훌훌 벗어던진 채 손과 다리를 맞부딪치며 ‘골라,골라’를 연발했다.

조별로 목에 깁스를 한 듯 가장 ‘촐랑대지’ 못할 것 같은 이들을 조원들이 직접 뽑았다. 과연 뽑힌 이들이 용타 스님처럼 ‘촐랑댈’ 수 있을까? 대부분 회의의 눈길을 보냈다. 그런데 의외였다. 승복을 입은 용타 스님이 장사치를 흉내 내는 모습을 보며 스스로 틀에 갇혀 남의 눈치만 살피던 사슬을 끊어버릴 용기를 내기 시작한 것이다.

“골라, 골라.”

드디어 그토록 자신을 옥죄던 깁스를 벗어던지고, 자신의 고정된 틀에서 탈피하고 있었다. 참가자들 모두 배꼽을 잡고 웃었다.

“사슬 중 왕초 사슬은 ‘나는 사장이다’, ‘나는 교사다’, ‘나는 어른이다’ 등의 ‘나는 ~이다’ 사슬입니다. ‘~이다’라며 자신을 옥죄고 있는 사슬을 던져 버리십시오. 화내고 싶을 때 화내지 못하게 하고, 울고 싶을 때 울지 못하게 하고, 웃고 싶을 때 웃지 못하게 하는 것이 이 사슬입니다.”

용타 스님은 자신을 가두고 있는 모든 사슬을 벗어나라고 독려했다. 더욱 과감한 행동 명상이 시작되었다. 무릎을 꿇고 둘씩 맞붙어 싸우는 개싸움이었다.

행동 명상이 가열되자 숨소리들이 거칠어지고, 맞부딪치는 고함소리가 커졌다. 수십 년 동안 잠재해 있던 분노와 한이 폭발하는 듯했다. 거친 숨소리 사이로 어디선가 한 맺힌 울음 소리가 새어 나왔다.

“울음이 나오면 마음껏 우세요. 울음을 막는 사슬도 끊어버리십시오.” 또 다른 진행자인 대화 스님의 위로에 참가자들은 사슬에 묶인 목을 놓아버렸다. 큰 강당은 온전히 울음과 하나가 되었다. 얼마나 울었을까.

참가자들이 가슴속에 있는 것을 남김없이 쏟아내는 자리가 마련됐다. 그때 강당 중앙으로 걸어 나온 이는 이혼녀의 딸로 자란 삼십대 주부, 호수였다. 마지막까지 혼신을 다해 개싸움을 하며 자신의 모든 것을 토해낸 그였다.

“내가 국민학교 5학년 때 부모님이 이혼했습니다. 아빠가 없어 항상 외로웠습니다. 엄마가 미웠습니다. 스무 살 때 남편과 결혼을 했고, 남편은 내 안에 든 흑진주를 꺼내겠다며 노력했습니다. 그런데도 나는 약한 모습을 보이면 엄마처럼 버림받을까 두려웠습니다. 그래서 남편에게조차 잘난 모습을 보여주기위해 날 포장해왔답니다. 한 번도 ‘있는 그대로’의 모습을 남편에게 보여주지 못했습니다.”

그때 이혼녀로 살아가는 삼십대 중반 여성인 큰바람이 앞으로 나왔다.

“저도 불가피하게 이혼했답니다. 제 딸도 훗날 여러분처럼 이렇게 깊은 상처를 안은 채 이 자리에서 저를 원망할까요? 전 어떻게 하면 좋습니까? 그동안 먹고사느라 딸이 재롱 떠는 모습 한 번 제대로 본 적이 없답니다. 편모에 대한 편견이 이토록 무서운 사회에서 편모들이 아이들을 데리고 먹고산다는 것이 얼마나 어려운 일인지 아십니까? 여러분은 그 어머니의 고통을 생각해보신 적은 없나요. 그런 상황에서도 여러분을 버리지 않고 보듬고 살아온 엄마의 입장을 헤아려본 적이 있나요. 그런 엄마를 이해해주고 용서해줄 수는 없나요.”

큰바람의 호소에 강당 여기저기 훌쩍이는 소리가 들리기 시작했다.

긴 침묵이 지나고, ‘사랑하게 된다면’이란 닉네임을 가진 이십대 후반 청년이 조용히 앞으로 걸어 나왔다. 그는 “이젠 울고 싶어도 눈물이 나지 않는다”며 고개를 숙였다. 그는 모든 사람으로부터 버림받았다고 생각하고 있었다.

“아버지는 젊은 시절 촉망받는 수재였지만, 6·25 때 할아버지가 월북한 뒤 빨갱이 자식으로 내몰리며 평생 폐인으로 살게 되었습니다. 견디다 못한 어머니는 제가 초등학교 1학년 때부터 6개월씩 가출하더니, 마침내 절로 출가해버렸습니다. 새어머니가 들어왔다가는 나가고, 또 다른 여자가 들어왔다가 나가면서 집안을 돌보는 사람이 없을 때 제가 동생들까지 돌보아야 했습니다.”

현대사의 비극을 고스란히 물려받은 그는 여전히 원한을 놓지 못하고 있음을 고백했다.

“한 번만이라도 어리광을 피워보고 싶었지만 누구 하나 제 얘기를 들어주지 않았습니다. 전 누구도 사랑할 수 없습니다.”

‘사랑하게 된다면’과 비슷한 아픔을 겪은 이가 또 있었다. 갓난아이 때 아버지가 빨갱이로 몰려 총살을 당한 뒤 어머니마저 떠나버리고 할머니 밑에서 자란 덕유산이었다. 민주화운동 때도 수사과정에서 늘 빨갱이임을 자백하라며 고문을 당했던 덕유산은 ‘사랑하게 된다면’과 밤을 하얗게 지새우며 그의 아픔을 보듬었다.

평소엔 과거나 상처를 숨긴 채 아무렇지 않은 척, 용감한 척 살아가지만, 많은 사람들의 가슴은 이처럼 새까맣게 타들어간다. 참가자들은 서로의 뼛속 깊은 아픔들을 보며, 모두 껴안을 수밖에 없는 아픈 존재라는 것을 실감했다.

 

갑자기 용타 스님이 일어나 건너편의 처녀 햇살을 향해 공손히 절을 했다. 스님의 돌연한 행동에 햇살은 어쩔 줄 몰라 했다. 그러나 스님의 정성스런 절은 중단되지 않았다. 마치 부처님께 올리는 듯한 지극정성의 삼배에 햇살은 눈물을 짓고 말았다. 이렇게 시작된 ‘절 명상’은 각자가 모든 사람에게 삼배씩 하고, 다른 사람들로부터 삼배를 받았다.

대학 재학 시절 노동운동에 투신한 뒤 자신을 위해선 생선 한 토막 구워먹어본 적이 없을 만큼 자신을 방치한 채 살면서 자신의 가치마저 상실해 버린 큰바람은 쉰 살이 넘는 덕유산 등의 극진한 삼배를 받으며 자신을 위로하고 있었다.

“그래, 나도 가치 있는 존재야······.”

이처럼 존귀한 대우를 받아본 적도 없고, 자신이 존귀하다고 여겨본 적도 없었던 그는 마치 자기 안의 보물을 드디어 발견한 듯 가슴을 쓸어내리며 벅차오르는 감격을 억누르지 못했다.

구석에 앉아 있던 ‘사랑하게 된다면’의 눈물샘이 고장 난 것은 그때였다. 울고 싶어도 눈물이 나지 않는다던 그는 지극정성으로 자신에게 삼배를 올린 한 참가자의 품에 안겨 울고 있었다. 얼어붙었던 그의 가슴이 녹아내리고 있었다. 절을 하는 이도, 받는 이도 없었다. 부처만이 남았다.

“우리는 이미 우리에게 주어진 것, 이루어놓은 행복을 발견하지 못한 채 끝없이 새로운 욕망에 집착하고 있습니다. 이미 이루어진 것을 한번 확인해봅시다.”

안내자의 말에 따라 ‘지족(知足) 명상’이 시작됐다. 이루지 못해서 불만이었던 것을 놓아버리고, 이미 이루어지고, 채워지고, 완전한 것을 깨닫는 시간이다.

“나는 우주와도 바꿀 수 없는 소중하고 신비한 초차원적 존재입니다.”

“나는 천재 예술가 천만 명이 동원해도 빚어낼 수 없는 대예술품인 몸을 가지고 있습니다.”

“나에겐 나를 사랑하는 아내와 딸이 있습니다.”

“난 튼튼한 다리를 갖고 있습니다.”

이미 자신이 갖고 있거나 이룬 것을 하나하나 열거했다. 잃어버렸던 재산을 다시 발견한 듯 이들은 마음의 부자가 되어갔다.

용타 스님은 직접 개발한 ‘나지사 명상’을 통해 참가자들이 불쾌한 상황에 봉착했을 때 마음을 다루어 고통으로부터 벗어나도록 제시했다. 나지사는 ‘구나’와 ‘겠지’ , ‘감사’의 끝 글자를 합친 말이다. 어떤 상황이 발생했을 때 ‘그랬구나’라며 상황을 객관적으로 본 다음 ‘그럴 만한 사정이 있겠지’라며 상황을 이해하고, 그나마 더 상황이 나빠지지 않은 것에 ‘감사’하는 것이다.

예를 들어 아내가 밤늦게 들어오면서 문을 ‘쾅’하고 닫았을 때 남편은 아내에게 즉각 화를 내기 일쑤다. 그때가 나지사 명상이 필요한 순간이다.

일단 “아내가 문을 ‘쾅’ 닫고 들어오는구나”라며 상황을 객관적으로 본다. 그리고 “다 그럴 만한 이유가 있겠지”, “친구를 만난다고 했는데, 잘 사는 친구들이 잘난 체를 해서 속이 상했겠지”, “기분 나쁜 일이 있겠지” 등으로 상황을 긍정적으로 바라보는 것이다. 이어 “기분이 나빴을 텐데 밖에서 싸우지 않고, 잘 참고 이렇게 들어왔으니 얼마나 다행인가”, “화가 나서 앞도 잘 보지 않고 운전하다 교통사고가 날 수도 있었는데, 이렇게 잘 들어왔으니 얼마나 감사한 일인가”라며 “그만하니 감사하다”라는 마음을 내면 불처럼 일어났던 화가 가라앉는다. 참가자들은 이런 상황을 설정해 노트에 작성하거나 조원들과 얘기를 해봄으로써 실제 마음이 평안해지는 것을 느꼈다.

용타 스님은 이제 만족스러움을 아는데 그치지 않고, 욕구마저도 넘어서라고 했다.

“사람은 욕구 덩어리로 태어납니다. 욕구가 좌절됐다고 생각하면 불행을 체험하고, 욕구가 성취됐다고 생각하면 행복을 체험합니다. 이미 성취한 것만 생각해도 행복해지지만, 욕구 자체를 놔버리면 해탈이 됩니다.”

욕구도 놓고, 사고도 놓고, 개념조차 놓고 사물을 무심하게 대하는 ‘무심 명상’의 시간이었다.

“사물을 볼 때 개념화하는 실체 사고가 무너지면 모든 번뇌가 사라집니다. 실체 사고의 핵심은 ‘나’입니다. ‘나’가 만들어지면 ‘너’가 만들어지고, ‘너’가 만들어지면 ‘그’가 만들어지고, 모든 것에 꼬리표를 붙이게 됩니다. 내가 없어지는 것이 아니라 ‘이것이 나다’, ‘이것이 내 것이다’라는 생각이 없어지는 것입니다.”

삼동원의 주변 경관을 무심하게 바라보도록 했지만, 말처럼 무심 명상이 쉬운 것은 아니었다. 사물을 보는 순간 ‘저건 무엇이다’라고 개념화하고, ‘예쁘다’라거나 ‘이상하게 생겼다’라고 판단하고 분별하는 것이 지금까지의 습관이었기 때문이다.

다시 법당에 앉아 모두 눈을 감았다. 용타 스님은 자기 앞에 한잔만 마시면 곧바로 죽음에 이르는 독배가 놓여 있다 여기고, 마음으로 독배를 마시라고 했다. ‘독배 명상’이었다. 아무리 마음속으로 마시는 독배였지만, 참가자들은 쉽게 독배를 들이키지 못했다. 걸리는 게 많았던 것이다.

“무엇 하나 해놓은 게 없어 억울해서 죽을 수 없었습니다.”

“어린 딸이 가장 걸렸습니다.”

이들은 독배를 마실 수 없게 한 집착이 무엇이었는지 살핀 다음 그런 집착조차 놓고 독배를 마셨다. 그리고 우주를 유영하기 시작했다. 마음이 조금씩 조금씩 자라서 우주만큼 커졌다. 감각조차 놓아버리고 무심하게 우주와 내가 하나 되는 ‘옴나 명상’이고 ‘무아 명상’이었다.

“이 명상은 고통에서 벗어나는 길을 알려줍니다. 우주만큼 커진 내게 고통은 무한대분의 1이므로 고통은 0이 됩니다. 자신의 고통은 0으로 보고, 다른 사람의 고통은 무한대로 보아야 합니다.”

긴 항해의 마지막 밤, 모두가 빙 둘러앉은 가운데 용타 스님은 큰 물통 안에 물이 든 컵 하나를 넣어두고 이채로운 시연을 했다. 미국 에미서리 공동체의 대표적 긍정 명상인 ‘물컵 명상’이었다.

“물컵 속에 담긴 물은 오염되기 전 우리의 마음입니다. 하느님이 보시기에 좋은 모습입니다. 그런데 지금부터 온갖 교육이 시작됩니다. “남자가 부엌에 들어가면 안 된다’ , ‘여자가 큰 소리를 내면 안 된다’ 등 온갖 것이 주입되기 시작합니다.”

그는 잉크를 찍어 물에 타면서 맑은 물이 오염되는 모습을 시연했다. 물은 완전히 잉크색이 되어버렸다.

“그럼 이 물을 어떻게 하면 맑은 물로 되돌릴 수 있을까요?”

용타 스님이 잉크를 끄집어내기 위해 족집게를 사용했다. 그러나 이미 경계가 사라진 맑은 물과 잉크를 구분할 수는 없었다. 아무리 족집게로 잉크를 집어내려 했지만 그렇게 해서 물이 다시 깨끗해질 수 없다는 것을 모두가 절감할 즈음 그가 갑자기 옆에 놓여 있던 주전자를 들었다. 그리고는 컵 위에 맑은 물을 콸콸 부었다. 컵 속의 잉크 물은 넘쳐버렸고, 컵 속엔 순식간에 맑은 물이 들어차 있었다.

“아~하.”

모두에게 말 없는 깨우침. 어두움을 어두움으로 몰아낼 수 없고, 어두움은 긍정과 칭찬과 밝음과 맑은 물로만 없앨 수 있다는 깨침이었다. 새로운 깨침으로 한숨 곤히 잤고 났을 때 동이 트기 시작했다. 밝아지면 어둠은 저절로 물러간다는 것을 다시금 가르쳐주듯이.

 

Posted by at
Labels:

행복마을 동사섭 - 동사섭이란?

행복마을 동사섭 - 동사섭이란?

동사섭이란-우리 모두의 지고한 행복을 찾아가는 길, 동사섭의 철학입니다.

What` Dongsasub Dongsasub in my View


사람은 탄생에서부터 죽음에 이를 때까지 보다 높은 행복을 지향해 간다.
행복이란 「좋은 느낌 상태」를 의미한다.
좋은 느낌, 좋은 기분, 좋은 감정, 좋은 정서이다.


해탈이니 구원이니 하는 것도 그 본질은 결국 지극히 좋은 기분 상태를 말할 것이다. 쓰이기에 따라 행복의 조건까지를 포함해서 행복이라 말하기도 하겠 지만 끝내 그 본질은 느낌이다. 따라서 우리의 이상(理想)은 우리 모두의 지극한 호감정(好感情, 느낌)이다.

행복의 본질이 느낌이라는 것을 인정한다면 느낌에 대한 바람직한 신념이 선명하게 정립될 필요가 있다.이는

1. 감지하지 못할 수는 있겠지만 느낌 없는 순간이란 없고, 순간순간 ~ 만큼의 느낌이 흐르고 있을 것이니, 바로 그 느낌을 아는 것(느끼는 것, 감지하는 것, 누리는 것)이 바람직하다.
2. 행복 수위를 높이기 위해 어떤 작업(행복의 조건을 구비하는 작업)을 해야 한다.

그 느낌과 조건이라 함은 삼라만상 세상 모든 것들에 따라 다양하고 무수하다.

41여 년 동안 업그레이드되어온 동사섭수련회에서는 ‘삶의 오대원리(五大原理)’ 혹은 ‘이상공동체(理想共同體) 오요(五要)’ 라는 이름으로 극히 중요한 행복 조건 다섯 가지를 제시한다.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)