Pseudo Dionysius: The Complete Works (Classics of Western Spirituality)

This is a challenging book. I admit that I only read parts of it, and skimmed through the rest.

The unknown writer known to modern scholars as Pseudo-Dionysius probably lived during the fifth or sixth century AD. He may have been a "heretical" Christian monk or even a Neo-Platonist, attempting to cast his message in a Christian mould. To achieve the maximum impact, this unknown writer claimed to be Dionysius the Aeropagite, a person mentioned in the New Testament. This pious fraud is no longer taken seriously by scholars or theologians, hence the designation "Pseudo-Dionysius". Despite this, the writings are still held in high esteem by many in the Eastern churches, where Pseudo-Dionysius is regarded as an unknown Church Father.

This collection contains translations of all writings attributed to Dionysius: "The Divine Names", "The Mystical Theology", "The Celestial Hierarchy", "The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy" and ten letters. The book also contains introductory chapters and footnotes. However, it's not really a scholarly treatise on Pseudo-Dionysius. The introductions and notes are quite short. The main point of this volume is to present the works of the man himself. More extensive scholarly analyses can be found elsewhere.

My wild guess concerning Pseudo-Dionysius is that he was a lonely pagan philosopher who attempted to salvage the Neo-Platonist legacy by adding some Christian touches to it. But perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, the writings of "Dionysius the Aeropagite" were held in high esteem by many Christians during the Middle Ages. Clearly, our author must have said *something* that struck a chord. Christianity was already influenced by Platonist philosophy. The experiences of mystics are often remarkably similar across cultural and religious divides. And Pseudo-Dionysius was, of course, a mystic. Finally, Dionysius defends the church hierarchy and the sacraments, claiming it reflects the heavenly hierarchy of angels. As the editors point out: the most successful pseudonymous writings are those who confirm what everyone "knows" already. The texts even contain Christological formulations: one of them sounds Monophysite, while the other sounds Chalcedonian! In the event, both groups claimed Dionysius as their own.

Still, the similarities with Neo-Platonism are tantalizing. Dionysius seems to have an almost pantheist conception of God. He believes that the world proceeds from God and then returns to God. He calls God "Good" and seems to have problems making the Christian Trinity part of his scheme. Neo-Platonist terminology is used through out, and there is a long chain of intermediary beings between God and humanity, just as in later Neo-Platonism. There is also a preoccupation with symbols, initiation, esotericism and "don't throw pearls before swine". The symbols have a double meaning: to make the ineffable understandable to our limited human intellects, but also to hide the truth from the unworthy. The hierarchy of the church stands inbetween the unworthy, who can't see God at all, and the mystics, who experience him without the mediation of symbols. Apparently, Iamblichus had similar ideas about pagan rituals. In the footnotes, the editors briefly point out various similarities between Dionysius and the Neo-Platonists Iamblichus and Proclus.

On a lighter note, one of the letters supposedly penned by the Biblical Dionysius to Polycarp (a real bishop of the second century) claims that Dionysius and a certain Apollophanes observed a mysterious eclipse of the sun while strolling in the Egyptian town of Heliopolis. This, of course, was the eclipse supposedly following the crucifixion of Jesus in Jerusalem. Apparently, poor Apollophanes later turned a sceptic and refused to believe the Gospel stories about Jesus. Dionysius vainly pointed out to him that the life of Jesus is written down in the sacred books of the Persians, and that even today, the Magi celebrate "the triple Mithras". That's presumably the Trinity! Ooops. Here the Neo-Platonist syncretism of the writer becomes obvious: Egypt, Judea, Chaldea. And this supposedly in a letter from a disciple of Paul to a disciple of John...

Be that as it may, I nevertheless recommend this volume to serious students of either mysticism, mystical theology or Christian history. Who or what Dionysius really was, he certainly made an impression. His marriage of Christianity and Neo-Platonism was a happy one, it seems.

[again, as no doubt will always be the case, i have to change what i have written!/eat my words]

dionysius is close to the neoplatonists, though predates plotinus by two or three centuries. he believes that god is not only that from which everything proceedes and in and by which all exist/have being, the very being of all being, but also that in him are found "all opposites". he is the sun, moon, sunshine, rain, stars etc etc. not obviously... the one true god is not the mundane phenomena on an obvious level. it can be said that He is 'that' i am, as opposed to this i am(but do not confuse the i am with being, the i am is awareness of self not soul). was Dionysius influenced perhaps by st John, the disciple who speaks of love and and thus inclusion, as did Jesus. yet, it can be seen in 'the names', that though God is the being of all, he also transcends all through his distinct self (I).

certain opposites are not contained in God such as hate and evil, however since God is in all, it can on a subtle level be argued that God co-exists alongside evil... or it sort of exists within him without influencing him. "in him we live and move and have our being" yea, in him all things live and move and have their being.

since God is Love, all is love, even hatred exists within this 'all' and yet God remains pure, and though being 'all', he is only 'one'. once again, this is the theology of paradox.

i would say that the ordinary self/the 'i' am, is different from 'that' i am' (Gods I am), but that the nature of ordinary 'being' is not ordinary. is and is not different from the being of God. being is 'this', understood to be consciousness or mind or soul. consciousness is at root of our self (i) and is fundamentally 'being'. unlike the i. being/consciousness and truth/awareness was understood by plato to be the 'mind', or 'intellect'. to call the intellect/logos 'reason' is to limit platos appreciation of the mind. in buddhism, mind still plays a key role, though most buddhists do not respect as did plato and aristotle that being or soul is the 'mind' - not to be confused with the impermanent self. plato as mentioned by aristotle considered the intellect and soul to be part and parcel of the same thing. the logos. all things have being/this/mind, even individual cells, atoms etc etc.

st dionysius recognised that the mystery of being/consciousness is eternal and indestructible, ie that our being is very God himself. this is where plato, aristotle, st dionysius and buddhism all interface. mind is God (logos). being is mind. being is God. plato's Soul is mind (not self, nor spirit). to confuse the mundane I with the eternal soul/consciousness (this) is big mistake.

it is not incorrect to say that God has being and that he is being, but also to respect that he is beyond all that exists in his creation. including every word that can be uttered. however, the things that are may be seen as shadows or pointers toward the one truth, which is God, which is love (true love), once again, using words we fall short of grasping that reality, and yet we feel him in the glowering of sunlight on the petals of a flower, or the feeling of wind in our hair. so, once again contradicting myself, even the mundanity of a mere humble word sometimes captures the glory of God, such words as "he that 'is'". perfectly transcendent, perfectly immanent. more immanent indeed than a heart-beat. more immanent (here now) than immanence. true words being true, such as "i love you" transcend truth itself and attain love. the highest

it seems that true love requires that all be seen in the light of true love, that even an ant or a little flower be seen as true perfection, as the most perfect thing of all. all is being/this, all is God the most perfect thing of all... true love will see all other things as true love without criticism, without judgement. love loves, and love is blind to the faults and errant ways of the object of its love. so in a sense all is love, this is since love "believes all things" as is written in the new testament. I had said "but all can only be love if the beholder is love" subjectively yes, but in reality, all is love all is 'this'/being (consciousness).

on the subjective level if the beholder is love/in love then all that he beholds is love, all becomes God! But in actual fact, all in a sense is God by virtue of being/mind/this and so i think it very likely on a profound level that our hindu brothers and sisters do have a concisely valid belief when they say that everything is God, this is not only the case if the beholder of all has become truly loving... infact he already was in a sense one with God by virture of 'being', and yet separate if not loving in a practical sense. once again our perspective defines our reality when it comes down to experience.

...and so it is true to say that God is separate and distinct from all, as many christians will say, by virtue of his 'self' ('that' I), however that his 'being'/this'ness is continuous with all things that 'be'/exist.

it is also true, with the eye/loving heart of God to say that all is God/true love, but i will only see this if only if i have eyes to see (an open heart). it is the theology of paradox that all is different from and distinct from God in virtue of his 'I', but also that all is equal to God in terms of 'being' and 'love'. another paradox is that "in love all things cannot be equalized". ie there will always be favourites, and yet we are called to love all (though not equally of course). were love water this would be fine since water levels all things, but no, love is fire and not akin to equality of affection. we see the age old argument appearing in Dionysius... that God is 'beyond' vs. that God is 'within'... actually the truth probably combines both of these positions, and that in my opinion is something that Dionysius tries to achieve.

it is in the nature of love to behold all things as beautiful (except the suffering of others), and to see the light that shines within even the darkest place or person. where possible to be merciful and in the opinons of many to be 'naieve' (a fool).

qoted more than 1500 times by the great philosopher Thomas Aquinas, and in the reading magnificent flexibility, perhaps this was written by the true areophagite, but if this is so? and if it is, there is a close (?)correspondence between the old pantheistic philosophies, religions, buddhism and first century christianity. interesting. it is definitley worth four stars. and my gosh, what elegant philosophy in the names, whatever your position, more like zen than standard philosophy. my own personal opinion, and i am inclined to believe this (almost certain through its compelling beauty), that this is the teaching of the true areophagite, and what a grace upon the christian story this work bestowes.

with very much love from

snow-flake xxx

ps, it has been said that the only way to overcome ones enemy is to love him. And so, where is the overcoming? t.c.

pps.
God is in all things,
all things are in God,
God is all things. ("in Him are found all opposites")
God is no thing.
God is within all.
God is all.
God is beyond all.
One person, all persons.
being three persons, still a person.
not being a person, thouroughly being three persons.
one in three, three in one. one in all, all in one,
one as all, all as one, one within and yet beyond all.
all positions and yet no position.
the sun, those stones, that little pebble,
the song of the birds, the thorn in your foot.
thoroughly within, thouroughly as, and yet
transcendently beyond all, beyond even himself!
the burning love in the childs heart, 'god immanent',
the darkness beyond all things. 'gods mystery'.
completely knowing, completely known.
completely unknown, completely beyond. Amen. Amen and Amen,
for ever and ever, Amen.

As these sort of works go, Pseudo Dionysius's works definitely add depth and help sort out passages of the bible and practices within the Christian faith.

I recommend skipping the introductory material in the beginning of this edition and simply reading Pseudo Dionysius's books and letters first. Then you can go back to the introductory material. I say this only because I like to skip any and all introductory material in any book I read because these essays were never included in original versions.

I am grateful for this series (Classics of Western Spirituality) and while the 'Ecclesiastical Hierarchy' book within this collection has more to do with those seeking the vocation, there are observations and such that will open the lay person's mind to new ideas.

Sometime at around the 5th or 6th century A.D., a Christian monk sat down and penned several works on 'mystical' theology. Passing himself off as the famous Athenian convert to Christianity who heard St Paul in Athens, the works of this monk became the foundations upon which later great Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart, the author of the Cloud of Unknowning, St John of Cross, Nicholas of Cusa, St Bonaventure, Richard of St Victor, and many others would base their 'ascents' to God.

The two most important works on the Corpus are the 'Mystical Theology' and 'The Divine Names.' Probably using the language and concepts of Neo-Platonism and in particular of Proclus along with ideas he got from reading Gregory of Nyssa, Denys expounds the 'via negativa' apprach to God.

In the mystical theology Denys outlines how Moses ascended to God through a dark 'cloud of unknowing' and reached the ineffable Godhead who is beyond all concepts, ideas and words. In the view of Denys, even in a 'clear' vision of God we do not get a clear vision of God but rather only see a 'dazzling darkness' which is above and beyond every possible concept and idea we could have of God, or any name we can apply to God. Denys seems very keen to protect the mystery of God's transcendant being, which even when 'naked' and exposed by stripping it of all concepts and ideas and names, is still completely hidden by virtue of its transcendance.

Denys explores these ideas further in 'The Divine Names', a very important work both in mysticism and theology. Denys talks of what names can be said to apply to God and he also discusses how God's goodness 'flows out' of itself to create the universe and all beings (which he calls theophanies) and which return back to God in a circular procession. This little work would have a profound effect on many of Christendom's most creative and innovative thinkers, from Scotus Eriugena, Maximus Confessor, Thomas Aquinas, St John of Cross, St Bonaventure, Robert Grosseteste and Nicholas of Cusa. Its influence still continues to this day and seems to be undergoing a kind of renaissance amoung theologians such as Von Balthasar, Karl Rahner and Valdimir Lossky.

The works which follow are somewhat weaker in both literary and theological merit. The Celestial heirarchy and the Ecclesiastical Heirarchy are attempts to fuse Neo-Platonic symbolism and angelology with Christian angelology and liturgical symbolism. His letters are somewhat edifying and refer a lot to lost works, however they were probably not written to the people he addresses them to since modern scholarship has shown Denys lived long after the New Testament was formulated canonically, and all the Apostles were long dead.

However, these weaknesses do not detract from the theological brilliance of Denys, who manages to fuse the better aspects of Neo-Platonic Philosophy with the deepest and most profound Christian theology and mysticism, without leaping to the frenzied visions of the Gnostics, nor reducing God to anthropomorphism. His spirituality is very ethereal at times and while his excesses can mislead the contemplative into over-valuing the spiritual world over the material, it should be remembered Denys also stresses God's infinite and ineffable beauty which is radiated in his glory and goodness, which makes the created universe and all beings (human and angelic) beautiful as well. He has a positive view of the incarnation and of the world, and in my view still represents one of the best mystical theologies in the Christian tradition, and in terms of world religious philosophy, offers one of the most inspiring visions of the Absolute.

"It would be a challenging project, but a fascinating one, to write the history of Western Christian spirituality in the late patristic and medieval periods primarily or even exclusively on the basis of those neglected writings that are identified in successive volumes of J. P. Migne's Patrologia Latina and Patrologia Graeca as 'spurious' or as 'dubious,' together with the purportedly authentic writings that in fact belong in the same categories." So Jaroslav Pelikan begins his introduction - it is the first of three introductions - to the complete works of Pseudo-Dionysius. That there should be three introductory essays detailing the history and reception of the Dionysian corpus simply goes to show how utterly important these writings are, despite the fact that we do not know (or perhaps we simply do not believe?) who wrote them. It is perfectly accurate to write that above any other writings of the Patristic period, these writings are the most influential mystical writings of not only the early Church, but of all Christian history.

It is currently believed that the writer who called himself Dionysius the Aeropagite (St. Paul's first convert) was a monk from Syria in the fifth or sixth century. Most of his writings have been lost (or, if one wishes to be suspicious about it, were never really written in the first place), but those that remain - The Divine Names, The Mystical Theology, The Celestial Hierarchy, The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and ten Letters - have all been translated and copiously annotated in the present volume.

Dionysius is best known for his understanding that theological language exists to be surpassed by "a mystical silence" that is at the height of all theological contemplation: union with God. The belief that doxology is overflown by the God that our language points and reaches out to is central to Dionysius' worldview. However, there is are two essential connections that one must make here. First, because our language - which is "cataphatic" (that is, it affirms something) - is surpassed by God, apophaticism (language that denies something) is truer of God than cataphaticism. Second - and this is the more important point - God is also beyond apophaticism. Thus, cataphatically I say "God is good", apophatically I follow with "God is not good", and find myself pushed to affirm that "God is beyond goodness as I understand goodness to be". Dionysius refuses to allow us to drown in apophatic quietism and pushes us to let God "overflow" our theological language (and he uses the image of overflowing frequently).

Central to Dionysius' paradigm is the liturgy as a participation with the heavenly choirs of angels; in short, liturgy as mystical. Such liturgy is inspired by God - the theologian is the one who is given inspired visions of God - and the purpose of worship is ascent to Christ. Some have claimed that Dionysius is fundamentally deficient in his trinitarian theology, but if one understands his understanding of Jesus as the divine mediatory and the Holy Spirit as the one who inspire (as in St. Paul), then what emerges is not an underveloped theology, but a theology that sees that activity of the whole Trinity as foundational to our experience of God in worship, lifting us to see God's own face in a "dazzling darkness" - not because of absence, but because of the overflowing light of the Godhead which blinds our natural eyes just as it inspires desire within us.

These writings are theologically dense, to put it simply. Yet, they are profound. For those that are well-versed in the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity, they will find these writings to be a helpful next step in understanding better the functions of theological language, especially within the liturgical context.