Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00507)

Dear John, 

I'm aware that at a 'higher' level of spiritual experiences spatial prepositions become limited and might lead to misunderstandings. And so it is the case with the term "inner principle" or "inner Christ." Such usage is I think not necessarilly the outcome of a conditioned mind, but has to do with the limitations of language. "Immanent" is indeed a better term. 

It's interesting you mention Heidegger as he is very important to me on understanding prepositions as he tried to give a mystical interpretation to the preposition 'in' as used in his term Being-in-the-world. While studying with a Heidegger expert in the US I had to do research on the development of Heidegger's thinking on the issue of "being-in as such." What I found was that Heidegger did read some profound German theologians for whom there was an issue about correctly understanding Paul's phrase "Christ in me, I in Christ." One of these had some influence on Heidegger as he thought that Paul interpreted 'Christ' more as spirit than as a person and therefore the experience was more mystical and immanent. This goes interestingly parallel with your and possibly HPB's understanding. What might further our discussion might be to explore the difference between unio-mysticism and communio-mysticism as the latter might give a deeper understanding of Tulku and being overshadowed. I think this is all pretty good grist for the mill of comparative research on some very deep issues.

For more I lifted the section on this from the paper. (see below)

The importance for Heidegger was that he saw a congruency between the structure of the subject in communio-mysticism and the structure of immediate experience. Heidegger then used his understanding of mysticism to deepen his phenomenology of the essential structures of pre-theoretical experience in general. And because of this there is a necessary mystical element that has to come into play if one wants to go really in-to Heidegger's work. 

Govert
  
Paul: A Study in Social and Religious History by Adolf Deissmann
In Paul the author contemplates the problematic of the interpretation of the experience of  'Christ

in me, I in Christ.' Heidegger read this study during WWI and it was one of the preliminary sources for

the problematic of the meaning of 'to be in.'

Deissmann makes the point that the correct understanding of Paul is when he is seen as a mystic,

who experienced the immanence of Christ (139) much more than his transcendence (137). Paul was

predisposed towards such an understanding and experience because of a Hellenistic-mystical tendency

within his background (138). Paul's Christianity was a Christ-mysticism (147) and Deissmann understands

mysticism to be that "religious tendency that discovers the way to God direct through inner experience

without the mediation of reasoning." (149)

In Paul's experience Christ was more of the nature of Spirit than a historical person. Spirit for

Paul is something akin to a non-earthly pneuma, to which Paul applied the predicates of "divine, heavenly,

eternal, holy, living, and live-giving." (143) As air is in us and we in air, we can be in the Christ-Spirit and

the Christ-Spirit in us. The formula 'in Christ' can also be expressed as 'of Christ' in which the genitive is

neither subjective nor objective, but mystical. Deissmann makes clear that this mystical experience is one

of communio and not of unio, i.e. our personhood does not dissolve in union with Christ, but we come to

an intimate communion or fellowship with Him, and through Him with God. (151-152) Deissmann

assumes that this Christ-intimacy (Christ-Innigkeit [135]) of Paul would have its differing degrees of

elevation (142). (This would be quite impossible in unio-mysticism where there are no gradations, where it

is the case of an all-or-nothing.)

The relevance of Deissmann's contemplation on Paul's Christ-Innigkeit (135) for an

understanding of Heidegger's formally indicated Inheit lies in certain structural congruencies. These

congruencies would be between "the structure of the subject in mysticism" (GBT 82, quoting Heidegger)

and "the phenomenological structure of immediate experience" (GBT 81), with the former helping

Heidegger radicalizing the latter. As Christ can only be experienced through a non-theoretical,

unmediated, inner experience of communio (151), Dasein's basic state of Being-in-the-world can also

only be understood through a similar non-theoretical, unmediated, inner experience of communio of Dasein

with its own Being. In such experience Dasein understands its own Being as both in-the-world and having

itself as such. Dasein does not lose its 'own-ness' in unio in the 'there' of its world, as would happen in uniomysticism

("I am he and He is I") or certain enthusiastic or chaotic states of mind, but retains its own sense

of self in the 'there' of its Dasein.  Dasein can have/be this experience in differing degrees of clarity and

structuration, and as it is an understanding experience, Dasein can interpret it and bring it to expression in

differing degrees of adequacy. This element of communio-mysticism in understanding Heidegger is a

necessary ingredient in the pre-theoretical philosophical experiences of Dasein's self-understanding,

including Being-in as such. These experiences are of Dasein's own meaningful contextual structures,

suggested in the most subtle and under-determined way by Heidegger's formal indications.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]