“An Integral Approach to Spirituality: The Orthodox Spirituality of Dumitru Stăniloae,” St....

St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 48:1 (2004) 125–48

AN INTEGRAL APPROACH TO SPIRITUALITY:THE ORTHODOX SPIRITUALITY

OF DUMITRU STÃ NILOAE

REVIEW ARTICLE

Kevin M. Berger

The recent trans la tion of Fr Dumitru Stãniloae’s Ortho dox Spir i tu -al ity1 is a tre men dous con tri bu tion to the Eng lish speak ing Ortho -dox world. Many read ers will be aware of the fact that Stãniloae’sthree-vol ume Ortho dox Dog matic The ol ogy is appear ing (in six vol -umes) under the title of The Expe ri ence of God.2 His book on spir i -tu al ity com ple ments this lat ter under tak ing. It rep re sents thesec ond major pro ject which Stãniloae under took towards the endof his long and cre ative schol arly endeavor, one which spanned sev -enty years and included sev eral major books, hun dreds of arti clesand the trans la tion of the Philokalia into Roma nian in twelve vol -umes. The final pro ject, his Spir i tu al ity and Com mu nion in theOrtho dox Lit urgy, which has yet to appear in Eng lish, is a workwhich he wrote as a sequel to the pres ent offer ing.

As one of the pre mier trans la tors and experts of patris tic lit er a -ture in the Ortho dox world, as a dog matic theo lo gian (with a solidknowl edge of phi los o phy), as a suf ferer in com mu nist pris ons, andas a mar ried parish priest well expe ri enced in the strug gles of thecommon believer, Stãniloae was more than qual i fied for the pres ent under tak ing. His love for God, con cern for his fellow man, per -

125

1 Or tho dox Spir i tu al ity: A Prac ti cal Guide for the Faith ful and a De fin i tive Man ual forthe Scholar, trans lated from the Ro ma nian by Ar chi man drite Jerome (Newville) and Otilia Kloos (South Ca naan: St Tikhon’s Sem i nary Press, 2002).

2 Ioan Ionita and Rob ert Barringer (trans), The Ex pe ri ence of God: Or tho dox Dog matic The ol ogy (Brookline: Holy Cross Or tho dox Press, 1994). The first two vol umeswhich have ap peared com prise the first vol ume of the Ro ma nian edi tion.

sonal expe ri ence of spir i tual strug gle, and his broad and deep eru -di tion are evi dent through out the work. The book is a wealth ofpatris tic knowl edge, encom pass ing the full spec trum of the East ern tra di tion from the Cappadocians, through Dionysius, Maximus,Greg ory Palamas and the writ ings of the Philokalia. These arebrought into dia logue with con tem po rary think ers, both non-Ortho dox (such as Balthasar, Binswanger, Hiedegger, Kirkegaard,and Rahner, to name just a few) and Ortho dox (such as Bulgakov,Berdyaev and Lossky), as well as with Stãniloae’s own cre ative andcare ful read ing. These qual i ties make the work truly an inspi ra tionfor the faith ful and intel lec tu ally sat is fy ing for the scholar.

The book is remark able not only for the scope of its under tak ingbut also for the wealth of infor ma tion and insight it con tains. Thisreview will pro vide an over view of its con tents; a dis cus sion of some aspects of Stãniloae’s approach to the topic, includ ing his meth od -ol ogy and use of sources; and an anal y sis of cer tain details of thetrans la tion as they relate to the con tent of the work and his the ol -ogy in gen eral.

A Comprehensive Exposition

Ortho dox Spir i tu al ity is a com pre hen sive expo si tion of the spir i tualascent from begin ning to end. The book is divided into four sec -tions: an intro duc tion, and three sec tions cor re spond ing to thestages of the spir i tual ascent. These stages fol low the Dio ny sianscheme of puri fi ca tion, illu mi na tion and dei fi ca tion.

In the intro duc tion, Stãniloae out lines the goal, char ac ter anddog matic foun da tions of Ortho dox spir i tu al ity. As Stãniloae points out, the goal of spir i tual life is actu ally two fold: the heal ing or per -fec tion of our nature, and our union with God. Both of these goalsare unend ing pro cesses which occur simul ta neously. For theformer, ascetic dis ci pline is required, for the latter, a mys ti cal expe -ri ence of God. The fact that the heal ing or reori en ta tion of ournature is a goal of spir i tual life implies that we cannot ignore theworld or our neigh bor in this pro cess. Our spir i tual growth anddevel op ment can only occur in and through the things of the

126 ST VLADI MIR’S THEO LOG I CAL QUAR TERLY

world, and through our rela tion ships with one another. Thus,Ortho dox spir i tu al ity is not only inte grally con nected to the mate -rial dimen sion of real ity, but is totally insep a ra ble from it. Ouractions affect our spir i tual devel op ment, and serve to either enclose us in ego tism or open us (“per son al ize” us) for inter per sonalcom mu nion.

The most per fect form of this inter per sonal com mu nion isfound in the Holy Trin ity, the basis of Chris tian spir i tu al ity. In theTrin ity, as in our union with God, there is a per fect unity betweenper sons with out their per sonal iden tity being lost or over whelmedin this unity. We are brought into this com mu nion with the Fatherthrough Christ and the Holy Spirit. But Christ and the Holy Spiritare them selves not acquired in iso la tion—they come to dwell in the indi vid ual through a com mu nal action, through the Church’s sac -ra ments of Bap tism and Chrismation. From this time they col lab o -rate with us to bring us towards per fec tion. For this reason,Stãniloae points out that Ortho dox spir i tu al ity is based pri mar ilyon the dogma of the Trin ity, and has a christological, pneumat -ological and ecclesial char ac ter simul ta neously.

Already in the intro duc tion, the cen tral ity in Stãniloae’s thoughtof Maximus’ doc trine of the logoi, Dionysius’ con cept ofsymbol/logos and par tic i pa tion, and the Palamite doc trine of theuncreated ener gies, are evi dent. The thought of these theo lo gians is woven together and com bined with Stãniloae’s own empha sis onthe per sonal char ac ter of God, cre at ing a rich theo log i cal syn the sis.In this scheme, the goal of knowl edge is always “person” (inter per -sonal com mu nion), and the means of attain ing this goal is alwaysfound in “nature.” By “nature” is under stood both human nature(mate rial and spir i tual) and the ele ments of the nat u ral world(espe cially the logoi), and even the uncreated ener gies, which hesees as an exten sion of the divine nature in par tici pable form tocrea tures. All of these things con sti tute the ener gies and ele mentswhich give per sons, divine and human, the abil ity to com mu ni cateand draw closer to one another. It neces si tates a spir i tu al ity thatleaves out no aspect of real ity.

An Integral Approach to Spirituality 127

The three main sec tions of the book cover in detail the threestages of the spir i tual life. In the first, puri fi ca tion, Stãniloae pro -vides a detailed anal y sis of the pas sions and vir tues. Accord ing toStãniloae, the pri mary cause of the pas sions is ego tism and itsresult ing mis di rec tion of spir i tual energy. Ego tism is the pos it ing of the self above all others. Its cure begins with faith, which is the pos -it ing of God above all others, espe cially one self. Ego tism causes amis di rec tion of man’s spir i tual thirst—or as Stãniloae puts it, “theinfi nite aspi ra tion of man”—from its nat u ral goal of unend inginter per sonal com mu nion, to things that bring grat i fi ca tion to theself, pri mar ily through the senses. The trans fer of this thirst tofinite objects results in a dis tor tion or defor ma tion of nat u ralhuman affec tions and powers, result ing in pas sions. The higherhuman fac ul ties (the mind and the spirit) become ser vants of thelower, bodily fac ul ties. The human person is dom i nated by hislower ten den cies, and is no longer free to rule him self.

Puri fi ca tion is the pro cess of the reori en ta tion of the self fromego tism to love, and of the nat u ral human fac ul ties (includ ingreason and will) from serv ing the pas sions to incul cat ing the vir -tues. It is a res to ra tion of the proper hier ar chy of human nature(spirit ruling the body), and of proper unity amongst men (nolonger divided by pride and greed). The world itself is no longerseen one-dimensionally, as a means of con stant ego tis ti cal grat i fi ca -tion, but in its true light and pur pose, as a man i fes ta tion of andmeans of communion with God and others.

In the second sec tion, illu mi na tion, Stãniloae shows the effectsof the heal ing of mind and reason. Illu mi na tion is a man i fes ta tionof the gifts of the Holy Spirit given in Chrismation. Although thesegifts were pres ent in the acqui si tion of the vir tues, now theybecome man i fested openly as an inten si fi ca tion and sharp en ing ofthe spir i tual and intel lec tual fac ul ties. Illu mi na tion is a sen si tiv itytoward the pres ence and activ ity of God which allows one to seeGod work ing through all things: through the mate rial things ofcre ation as well as through human events and rela tion ships. It cul -mi nates in “intu ition,” an instan ta neous grasp of divine pur pose


(or, logos) in all things, and in wisdom, a broad per spec tive beyondone’s own.

Stãniloae closely fol lows Maximus’ teach ing of the “rea sons”(logoi) of cre ation in his expo si tion of illu mi na tion. In the sim plestterms, the logoi are a modal ity of divine imma nence. Every cre atedreal ity has its asso ci ated logos. The logoi cor re spond to the divineactiv ity through which God cre ates, sus tains and guides all thingstowards him self. As the models/goals of all things, the logoi pre-exist in an eter nal, undif fer en ti ated, and unchang ing unity in Godhim self, the one Logos, and become dif fer en ti ated through cre -ation. In this way, all things are a man i fes ta tion of the Logos ofGod. The logoi pro ceed from God in all things, and lead man backto God through things.

In Stãniloae’s view, the logoi have both onto log i cal and exis ten -tial dimen sions. They are not purely “static” real i ties, but have acer tain dyna mism, which can reveal per sonal com mu ni ca tion.God com mu ni cates to each person spe cif i cally through the thingsof the world. Man must freely respond to this com mu ni ca tion byseek ing the logoi inher ent in cre ation, through which he devel opshis own intel lec tual powers and com munes with the thoughts andinten tions of God. As a person grows in illu mi na tion, these logoiman i fest God Him self more and more, until even the dis tinc tionbetween sub ject and object is tran scended: one sees the Giver morethan the gift in all things.

As a person pro gresses in illu mi na tion he is led more and more to tran scend the logoi to their source. For this reason, growth in illu -mi na tion is accom pa nied by a simul ta neous growth in com mu -nion with God through prayer. This jour ney beyond the logoi leadsone through prayer to the very depths of one’s being, or “heart.”There one seeks God alone. Stãniloae devel ops this philokalictheme espe cially through a repeated ref er ence to Mark the Ascetic’sview that Bap tism occa sions the indwell ing of Christ in the hiddendepth of the human heart, in “the place behind the ico nosta sis.”The height of illu mi na tion occurs in “pure prayer,” in which themind jour neys to its inner depths, and in the pro cess for sakes all


things in its search to be filled with God. The mind sees the infin ityof God reflected in its own indef i nite nature. It stands in silent awebefore the “abyss” of this depth. This is the high est point of the spir -i tual ascent which can be reached by human powers, but it is notyet union.

Dei fi ca tion is the topic of the third sec tion. Here, Stãniloae dis -tin guishes between dei fi ca tion in the “broad” sense, and dei fi ca -tion in the “strict” sense. The former is a pro cess of being filledmore and more with God’s pres ence, and begins even in this life.The latter, dei fi ca tion in a “strict” sense, is a full union with Godbeyond any human fac ulty. This too can be expe ri enced even inthis life, but only in brief moments. This occurs at the height ofpure prayer, when the mind is ecstat i cally swept away—across theabyss sep a rat ing the cre ated from the uncreated—and is unitedwith the uncreated light. This union is no longer prayer, but a freegift of God, a moment of expe ri ence of the intra-Trin i tar ian love.The mind only receives and accepts this grace, con trib ut ing noth -ing from its own powers to attain this par tic i pa tion in the divine. Itsees God through God.

Dei fi ca tion in a strict sense will be the per ma nent state of human exis tence in the future age. All the saints will par tic i pate in the Trin -i tar ian intersubjectivity, and all cre ation will become the trans par -ent bearer of the uncreated ener gies. The saints will be simul ta -neously one with God and one with each other, in an uncon fusedmanner, and with all spir i tu al ized cre ation. This state of per fec tionwill grow ever deeper for all eternity.

An Integral Approach to Theology and Spirituality

One impor tant aspect of Stãniloae’s pre sen ta tion and under stand -ing of the spir i tual ascent is that there is abso lutely no dual ism inany of its aspects. Puri fi ca tion and dei fi ca tion prog ress together, asdoes knowl edge and love. Stãniloae’s inte gral approach is a defin ing char ac ter is tic of his thought. This sec tion will exam ine a fewexam ples.


The Unity of the Stages of Ascent

The first exam ple of this inte gral approach is that there is no dual -ism in or oppo si tion between the stages of the spir i tual ascent.Stãniloae sees these var i ous stages as inte grally inter wo ven witheach other, pro gress ing simul ta neously. As Stãniloae says, “Thesteps of the spir i tual ascent are not as sep a rate as we have describedthem pre vi ously for meth od olog i cal rea sons … a num ber of themcoex ist” (318–89). Puri fi ca tion, illu mi na tion and dei fi ca tionadvance together,3 all cen tered around the union of the believerwith Christ and the coop er a tion of the Holy Spirit. The road tofree dom from the pas sions is the same as the road to union withGod. The vir tues, as Stãniloae points out, are not mere duties thatmay win sal va tion in the next life, but vehi cles of trans for ma tionand dei fi ca tion in the pres ent (21). As one grows in vir tue andknowl edge, one is filled all the more with the work ing pres ence ofGod, and vice versa. The heal ing of human nature and strength en -ing of its pow ers (or, “human iza tion”) and uni fi ca tion with God(“dei fi ca tion”) are insep a ra ble. The path and the peak are organ i -cally con nected. This implies that in the high est stage of dispassionand union with God, the saint expe ri ences his deep est con nec tionto the world and exhib its the high est degree of love for hisneigh bor.

From this per spec tive, the steps of puri fi ca tion and dei fi ca tioncan only be dis tin guished based on the type and amount of humancon tri bu tion given to the pro cess. In puri fi ca tion, human effort ismore pro nounced, though not with out the help of God. In thehigher stages, divine work is more pro nounced, though not with -out the uncon strained human accep tance of grace. Our virtue isnot entirely a result of our efforts, nor are we com pletely pas sive inour union with God (e.g. 24, 327).


3 As Stãniloae puts it, “a clear-cut sep a ra tion be tween these ac tiv i ties never takesplace” (44). For ex am ple, the prog ress in dispassion and pure prayer are si mul ta -neous (274); prayer helps one see the logoi, and vice versa (281 n.186); pu ri fi ca tionhelps growth in love for God, and love helps dispassion (303).

A Positive and Healthy Asceticism

Another exam ple of this lack of dual ism is Stãniloae’s pos i tive viewof the nat u ral world and human nature, which is reflected in hishealthy approach to ascet i cism. Accord ing to Stãniloae, ascet i cismhas not only a “neg a tive” aim, the erad i ca tion of the pas sions and theego tism that causes them, but also a “pos i tive” one, the acqui si tionof the vir tues and love for God and neigh bor. Under stood in thisman ner, ascet i cism is a fight not against nature but for it. It is ulti -mately the strug gle to restore nature to its proper, intended, trans par -ent state, as a means to bring about inter per sonal com mu nion.

For exam ple, ascet i cism seeks to heal the ener gies of humannature, not erad i cate them. As Stãniloae puts it, “ascet i cism meansthe sub li ma tion of this ele ment of bodily affectivity, not its abo li -tion. Chris tian ity does n’t save man from a cer tain part of hisnature, but it saves him as a whole. The power man i fested in thesenat u ral pas sions is also tapped to serve man in his ascent to God”(86). By proper use, the fac ul ties of human nature are restored totheir proper func tions. Their ego tis ti cal exag ger a tions areremoved, but not their nat u ral powers.

Stãniloae thereby shows that ascet i cism values the nat u ral world. It is not a scorn of the world, but a dis cov ery of the world. By pro -mot ing a proper use and restraint towards the mate rial things ofcre ation, they are seen as gifts and means for inter per sonal com mu -ni ca tion. The world is dark only when used for ego tis ti cal grat i fi ca -tion, which leads to self-enclo sure. As Stãniloae says, one does notturn away from the world to see God, but away “from a worldnarrow and exag ger ated by the pas sions, to find a trans par entworld which itself becomes a mirror of God and a ladder to Him”(149).

Far, then, from remov ing a person from the world and other per -sons, ascet i cism leads to a height ened sense of respon si bil itytowards them, and an honest, unaf fected and self-giving rela tion -ship with them. It restores authen tic unity in the human com mu -nity, torn asun der by pride and greed, rather than fur ther frag -


ment ing it. Ascet i cism does not lead to dis in ter est in the world andone’s neigh bor, but to an exclu sion of ego tis ti cal self-inter est. Itincludes and pro motes the inter est of love (188). In Ortho dox spir -i tu al ity, this is true even for the one who has attained the high estlevels of spir i tual life—one that is no longer pre oc cu pied withexter nal activities—who still “exerts an influ ence on the devel op -ment of the world, by an attrac tion and a power which touch hisneigh bors, that they might become as he is, by the same ful fill mentof the commandments, by the same virtuous work” (45).

Personhood and Nature, Divine and Human

Foun da tional to Stãniloae’s lack of dual ism (and per haps unique toStãniloae’s personalist approach to the patris tic tra di tion) is hisdou ble empha sis on “per son” and “nature” as insep a ra ble yet dis -tinct real i ties. In this approach, all of our goals and actions arealways ori ented towards another per son, and nature always pro -vides the means of actu al iz ing them. These two themes areseamlessly com bined in Stãniloae’s syn the sis, show ing the true sig -nif i cance of each.

Through out Ortho dox Spir i tu al ity, as in his other works, thereader will notice the cen tral ity of the theme of personhood. This is espe cially evi dent when he reflects on the per sonal char ac ter ofGod (the “Supreme Per sonal Real ity”). In Stãniloae’s view, person -hood is the quint es sen tial char ac ter is tic of God. For exam ple, Godis apophatic and tran scen dent—beyond his ener gies and man i fes -ta tions, yet insep a ra ble from them—because he is Person. Yet onaccount of “the image of God,” human personhood also has anapophatic and tran scen dent char ac ter. Due to their personhood,God and man exist together on a plane of exis tence which is abovethe world of non-per sonal objects. Stãniloae has taken this fact soseri ously that he feels free to make obser va tions about humanpersonhood to illu mine char ac ter is tics of divine personhood, andvice versa.4 One reveals the other. Typ i cally, there is a rec og niz ablepat tern to these anal o gies, which can ade quately be described as


4 Though be yond our dis cus sion here, it could be pointed out that the basis of these

“recip ro cal anal o gies.”5 This approach allows Stãniloae to seehuman rela tion ships as icons of the divine-human rela tion ship(39), and the spir i tual ascent as a pro cess through which our mostinti mate per sonal rela tion ships are devel oped. Insights gainedfrom the two start ing points are at times so tight that it is next toimpos si ble to sep a rate them. In all his works Stãniloae uses thistech nique exten sively, result ing in many fruit ful obser va tions.

For exam ple, in order for two human per sons to know eachother, they must be “open” to one another. Each must make an actof rev e la tion, which is done on his own ini tia tive. The same is truefor know ing God, or as Stãniloae remarks, “How much more sowith God, the Supreme Person … man can’t know Him, unless Hereveals Him self ” (38). In this way Stãniloae uses this simple obser -va tion of human exis tence to illus trate a basic prin ci ple of the ol ogy: God is a per sonal real ity, and there fore is known by willed self-rev e la tion.

Another exam ple is Stãniloae’s anal ogy of a “smile” to dem on -strate the joy and warmth that the rev e la tion of God brings (333,344–45). The smile is typ i cally a sign that one human being wishesto open him self up to another. The lack thereof is a sign that hewishes to remain closed from the other. The smile dem on strates the open ing of the person, an open ing which is accom pa nied by lightand joy. As with human rela tion ships, so with God, the vision andopen ing of the beloved are accom pa nied by a light and by joy. Yet


re cip ro cal anal o gies lies pri mar ily in Stãniloae’s ap pro pri a tion of the image-pro to -type re la tion ship be tween God and man. Man re flects di vine at trib utes andpersonhood in him self by na ture, for the image would not be “image” un less it re -flected in some au then tic way the at trib utes of its pro to type (see, for ex am ple, Greg -ory of Nyssa De Opif. hom. 11, PG 44:156AB, NPNF 5:396–97). There fore,in sights from human personhood can re veal char ac ter is tics of di vine personhoodwith out an thro po mor phism. Maximus the Con fes sor sum ma rizes this view in onesen tence when he writes, “God and man are par a digms of one an other” (Amb. 10,PG 91:1113C, ET An drew Louth, Maximus the Con fes sor [New York: Routledge,1996], 101). Not only is God the par a digm of man, but man is of God. This is abold as ser tion, but one which Stãniloae em ploys con tin u ously.

5 They are typ i cally ac com pa nied by the words, “how much more so” or “how muchless.”

this expe ri ence of the opened other cannot be entirely cap tured incon cep tual thought, but is a direct and non-dis cur sive expe ri ence.In these simple obser va tions of the human expe ri ence of a smile,Stãniloae brings into relief the per sonal dimen sion of the apophatic vision of the divine light.

This anal ogy of the smile also dem on strates how insep a ra bly thereal i ties of person and nature are inter wo ven: only through the fac -ul ties of human nature and through the things of nature (mate rialcre ation) is inter per sonal com mu nion either advanced or inhib -ited. The person is insep a ra ble from his nature, and can only com -mu ni cate through its ener gies. In our exam ple, the human face, oreven eyes, convey all the nuances of the soul—its state, its open ingor closing—to another human being, either spread ing love or theopposite.

This simple anal ogy dem on strates the impor tance of “nature” inStãniloae’s the ol ogy, com ple ment ing his empha sis on personhoodat every level of ascent. Every stage of the ascent is tightly asso ci ated with a par tic u lar devel op ment of human fac ul ties. In puri fi ca tion,the vir tues implanted by God in our nature are brought out. In illu -mi na tion, the intel lec tual powers of the soul are strength ened.Even in dei fi ca tion, which is a gift and not the result of humanlabors, our recep tive powers grow, result ing in an “ampli fi ca tion ofthe heart” (321).

In this vision, the spir i tual over whelms the mate rial, with outhow ever destroy ing it. Human nature as a whole is reuni fied, andall nature—both human and oth er wise—becomes trans par ent,mir ror ing and reflect ing the divine. The grace of God rees tab lishesnature, and then lifts the human person beyond it, yet with out hisdestruc tion. But all of this is to bring about ever deeper inter per -sonal com mu nion, a love of the high est degree, a sub sti tu tion of“I’s” with out con fu sion. In this sense, Stãniloae uses the term “per -son al ize” to refer to the heal ing of human nature, or even to thetrans for ma tion of the entire world into a trans par ent man i fes ta tion of God.


The Synthesis of Stãniloae

The reader can not help but be swept away by Stãniloae’s vision andenthu si asm. Yet it is always an enthu si asm which remainsgrounded in real ity and sober ness. Con cep tual thought, the ol ogyand spir i tu al ity must all be based on the logoi of the world, checkedby divine rev e la tion and in con for mity with the tra di tion of theChurch. But rather than lead to an ossi fi ca tion of theo log i calthought, this only helps main tain the gen u ine char ac ter of itsdevel op ment.

This results in an inte gral gnoseology, a gnoseology which neces -si tates puri fi ca tion and spir i tual strug gle, in which knowl edge pro -gresses with love, reason with spir i tual wisdom, and inter per sonalcom mu nion with the heal ing of nature. The spir i tual ascent is notsep a rated from the other activ i ties of life (work, or prog ress in anyarea of human achieve ment), but becomes inter wo ven with them.The spir i tual path is not reserved for the few, but man da tory for allChristians.

Stãniloae’s theo log i cal vision and approach to the spir i tual ascent can be described as one great syn the sis. All real i ties con trib ute tothe ascent, all prog ress together, mutu ally assist ing and inter pen -etrat ing each other. There is no dialogical oppo si tion between, nortotal sep a ra tion of, person and nature, logos and symbol, essenceand energy, body and soul, the fac ul ties of the mind, heart orreason, cataphatic, apophatic or exis ten tial knowl edge, the stagesof puri fi ca tion, illu mi na tion and dei fi ca tion, the world and God,and finally, even the cre ated and uncreated. But nei ther is there aniden ti fi ca tion of these real i ties. They all exist together inChalcedonian manner (e.g. 370). In all of these real i ties, God asPer sonal Real ity is work ing through and beyond all things to bringthe human sub ject into an ever deeper com mu nion with Him self.

A Conversational Methodology

Par tic u larly inter est ing is Stãniloae’s free and even lib eral cita tionsfrom theo lo gians and think ers from every era and ori en ta tion. All


of them make their con tri bu tion, or pro vide a sound ing board, forone aspect of Stãniloae’s expo si tion or another. Like a bee mak inghoney, Stãniloae is not afraid to gather good nec tar from wher everit can be found. This method of Stãniloae is almost an expres sion of his the ol ogy of intersubjective rela tion ships in action, in which hecon verses with oth ers and through him they con verse with eachother. What results is a per spec tive which is both tra di tional andcon tem po rary simul ta neously. The insights of one are com ple -mented and deep ened by the other. Here we will give some briefexam ples.

Heidegger’s Angst and the Virtue of Hope

One exam ple is Stãniloae’s expo si tion of Heidegger’s con cept of“angst” (anx i ety, worry), which is used to help explain the ori en ta -tion of the ego tis ti cal man towards the things of the world.Stãniloae sees Heidegger’s angst as a “struc ture” of human exis tencein which man is always in a state of ten sion over the uncer tainty ofhis future in the world. This anx i ety dom i nates his spir i tual orintel lec tual ori en ta tion. It pre vents him from see ing the true pur -pose of his own exis tence. Stãniloae expands Heidegger’s anal y sisby show ing that man’s pas sions (his seek ing of plea sure and avoid -ance of pain), which nail him to the world, are an under ly ing causeof angst. More over, Stãniloae points out that there is another kindof angst not spec i fied by Heidegger: anx i ety over one’s true self andone’s sal va tion. This lat ter kind of angst totally oblit er ates the ego -tis ti cal angst. It frees a per son from worldly care so that he maybecome avail able for God. The fear of God in this way replaces sin -ful angst with the vir tue of hope, which is noth ing short of a mir a -cle, a real iza tion beyond the nat u ral pow ers of man, fullyexplain able only by faith. “The prob lems which make peo plearound us lose sleep have lost all their mean ing in our eyes.”6

Binswanger and the Holy Fathers

A sec ond exam ple of this con ver sa tional meth od ol ogy is seen in


6 Cf. 116–18, 143, 178.

Stãniloae’s incor po ra tion of the thought of the Swiss psy chol o gistand exis ten tial ist, Lud wig Binswanger (1881–1966), a con tem po -rary and an antag o nist of Freud. Binswanger was greatly influ enced by the thought of both Heidegger and Mar tin Buber, and devel -oped his own notions of the “I-thou” rela tion ship, or “we-ness”(Wirstrucktur). Among his ideas that Stãniloae draws from (notonly in the pres ent work)7 is that of “struc ture” (Ges talt) (349).Accord ing to this the ory, the lov ing rela tion ship between two per sonshas a cer tain orga ni za tion or form. It can not be entirely cap tured bycon cep tual thought, yet it comes about in pat terns that leave shad ows,so to speak, which can be grasped by a form of intu ition.

Stãniloae uses this con cept of “struc ture” to illu mine the patris tic notion of the vision of the divine light, as for mu lated, for exam ple,by Greg ory Palamas and Greg ory of Nyssa.8 Palamas, for instance,com pares the one who expe ri ences the divine light to Moses enter -ing the taber na cle; the more he pro gresses in the light, the more hefeels that he is enter ing fur ther and fur ther into a holy temple ofloving inti macy with God. The sanc tu ary (or “Holy of Holies”),how ever, being the divine essence, is unap proach able. Stãniloaecom ments that this expe ri ence is also lik ened to the taber na cle byGreg ory of Nyssa. What the Fathers are describ ing, then, is a“struc ture” which “does n’t have just a the o ret i cal char ac ter, but isan exis ten tial expe ri ence of the divine inti macy by the whole man,an expe ri ence and not the o ret i cal knowl edge, a struc ture of loveand not a con cept” (350). Stãniloae uses the con cept of “struc ture”to describe all human expe ri ences of a per sonal char ac ter, whetherit be of one’s own self, one’s neigh bor, or God. These struc tureshave an exis ten tial rather than a ratio nal char ac ter, or rather, they


7 For ex am ple, his no tion that the Holy Trin ity is the “Struc ture of Su preme Love”(see The Ex pe ri ence of God, 245ff.).

8 Yet he does this in a man ner which stays within the tra di tion. “How ever use ful theidea of these struc tures might be, we would n’t dare to use it to il lus trate cer tain el e -ments of the ex pe ri ence of the di vine light, if we had n’t dis cov ered in it the mod ernfor mu la tion of one of the ideas of St Greg ory Palamas” (354). This idea of Palamas—ac tu ally from Dionysius—is that of typos, or “im pressed image,” re fer ring to theim ma te rial im pres sion that the di vine light makes on the human being.

are supra-ratio nal. Yet they are expe ri enced or lived in cer tainforms. Here again one notices how fruit ful Stãniloae’s inter pre ta -tion of patris tic writ ings can be through his use of mul ti ple sources.

Another exam ple is Stãniloae’s use of Binswanger’s notion of“imag i na tion,” under stood in its ety mo log i cal sense.9 Imag i na tionrefers to the impres sions which we both receive and convey ininter per sonal rela tions. We imprint our impres sions on each other,for good or bad. These impres sions can become forces of change inthe per son al ity of the one imprinted. “Thus the image of the oneloved, ide al ized by the imag i na tion of one who loves, becomes amodel force which trans forms the one loved from day to day, whilethe one who loves also actu al izes more and more his ide al izedimage, fash ioned by the other” (317). What results is a syn the sisbetween the lover and the beloved, in which the “I” of eachbecomes insep a ra ble from the “we” of both, a true union with outcon fu sion of loving sub jects. Stãniloae uses these notions to bringout the transformative power of the union of the believer andChrist, par tic u larly through the Jesus Prayer, which “fash ions us ina spir i tual imag ing of His spir i tual image” (318).

The Apophaticism of Vladimir Lossky

Stãniloae’s con ver sa tional meth od ol ogy also includes his dia loguewith other Ortho dox theo lo gians, and his con tri bu tion to orexpan sion of their insights. Among these think ers, per haps the best known in the Eng lish lan guage and the most admired by Stãniloaehim self is Vladi mir Lossky. It should be of inter est to stu dentsof Ortho dox the ol ogy to see Stãniloae’s expan sion of Lossky’sinsights, for exam ple, regard ing the nature of apophaticism.Stãniloae cred its Lossky for bring ing the cen tral ity of apophaticismin Ortho dox spir i tu al ity to the con scious ness of con tem po raryOrtho dox thought, and for dis cern ing the fact that apophaticismin Ortho doxy is not the same as neg a tive the ol ogy as under stood inscho las tic thought (230).


9 Cf. 310–19. Stãniloae dis tin guishes him self from Binswanger on cer tain points(319).

In his own dis cus sion of apophatic knowl edge, Stãniloae citesLossky exten sively (cf. 230–36). Though he con sid ers Lossky’sexpo si tion to be cor rect, Stãniloae wishes to com ple ment Lossky’sunder stand ing of apophaticism on two points.10 The first has to do with a dis tinc tion in apophatic expe ri ence. On this point, Stãniloaesays that Lossky ignored the cen tral role of the vision of the divinelight, a point on which Stãniloae may not be cor rect.11 Nev er the -less, the dis tinc tion which Stãniloae wishes to make is valid,namely, that two levels or stages can be dis cerned in the apophaticexpe ri ence. The first is reached as the summit of human powers, inwhich the soul has for saken all things and stands in silent awebefore its own indef i nite ness and the divine infin ity. But this is notyet union with God. The second level is actual union with God,with the “divine ray” (as Dionysius puts it), which is the vision ofthe uncreated light. In this second, ecstatic, apophatic expe ri ence,man expe ri ences God in a way beyond human fac ul ties andpowers.

The second point of dis tinc tion which Stãniloae wishes to makecon cerns Lossky’s under stand ing of the expe ri ence of this secondlevel of apophatic expe ri ence. In Stãniloae’s view, even though theexpe ri ence of the uncreated ener gies takes place in a mannerbeyond human fac ul ties, yet it is an expe ri ence, and as such, gives aform of knowl edge.12 There fore even in the high est stage of unionwith God, Stãniloae does not feel there is a “abso lute, total igno -rance” (as Lossky puts it), but only an “igno rance” which is a sur -pass ing knowl edge.13 Unfor tu nately, this latter point of dis tinc tion


10 “We con sider Lossky’s pre sen ta tion to be ac cu rate … But we would like to sup ple -ment this pre sen ta tion with cer tain nu ances and ad di tions” (235).

11 As the trans la tors point out (231 n.66), Stãniloae prob a bly did not see Lossky’s en -tire book on the sub ject of the di vine light (i.e., The Vi sion of God), though else where in the text Stãniloae does say that Lossky’s un der stand ing of the vi sion of the di vinelight is cor rect (336).

12 For ex am ple, see the sum mary of these two forms of the apophatic ex pe ri ence at242–23.

13 In com ment ing on Greg ory of Nyssa’s in ter pre ta tion of the ta ber na cle of Moses, hesays it “is not an apophaticism pure and sim ple” but “a pos i tive vi sion and an ex pe ri -

is not made man i fest in the text because a key para graph inStãniloae’s dis cus sion on this topic is miss ing from the trans la tion.Because this is an impor tant facet of the com par a tive study of thesetwo Ortho dox theo lo gians, it is worth noting this para graph forthose with out access to the Roma nian text:14

Lossky is cor rect when he says that apophaticism is pres ent on all the steps of the spir i tual as cent. But some times he gives the im pres sion that he ac cen tu ates the in com pre hen si bil ity ofGod so much that he al most ex cludes the other side of cer taintypes of knowl edge, even though, on the other hand, he lets itbe un der stood that he does not in es sence dis dain a knowl -edge of God through ex pe ri ence, but only con cep tual knowl -edge. But if ev ery where we are able to have some thingpos i tive from God, then we are no lon ger able to speak of a“to tal, ab so lute in com pre hen si bil ity,” as he ex presses it atother times. This co mes per haps from the fact that, as itseems, he is not pre oc cu pied with the dif fer ent steps ofapophaticism.15

Even though a full com par i son of these think ers is beyond thescope of this essay, it can be noted that this latter point is part of alarger issue regard ing the appro pri a tion and value of cataphaticknowl edge as it relates to the apophatic in Ortho dox the ol ogy.Stãniloae brings atten tion to this issue in his other works as well, for exam ple, in the Expe ri ence of God. In this work, as in his Ortho doxSpir i tu al ity, Stãniloae cites Lossky exten sively—and even refers tohis writ ings as reflect ing “the most authen tic Ortho dox spirit”—yet Stãniloae makes points about cer tain nuances which com ple -ment and com plete, rather than den i grate, Lossky’s per spec tive.16

Addi tion ally, this para graph sug gests that Lossky’s thought may


ence in a re al ity su pe rior to any knowl edge” (p. 350).14 Spiritualitatea Ortodoxã. Ascetica si Mistica (Bucuresti: Editura Institutului Biblic si

de Misiune, 1992). Hence forth cited as RT (“Ro ma nian Text”).15 RT 194. The para graph be longs on p. 235 of the Eng lish trans la tion, fol low ing the

sen tence “But we would like to sup ple ment this pre sen ta tion with cer tain nu ancesand ad di tions.”

16 For ex am ple, see The Ex pe ri ence of God, vol. 2, 99–100; vol. 1, 123 n.8.

have been influ en tial in shap ing two per spec tives of Stãniloae: first,Stãniloae’s view that the apophatic expe ri ence takes place at everystep of the spir i tual ascent (and hence per me ates cataphatic knowl -edge); and second, Stãniloae’s dis ap proval of the purely con cep tualknowl edge of God (that is, the o ret i cal knowl edge not based onexpe ri ence or knowl edge of God through the logoi).

A Few Notes on the Translation.

Stãniloae draws from so many sources and think ers that the trans la -tion of his philo soph i cal and theo log i cal vocab u lary was a daunt ing task in itself. Over all, the trans la tion is faith ful to the text, accu rateand clear. How ever, a few sub tle points—per haps tech ni cal—areworth point ing out.

The Divine Logoi, or “Reasons”

The first is the use of the trans lit er ated Greek word “logoi.”Although it may seem con fus ing to the gen eral reader, over all thetrans la tors made a good deci sion to trans late the Roma nian“ratiunile” (lit er ally, “rea sons”) as logoi through out the text, inso faras this is a tech ni cal term in Stãniloae’s thought, bor rowed mainlyfrom Maximus. The fact that logoi appears so fre quently makes thecen tral ity of this doc trine in Stãniloae’s own syn the sis all the moreobvi ous. He draws from it freely and often. Yet with out a priorknowl edge of this doc trine, his own dis cus sion may not always beunder stood. To help the reader in this regard, the trans la tors hadthe good judg ment to add a para graph explain ing this doc trinefrom another of Stãniloae’s works.17

The “I” or the “Ego”

The deci sion to trans late the Roma nian “eu-ul” (lit er ally, “the I”) as “ego,” how ever, does not always fit the text and may lead to somecon fu sion. By itself, the word “ego” has cer tain neg a tive con no ta -tions in pop u lar Eng lish usage, which do not fit into Stãniloae’s


17 The para graph is from Stãniloae’s com men tary on the Ques tions to Thalassius ofMaximus the Con fes sor (see 40 n.32; and 41 n.34).

own con cep tion. For Stãniloae, the “I” is sim ply the cen ter ofhuman sub jec tiv ity, the per son. By itself, the “I” does not carrywith it a neg a tive, ego tis ti cal con no ta tion.

In places (and there are only a hand ful) in which the “I” doeshave a neg a tive con no ta tion, Stãniloae has given it one with anexplicit qual i fier within the same dis cus sion. For exam ple, when hewrites, “My con cepts of you as the prod ucts of the ego [eu-ul] are asign of the lack of love” (345, RT 294) This usage of “the I” hasbeen given an explicit neg a tive qual i fier a bit ear lier in the same dis -cus sion, where Stãniloae refers to “the sphere of my ego tis tic ego[eu-ul]” (344, RT 293). In this case, the trans la tion of “eu-ul” as“ego” works fine.18 In all other instances,19 when ever Stãniloaegives “the I” a neg a tive con no ta tion, he does so either directly, ordoes not use “the I” at all, but other expres sions.

In some dis cus sions, how ever, the ren der ing of “the I” as “ego” maycause con fu sion. This is espe cially evi dent in Stãniloae’s fre quent ref er -ences to love between per sons as a sub sti tu tion of “I’s.”20 In this case,“I” does not carry a neg a tive con no ta tion as does “ego.” For exam ple,Stãniloae writes, “In the joy that I have because of you, my love foryou, which goes so far that I forget my ego [eu-ul meu], in order toput you in its place, in the union between you and me” (324, RT275). In this text, “ego” is used, but it is not the ego tis ti cal self that issub sti tuted, but the “I” itself, yet with out confusion. Stãniloae uses


18 The same could be said for an other in stance, in which Stãniloae re fers to “shad owyprison of the ego (‘eu-ul’)” (142, RT 112), which has been pre vi ously qual i fied inthe same para graph with the phrase “his inauthentic ego” (“eu-ul sãu neautentic”).Again, since “the I” in this case has been qual i fied in a cer tain neg a tive way, it is cor -rectly ren dered by the Eng lish “ego.”

19 The only in stance which this re viewer could find in the en tire text in which “I” isused in a neg a tive man ner with out a qual i fier is on 94–95 (RT 71). But even here“I” is con trasted with “we” as an ex pres sion of pride and the di vi sion be tween peo -ple. It is not “I” that is evil by it self, but the set ting of the “I” over and op posed to“we,” for as Stãniloae ex plains fre quently, even in the “we” of high est union of love,the “I” re mains ir re duc ible (see, for ex am ple, 39, 312–23).

20 Per haps the best ex am ple of this is found in the long dis cus sion on 312–23, RT 263,be gin ning with: “You are nec es sary to me as an au ton o mous sub ject, not as a sub or -di nate ob ject. You are nec es sary for me in order to re place care for my self with carefor you, in order to put you in the place of my ego [“I”] …”

sim i lar imag ery to describe the ecstatic union of the believer withGod in the vision of uncreated light. Once again, the use of the Eng -lish “ego” may lead to some con fu sion when Stãniloae says, “This isthe expe ri ence of love in moments of ecstasy: I no longer see myself,but only you; in the hori zon of my sight you take the place of my ego[locul eu-ului].”21 Or again, “He who car ries out this sub sti tu tion ofegos [eu-uri, lit er ally “I’s”], between me and Christ, and between allthose united with Christ, is the Holy Spirit.”22

Trans la tion of this expres sion was indeed a dif fi cult task. Thetrans la tors doubt less saw this, because in some places it is ren dereddirectly as “I,” since using “ego” would not fit at all.23 In others, it iscom bined with “I.” In a cer tain sense, then, they were “caughtbetween a rock and a hard place.” To render “eu-ul” as “I” through -out the text would have been awk ward, though accu rate. Nev er the -less, in many texts the use of “ego” may be con fus ing due to its neg -a tive con no ta tion in English.

The Person as “Indefinite”

More sub tle, yet impor tant, is the more or less con sis tent trans la -tion of the Roma nian “indefinit” (lit er ally, “indef i nite”) as “unlim -it ed ness,” “bound less ness,” and even “infi nite,” when used as aqual i fier to describe the human per son. Stãniloae uses the qual i fier“indef i nite” (actu ally from Binswanger) to describe a real ity, suchas the love between two per sons, that can not be fully cap tured,under stood or described by ratio nal thought.

The impor tant point is that the human person is not an infi niteor unlim ited real ity in Stãniloae’s con cep tion. It is rather an “indef i -


21 332, RT 282. This ci ta tion is in a dis cus sion of see ing God in the time of prayer, inthe sub sec tion “The Mean ing of the Di vine Light.”

22 318, RT 269. In this text, the trans la tors made an ef fort to clar ify this pas sage byusing both “I” and “ego” for “eu-ul.”

23 Thus, for ex am ple, “eu-ul” was ren dered as “I” in sev eral crit i cal points, such as inthe dis cus sion on the irreducibility of the “I” (im por tant for his con cept of love) on39 (RT 23, see dis cus sion 312–23); on 283 “Rather we re main with our ‘I’ from thedepths …” (RT 237); in the ex ten sive ci ta tion of Bulgakov’s view of the “I” on252 n.119 (RT 210 n.39); and other places.

nite” real ity, since the “I” or person itself cannot be cap tured incon cep tual thought nor totally under stood by the reason.24 It isbeyond reason, not in an irra tio nal sense, but in a supra-ratio nalsense. In this “indef i nite” char ac ter of the human person isreflected the Infi nite of the Divine Per sons. The person reflects thisin the apophatic char ac ter of his own exis tence, as well as in hiscapac ity to thirst after, par tic i pate in, and to some degree con tain,the Divine Infi nite. In this sense Stãniloae under stands the dictumof Maximus that God is “the abyss” and the human person is “theplace of the abyss.” Man can par tic i pate in or expe ri ence the infin -ity of God, but man is not infi nite him self.25 In fact, the source ofsin and the pas sions is the mis tak ing of his infi nite thirst for God asan auton o mous infi nite capac ity of his own nature.26 As we sawabove, pas sion is the redi rec tion of this infi nite thirst away fromGod and towards the self and the world.27

This subtle dis tinc tion is impor tant for two rea sons. Firstly, theexplicit con trast that Stãniloae makes between the “indef i nite” of the human sub ject and the “infi nite” of the divine sub ject is sub se -quently lost in the text. For exam ple, he writes, “We have seen thatthe one who descends into the indef i nite [not “unlim ited”] depths of his own sub ject, also fol lows the scent of the divine infi nite, in con -


24 For ex am ple: “It [the nous] is there fore the basis of the human sub ject, which is be -yond de lim ited con tents, be yond rea son too which grasps them in con cepts. It is thein def i nite [indefinitã, not un lim ited] basis of the sub ject which also uses rea son.Rea son can’t grasp it, by any con cept what so ever, as it is be yond rea son and everycon cept … the in de fin able basis of our sub ject” (284–85, RT 239).

25 Stãniloae says that “we ex pe ri ence a cer tain unlimitlessness [dezmãrginire] andsome thing which can not be cap tured” only by par tic i pa tion in God. In this ex pe ri -ence, we re al ize the “abyss isn’t en tirely a re gion of our being … Rather it rep re sents,in con ti nu ity with the in def i nite ness [indefinitul, not ‘un lim it ed ness’] of our sub -ject, the in fi nite depths. … St Maximus the Con fes sor calls the Wis dom of God an“abyss” and the cleansed mind “the place of the abyss” (Ambigua, PG 91.1112),which as such can also be called an abyss” (288, RT 242–43).

26 “The human being then, did n’t un der stand that the in fi nite thirst of his na ture isn’tan in di ca tion of the in fin ity of that na ture, be cause the true in fi nite can’t thirst. It’sonly a sign of its ca pac ity to com mu ni cate with the in fi nite, which isn’t a prop erty of his na ture” (78).

27 E.g. 77, 78, 84, 90.

nec tion with his own indef i nite ness [not “unlim it ed ness”] too.”28

The second reason has to do with sit u at ing Stãniloae in thebroader personalist tra di tion.29 Stãniloae has made an effort to dis -tin guish cer tain subtle aspects of his thought—for exam ple, on therela tion of person and nature—from other personalist think erssuch as Berdyaev, Bulgakov, and even Lossky, even though he draws heavily from the latter two. For exam ple, to say that the person is“unlim ited” would take on a dif fer ent nuance in the thought ofBerdyaev and even Bulgakov than it would in that of Stãniloae,who uses the expres sion “indef i nite.” In gen eral, Stãniloae hastaken pains to avoid a dia lec ti cal rela tion ship between “person” and “nature,” in which person is the source of free dom and nature alim it ing factor, as is the case in Berdyaev, for exam ple. Though it isbeyond the scope of this essay, it should be noted that in someinstances (scat tered through out his works), Stãniloae has explic itlymade this point, and so it is an impor tant one for the study of thesevar i ous think ers within Ortho doxy.

Style, Format and Typographical Issues

The reader can appre ci ate the fact that the trans la tors made aneffort to pre serve cer tain ele ments of the Roma nian text. For exam -ple, they pre serve the orig i nal orga ni za tion (sub sec tions, etc.).Stãniloae often digresses (and his digres sions con tain some of hismost cre ative thought), and the orig i nal sub sec tion titles are aidswhich help the reader stay on track. They also ren dered Stãniloae’stech ni cal vocab u lary lit er ally, which sus tains the clar ity and


28 318, RT 268. See also 286–87 (RT 241), 276 (RT 231–32), 286–89 (RT 241–43), 320 (RT 270–1).

29 For an over view of this the theme of “per son” amongst Rus sian think ers, see OlivierClément, “Le thème de la pensé chrétienne russe des XIXe et XXe siècles,” inBerdiaev. Un philo sophe russe en France (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1991), 39–61;also, Tomáš Špidlik, “L’homme, sa personnalité, sa liberté dans la pensée russe,”in Pãcurariu, Mircea, et al., Persoana si Comuniune. Prinos de Cinstire PreotuluiProfesor Ac a de mi cian Dumitru Stãniloae (Sibiu, 1993), 565–77. For an over viewof con tem po rary Or tho dox personalist think ers in clud ing Stãniloae, see Ioan I. Icã,Jr, Persoanã sau/s i/ ontologie în gîndirea ortodoxã contemporanã,” Persoanã si Com -un uine, 359–85 [in Ro ma nian].

rich ness of his thought. How ever, the use of con trac tions (“isn’t”for “is not,” etc.) through out the text, in their effort to pre serveStãniloae’s occa sion ally infor mal style, may not have been the bestsolu tion.30

The trans la tors deserve appre ci a tion and rec og ni tion for theirenor mous under tak ing and accom plish ment. In spite of a fewerrors31 and the tech ni cal details men tioned above, the work isboth read able and uses care ful and con cise lan guage through out, so impor tant in the ren der ing of theo log i cal texts. The trans la tors’assid u ous check ing of ref er ences, some of them not found or incor -rect (much per haps the result of Stãniloae’s computerless work -place), is com men da tory.32 Finally, they have made the extra effortof adding explan a tory foot notes and mate ri als where needed.33

Conclusion

The wealth of infor ma tion and insight in Stãniloae’s work can notpos si bly be cap tured in this review. Besides the themes of which wehave just scratched the sur face, the book also con tains a detaileddescrip tion of the inter re la tion of human fac ul ties (mind, rea son,


30 Though the trans la tors had the in ter est of the reader in mind (see their note at theend of the table of con tents), many may see this as sim ply poor Eng lish.

31 There are a dozen or so mistranslations, many of which the reader may no tice aspurely human er rors. There are also a few in stances of ac ci den tal phrase omis sions,for got ten quo ta tion marks, and the in clu sion of an orig i nal foot note into the text it -self. Though these may alter the sense in their par tic u lar lo ca tion, none are re peatedin con sis ten cies, and there fore are er rors which in gen eral do not af fect the un der ly -ing theo log i cal thought.

32 Deal ing with the mul ti tude of ci ta tions in Stãniloae’s work is a dif fi cult task, whenone con sid ers that (a) Stãniloae cited pas sages from mem ory, and even para phrasedsome pa tris tic ci ta tions; (b) quo ta tion marks are oc ca sion ally miss ing or mis placed;(c) many of his ci ta tions can not be found (even from the Ro ma nian Philokalia, e.g.158 n.149); (d) many of the works he cites are long out of print, if not en tirely, inthe edi tion he used; (e) many works he cites ex ten sively have not been trans lated into Eng lish (e.g. Binswanger, Koepgen, and even much of Maximus). The trans la torshave done their best to in di cate where they have cited a work di rectly, in stead ofusing Stãniloae’s ci ta tion, and where a ref er ence could not be lo cated. They havealso trans lated notes in French, Greek, etc., into Eng lish.

33 Many are in brack ets, trans lat ing Latin and other phrases or terms.

heart, will, etc.), their role in acqui esc ing to pas sion or strug glingfor vir tues, the var i ous forms and meth ods of prayer, and a fas ci nat -ing his tor i cal-crit i cal over view of the seven hesychastic man u als(from Symeon the New Theo lo gian to the Rus sian Pil grim). Theseare all explained with an abun dance of cita tions, and brought to life with Stãniloae’s own insights, many of which obvi ously come fromper sonal expe ri ence. In many places the work takes on an infor malstyle, giv ing it the feel ing more of a con ver sa tion with a spir i tualfather rather than a schol arly study, mak ing it acces si ble and spir i -tu ally nour ish ing to a much broader audi ence that the aca demictheo lo gian, doubt less as the author him self intended. The bookshould not dis ap point read ers who approach it either devo tion allyor aca dem i cally.


“An Integral Approach to Spirituality: The Orthodox Spirituality of Dumitru Stăniloae,” St....

Documents

Transcript of “An Integral Approach to Spirituality: The Orthodox Spirituality of Dumitru Stăniloae,” St....