At the Feet

 

The feast of Candlemas: a throng of faithful gathered together before the Holy Mysteries in the unassuming confines of a simple basement. Here I had the privilege of sitting on the ground before the feet of the priest when he turned from the altar to expound upon the Holy Word.

Now despite my romantic portrayal of this rather routine event – a sermon – it did prompt some reflection on the transmission of the philosophical/religious doctrine, and why we have far the most part lost this transmission. My experience of receiving the Christian teaching at the feet of a man instilled reverence in my soul not only for the Word but for the man who was teaching it to me. I remembered the importance the Hindus place on having a real human being as a spiritual/intellectual guide. It is safe to say that in the Indian traditions you can’t get anywhere without an authentic teacher, the guru is the one who dispels the darkness in his disciples, and for this reason is given a high degree of veneration. I read recently that Ramakrishna said that a disciple would get absolutely no where if he viewed his guru as merely a man.

In contrast, Western man seem to be much more hesitant to grant men veneration, which probably had something to do with the decline of traditional knowledge in recent centuries. This could be so chiefly because giving reverence to philosophical teachers has the benefit of weakening the tendency for originality and innovation. Philosophy conducted as a transmission of traditional teaching through a reverenced teacher who as attained the fruits of the doctrine is a radically different process than that of Descartes who sought to wipe the slate clean and start his investigations into reality on his own premises. It is doubtful that we will ever recover from Descartes’s innovation upon the process of philosophy since it fits so well with Western man’s individualistic tendencies. This modern perspective is also perfectly congruent with Protestantism which sought to eliminate even the reverence for angelic creatures. If an angel can’t be venerated how much less a living, sinful human being?

In venerating a teacher of doctrine you are naturally led to a veneration of the doctrine itself, and there is also a recognition that a part of the doctrine’s validity comes from the fact that it did not spring from the student.

We can expand this discussion with Cosmos Crouched’ attack upon the chair, he says that in the posture of reclining upon the ground “the body and/or eyes assume a vertical aim, which is why prayer and contemplation are closely associated with rest. Chairs nullify this effect: one prolongs his horizontal gaze when seated upright, and is never positionally disposed to gaze at the stars.” From this we can conclude that a very different type of learning occurs when seated at a desk or on a church pew than when at the feet teacher, even if the content is the same in both cases: the posture of the recipients will influence the message they receive.

Another relevant point here is the topic of secrecy. It is much harder to conceal and adapt knowledge when it is transmitted through writing, the words in the book are statically before you. A true teacher on the other hand will adapt the presentation of the doctrine to the level and temperament of his students, and will also conceal certain things from them depending on their development. Secrecy in philosophy and religion is kept not out of conceit but for (1) the well-being of the hearers and for (2) respect for the doctrine.

The first instance is a manifestation of the need for a proper ordering of the student both spiritually and intellectually, as it would be harmful to present the deeper mysteries of Christianity to an inquirer if they do not have the proper background to process such things. An example: it is better to tell an outsider that at Mass we worship God who is made manifest on our altars than to simply tell him that we go to eat the flesh and blood of the Lord. The surface knowledge of the mystery of the Eucharist without any backing could harm the ignorant man and lead him further from the truth. I think this attitude is taken by St. Paul when he says to the Corinthians “I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal” (I Corinthians 3:2).

What about respect of doctrine? Christian doctrine in itself is immutable and eternal “Heaven and earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass” (Matthew 24:35) so what is the harm in indiscriminately publishing its secrets? I think this is to avoid it being denigrated by the enemies of the Church, while their blasphemy doesn’t harm God, it will harm us, so the occasion for it must be limited within reason. I think this attitude is presented to us in the Church’s liturgy: “Of Thy Mystical Supper, O Son of God, accept me today as a communicant; for I will not speak of Thy Mystery to Thine enemies, neither like Judas will I give Thee a kiss; but like the thief will I confess Thee…” (prayer before communion in the Divine Liturgy).

The only Western institution which retains the traditional viewpoint is unsurprisingly our monasteries, for there the Abbot is looked upon as an icon of Christ who leads his monks to God, and these sites have up until recent times produced great starets. But even these men are dwindling in number, when St. Silouan of Athos was asked where the great teachers have gone he would turn back the question and ask where the worthy disciples are, this is a wise saying.