![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsyche"[T]he Fall would stand for man's forgetting of his divine nature, for involvement in the illusion of individuality. Salvation would be the recollection (anamnesis) of his divinity, the awakening or birth of Godhead in man."--Alan Watts, Myth and Ritual in Christianity, p. 81.
This passage parallels a footnote on a later page: "Anamnesis, usually translated as 'memory', 'memorial', or 'recollection', is no mere reminder of a chronologically past event. Strictly speaking, anamnesis is much more than the simple sign of a fact distant (in time) from itself; it is rather the actual 're-collection' of a truth which eternally is, so that to recollect the sacrifice of Christ is to make it really and effectively present."--Ibid., p. 95.
"[T]he Coming of Christ is out of all continuity with anything that happened before. It is a complete reversal of the order of cause and effect, of the determination of the present by the past, since he comes to birth out of all relation with the continuity of human generation--having no father.
"For the redemption of captive Israel, liberation from Hades, the forgiveness of sins, release from the self-love of Lucifer, from the 'Old Adam', and from the bondage of 'Egypt' and 'Babylon' is in every respect a deliverance from the past. Salvation is always the ending of the mind's fascinated identification with the dead and unchanging image of what it was. It is a complete reversal of the natural order of things, a metanoia--the Greek word for 'repentance' meaning precisely a 'turning-around-of-the-mind', so that it no longer faces into the past, the land of the shadow of death, but into the Eternal Present."--Ibid., pp. 97-98.
This shows that anamnesis and metanoia are of the same process, but are not the same thing.
This passage parallels a footnote on a later page: "Anamnesis, usually translated as 'memory', 'memorial', or 'recollection', is no mere reminder of a chronologically past event. Strictly speaking, anamnesis is much more than the simple sign of a fact distant (in time) from itself; it is rather the actual 're-collection' of a truth which eternally is, so that to recollect the sacrifice of Christ is to make it really and effectively present."--Ibid., p. 95.
"[T]he Coming of Christ is out of all continuity with anything that happened before. It is a complete reversal of the order of cause and effect, of the determination of the present by the past, since he comes to birth out of all relation with the continuity of human generation--having no father.
"For the redemption of captive Israel, liberation from Hades, the forgiveness of sins, release from the self-love of Lucifer, from the 'Old Adam', and from the bondage of 'Egypt' and 'Babylon' is in every respect a deliverance from the past. Salvation is always the ending of the mind's fascinated identification with the dead and unchanging image of what it was. It is a complete reversal of the natural order of things, a metanoia--the Greek word for 'repentance' meaning precisely a 'turning-around-of-the-mind', so that it no longer faces into the past, the land of the shadow of death, but into the Eternal Present."--Ibid., pp. 97-98.
This shows that anamnesis and metanoia are of the same process, but are not the same thing.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-01 01:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2002-12-01 07:20 am (UTC)First, I admit I know jack about Shintoism or Islam. I'm new to comparative religion; I'm just beginning to understand Buddhism, and I still don't know that much about that system, either. So... I guess I'm not the person to answer that (at least, not yet).
Second, Watts in this book is merely trying to explicate the intricacies of the Christian mythos, what each image or action (in ritual) attempts to convey. In his introduction, he outlines what he will cover, and he freely admits that his narrow focus leaves out a lot. But as to the topics he does treat... all I can say is that the book is incredibly worthwhile. It really gets to the heart of Christianity; it shows the vitality of the rituals in the early Church. I'm no Catholic, but I came away with a great deal of respect for those traditions.
Re:
Date: 2002-12-02 01:56 am (UTC)Traditions are fine, and sometimes necessary, but I personally feel that they end up over the top, at times.
I disagree that corporate worship is more important than private worship.