What do you think?
Rate this book
Idea of the Holy
An inquiry into the non-rational factor in the idea of the divine and it's relation to the rational
Paperback
First published January 1, 1917
278 people are currently reading
4261 people want to read
About the author
Rudolf Otto
57 books77 followersGerman theologian, philosopher, and historian of religion, who exerted worldwide influence through his investigation of man’s experience of the holy. Das Heilige (1917; The Idea of the Holy, 1923) is his most important work.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews
March 20, 2025
مقدمه: کانت
کانت می گفت انسان مادۀ اولیۀ دانش خودش رو از بیرون دریافت می کنه. اما این ماده خیلی بی شکل تر و مبهم تر از اونه که قابل درک باشه. این ذهن انسانه که میاد به این مادۀ بی شکل، شکل و فرم می ده، سعی می کنه توی قالب های مفهومی خودش جاش بده، و قابل درکش کنه. مثلاً ذهن زمان و مکان رو اضافه می کنه، مفاهیمی مثل «چیز» بودن، علیت، تعداد، و... رو اضافه می کنه. به این مادۀ هیولایی، سر و شکل می ده و عقلانیش می کنه. اون وقت این تجربۀ عقلانی شده، تازه برای ما قابل درک و فهم می شه. تازه می تونیم بگیم «خورشید طلوع می کنه.» می تونیم بگیم «من مادرم رو دوست دارم.» به گفتۀ کانت هر فکری که به ذهن ما خطور می کنه، حتماً از این فیلتر عبور کرده. ما خارج از این چهارچوب ها نمی تونیم فکر کنیم.
تجربه های انسان مختلفن و عقل به هر کدوم از این تجربه های بی شکل، سر و شکل می ده. از تجربۀ معرفتی گرفته، تا تجربۀ زیبایی، تجربۀ اخلاقی، و موضوع این کتاب: تجربۀ دینی.
تجربۀ دینی
حرف رودولف اوتو اینه که همین حرف کانت در مورد تجربۀ دینی هم صادقه. بشر در اصل «تجربۀ دینی» داره، نه «دین». یه تجربۀ احساسی مبهم ولی پرقدرت که فرد رو در خودش غرق می کنه. اما این تجربه هیچ مفهومی نداره. صرفاً یه تجربۀ احساسی و غیرعقلانیه. اما ذهن بی کار نمی شینه. همون طور که کانت هم گفت، ذهن همیشه فعاله و سعی می کنه تمام تجربیات بشری رو توی چهارچوب های مفهومی خودش جا بده و قابل فهم کنه. اسطوره ها و ادیان، نتیجۀ این فرایند هستن. دین و اسطوره وقتی پیدا می شه که ذهن اون تجربۀ احساسی رو با مفاهیم خودش توضیح بده.
این مفاهیم در طول تاریخ متفاوت بودن. یه مدت انسان جادواندیش بود، و تجربۀ دینی خودش رو به ارواح و نیروهای خبیثه نسبت می داد. می دونستید که لفظ «خلسه» در حقیقت یعنی دزدیده شده و به کسی گفته می شد که جن روحش رو دزدیده باشه؟ عرب های بادیه نشین تجربه های دینی خودشون رو این طوری توضیح می دادن. شمن های آسیای مرکزی هم توضیح مشابهی داشتن.
اما به تدریج دوران جادوباوری گذشت و جای خودش رو به دوران دینی داد و ذهن بشری همون تجربۀ مبهم رو این بار با مفاهیم جدیدی توضیح داد. دیگه صحبت از خدا و خدایان پیش اومد و آیین ها و مناسک. در این دوران کسانی که تجربۀ دینی داشتن می گفتن موجودی برتر از جهان رو ملاقات کردن و دیگه ارواح خبیثۀ ساکن خرابه ها رو علت تجربۀ خودشون نمی دونستن. موجودی برین و پاک که در حضورش، عارف احساس ناچیزی و ناپاکی می کرد و با انجام آیین ها و توسل به واسطه ها، تلاش می کرد ارزش ملاقات رو پیدا کنه.
در دوران فلسفه باوری به یک نحو، و در دوران اخلاق باوری نهضت اصلاح دینی هم باز به نحو دیگه ای این تجربۀ دینی توضیح داده می شد.
رودولف اوتو می گه: تجربه یک تجربه است، اما تفاسیرش در هر زمان و هر فرهنگ متفاوته و منجر به پیدا شدن ادیان و فرقه های مختلف شده. تجربه در همۀ این ها یکیه و بخش ثابت تجربۀ بشریه. همون طور که از زیبایی به وجد میاییم، گاهی هم این تجربۀ دینی رو حس می کنیم. این تفاسیره که متفاوته.
این «تفسیر» رو به یاد داشته باشید. باز هم ازش استفاده خواهیم کرد.
میان پرده: شلایرماخر
اولین بار شلایرماخر بود که متوجه این شد که دین، «الهیات» نیست. الهیات یعنی چی؟ یعنی اثبات خدا، اثبات زندگی پس از مرگ، اثبات این، اثبات اون. یعنی استدلال های فلسفی و شبه فلسفی آوردن برای درست کردن یه نظام غیر قابل خدشۀ الهیاتی. چیزی که به خصوص در هزار سالۀ اخیر تقریباً با دین هم معنی شده. شلایرماخر گفت: این دین نیست. دین یه مجموعه گزاره نیست که وقتی دونه دونه اثباتشون کردیم، دیندار بشیم. دین یه احساسه. چه احساسی؟ «احساس وابستگی مطلق». احساس این که من در تمام زمینه ها به چیز دیگه ای وابسته م.
رودولف اوتو می گه: شلایرماخر هرچند به درستی توجه کرد که روح دین، احساسه، نه اندیشه، اما در تشخیص اون احساس اشتباه کرد. «احساس وابستگی مطلق» فرض می گیره که علت و معلولی به کاره و من معلول چیز دیگه ایم. اما علت و معلول صرفاً چهارچوب های مفهومی ذهن ما هستن. یعنی ما «علت و معلول» رو تجربه نمی کنیم. حس نمی کنیم. احساس معلولیت وجود نداره. پس احساس «وابستگی مطلق» نمی تونه وجود داشته باشه.
پس تجربۀ دینی چیه؟
رودولف اوتو می گه: تجربۀ دینی احساسیه که رو به سوی چیزی داره که بهش می گیم «امر قدسی». یعنی این احساس معطوف به یک شیء محسوس نیست. معطوف به یه نماد دینی یا یه متن دینی نیست. هیچ موضوع مشخصی در جهان محسوس نداره. به خاطر همین هم اوتو به امر قدسی می گه امر «نومنی». چون ما به ازایی در جهان «فنومنی» نداره. ولی بیشتر از این سعی نمی کنه این چیز رو توضیح بده، چون هر توضیح از اون چیز، تلاشی برای تفسیر کردن و عقلانی کردنه. دوباره ذهن وارد می شه و چهارچوب های مفهومیش رو می چینه. به جاش میره سراغ خود اون احساس و سعی می کنه با مثال و تشبیه، عناصر این احساس رو توضیح بده. هر چند اول کار می گه: اگه کسی خودش قبلاً این احساس رو تجربه نکرده باشه، توضیحات من بی فایده است. اما نزدیک ترین احساس به تجربۀ دینی، «تجربۀ هیبت»ـه.
تجربۀ هیبت (Sublime)
تجربۀ هیبت رو اولین بار ادموند برک تشخیص داد. برک متوجه شد وقتی یه چیز خطرناک ما رو تهدید کنه، خب ما می ترسیم. مثلاً آتشفشانی که کنارش باشیم ما رو می ترسونه و ما شروع می کنیم به فرار کردن. یا امواج سهمگین طوفان، اگه ما توی کشتی باشیم، ما رو زهره ترک می کنه.
اما اگه همین وقایع ترسناک رو از یه فاصلۀ امن ببینیم، دیگه «ترس» وجودمون رو نمی گیره. مثلاً تماشای همین آتشفشان و طوفان اما وقتی مطمئن باشی خودت صدمه نمی بینی، اما نه اون قدر هم دور که هیچ ترسی حس نکنی، بلکه بینابین. در این حالت، یه حس هیبت آدم رو می گیره، آدم میخکوب می شه و مجذوب عظمت این پدیده می شه. این ترس نیست، یه لذت هولناکه. حس ناچیز بودن در مقابل یه پدیدۀ عظیم و ویرانگر. عین این حرف رو سهروردی هم زده و توی کتاب «صفیر سیمرغ» حضور در معرکهٔ جنگ رو یکی از محرک های حس معنوی معرفی می کنه.
رودولف اوتو می گه این نزدیک ترین احساس به احساس امر قدسیه که من می گم.
مفهوم امر قدسی
توی تجربۀ امر قدسی، ما با یه چیز رازآلود و مبهم مواجه می شیم. رازآلود یعنی چی؟ هم یعنی غیر قابل فهم عقلانی، و هم یعنی «دیگری». به کلی متفاوت. حس می کنیم که چیزی که حس می کنیم مال این جهان نیست. یه چیزی که با این جهان تناسبی نداره. اما در عین حال وارد این جهان شده. این جاست. هر چند دیده نمی شه. و این چیز رازآلود و مبهم به ما احساس هیبت و دهشت می ده، به قول رودولف اوتو «مور مور می شیم». اما همزمان شوق و جذبه ما رو می گیره. از این چیز می ترسیم، چون در جهان آشنای ما جا نمی گیره، اما همزمان ما رو به خودش جذب می کنه. می خوایم بهش نزدیک بشیم. می خوایم این حس دهشت ادامه پیدا کنه. شبیه میخکوب شدن در برابر طوفان و آتشفشان. دقت کنید که این امر قدسی «خدا» نیست. گفتیم امر قدسی هیچ چیزی که بتونیم روش اسم بذاریم نیست. انگار یه احساس بدون موضوعه. اما وقتی ذهن میخواد برای خودش توضیح بده که این احساس از کجا اومد، چی بود که منو این طور وحشتزده کرد، به یه مفهوم نیاز داره، گاهی این مفهوم روح و جنه، گاهی خدا.
بذارید همین جا متوقف بشیم و چند نمونه از این «دهشتناک» بودن امر قدسی رو ببینیم. گفتیم که در ادیان همیشه سعی می کردن این حس رو تفسیر و تصویر کنن. مثلاً رودولف اوتو به ماسک های دینی وحشتناک قبایل آفریقایی اشاره می کنه. می گه برای ما عجیبه که اینا در مناسک دینیشون از این تصاویر وحشت انگیز استفاده می کنن. اما وقتی متوجه بشیم که می خوان چه احساسی رو در مناسکشون تجربه کنن، اون وقت دیگه چندان عجیب نیست. احساس احترام همراه هیبت. احساس غیر عادی بودن. نامتناسب بودن. یه انسان بدوی چطور اینو به صورت نقاشی و مجسمه در میاره؟ با ماسک هایی که انسانن اما انسان نیستن و چهره هایی دِفورمه دارن.
مثال دیگه که اوتو می زنه، معماری کلیسای گوتیکه که فضای داخلی کلیسا رو تاریک نگه می داره. همیشه برای من که با مسجدهای پرنور آشنا بودم، تاریکی کلیساها سؤال بود. اما اوتو می گه اینم برای ایجاد همون احساسه، احساس ترس رازآلوده. مور مور شدن از یه چیز مبهم.
مثال دیگه موسیقی و نقاشی چینیه که به گفتۀ اوتو، بیشتر از اون که مشتمل بر چیزی باشه، مشتمل بر تهی بودنه. نقاشی چینی سعی می کنه با خطوطش و چینش صحنه ش، تا جای ممکن خالی بودن صحنه رو نمایش بده. موسیقی چینی هم همین طور، سعی می کنه نوعی تهی بودن رو در خلال نت های کشیده ش القا کنه. این البته مثالی از «دهشتناک» بودن امر قدسی نیست، بیشتر مثالی از رازآلود بودنشه. احساس حضور چیزی که هر چی نگاه می کنی نیست.
تفسیر تجربۀ دینی و پیدایش ادیان
تا اینجا بخش اصلی حس رو توضیح دادیم.
بعد رودولف اوتو توضیح می ده که چطور تلاش برای تفسیر این احساس با مفاهیم عقلانی، منجر به ظهور ادیان شده.
مثلاً آدم هنگامی که امر قدسی عظیم و دهشتناک رو حس می کنه، از طرف مقابل احساس می کنه که در مقابل این امر قدسی ناچیزه. این ناچیزی فقط در اندازه نیست (توی طوفان و آتشفشان بیشتر بحث اندازه بود، انسان حس می کنه در مقابل عظمت طوفان، ناچیزه) بلکه در «ارزش» و «منزلت» هم هست. انسان حس می کنه آلوده است. لیاقت حضور در برابر این امر قدسی رو نداره. این باعث می‌شه درک امر قدسی همیشه همراه با حس گناه باشه. نه این که آدم واقعاً یه گناه عملی انجام داده باشه. آدم حس می کنه ذاتش آلوده است. گفتیم که امر قدسی رازآلوده، یعنی «دیگری» و به کلی متفاوت. خب آدم حس می‌کنه ذاتاً متفاوت از امر قدسیه، اون پاکه و آدم آلوده است. این وقتی با مفاهیم دینی «تفسیر» می شه، تبدیل می شه به مفهوم آشنای «گناه ذاتی». پس گناه یه احساس جداگانه در دین نیست. نمی شه احساس دینی رو تجربه کرد بدون احساس گناه. احساس گناه بیانگر جایگاه فرد در مقابل امر قدسیه.
همین طور باقی مفاهیم اساسی دین، از جمله مجازات و عذاب الهی، در حقیقت چیزی نیست جز تلاش ذهن برای تفسیر احساس غیرعقلانی، به وسیلۀ مفاهیم عقلانی. مفهوم عذاب الهی از کجا اومده؟ ذهن از تجربۀ دینی دچار وحشتی دینی می‌شه و وقتی میخواد علت این وحشت غیرعقلانی رو طوری توضیح بده، از مفهوم مجازات و خشم الهی استفاده می‌کنه. در جواب این سؤال که: علت این ترس چیه؟ میگه: چون خدا قهّاره. می تونه منو به خاطر گناهکار بودنم مجازات کنه. نه گناه اخلاقی و دینی. به صرف وجود داشتنم، به صرف ارتباط داشتنم با خدا، مستحق مجازاتم.
مثال خیلی جالب اوتو، یه روایت عجیب از توراته. تورات می گه وقتی خدا به موسی مأموریت داد به مصر بره، موسی اطاعت کرد و راهی شد، اما ناگهان در میان راه خدا به موسی حمله کرد و خواست بکشدش. این یکی از عجیب ترین و غیر قابل فهم ترین روایت های توراته و هیچ مشخص نیست انگیزۀ خدا از این خشم بی دلیل چیه. اوتو می گه: هیچی. واقعاً انگیزه ای وجود نداره. این بیان عریان و بی پیرایۀ تجربۀ دینیه. تجربۀ یه امر وحشتناک که هر لحظه می تونه آدم رو بی دلیل مجازات کنه.
مفهوم دینی دیگه که اوتو پیگیری می کنه، مفهوم تقدیره. ذهن غرق در حضور پرهیبت امر قدسی احساس ناچیزی می کنه، حس می‌کنه هیچ کاره است و همه چیز وابسته به اون امر قدسیه. وقتی میخواد این احساس رو با مفاهیم قابل فهم تفسیر کنه، آموزۀ تقدیر ازش بیرون میاد. خدا همه چیز رو مقدر می کنه و انسان هیچ کاره است.
مؤخره: لاوکرافت و بورخس
وقتی در مورد امر قدسی می نوشتم، کسی گفت این احساسیه که خداناباورها تجربه نمی کنن. اگه حق با رودولف اوتو باشه، این طور نیست. چون به باور اوتو این بخشی از تجربۀ بشریه و ربطی نداره که جادوباور باشی یا فلسفه باور یا خداباور. دو نمونه که به ذهنم رسید می تونن برای یه خداناباور هم تجربۀ امر قدسی به همراه داشته باشن، داستان های لاوکرافت و بورخس هستن. هر دوی این نویسنده ها سعی می کنن چیزی غیرعقلانی، غیر این جهانی، و وحشت انگیز رو تصویر کنن و اگه به قدر کافی توی داستان هاشون غرق بشید، می تونید اون دلهرۀ لذت بخش مواجهه با امر بی معنی رو حس کنید.
کانت می گفت انسان مادۀ اولیۀ دانش خودش رو از بیرون دریافت می کنه. اما این ماده خیلی بی شکل تر و مبهم تر از اونه که قابل درک باشه. این ذهن انسانه که میاد به این مادۀ بی شکل، شکل و فرم می ده، سعی می کنه توی قالب های مفهومی خودش جاش بده، و قابل درکش کنه. مثلاً ذهن زمان و مکان رو اضافه می کنه، مفاهیمی مثل «چیز» بودن، علیت، تعداد، و... رو اضافه می کنه. به این مادۀ هیولایی، سر و شکل می ده و عقلانیش می کنه. اون وقت این تجربۀ عقلانی شده، تازه برای ما قابل درک و فهم می شه. تازه می تونیم بگیم «خورشید طلوع می کنه.» می تونیم بگیم «من مادرم رو دوست دارم.» به گفتۀ کانت هر فکری که به ذهن ما خطور می کنه، حتماً از این فیلتر عبور کرده. ما خارج از این چهارچوب ها نمی تونیم فکر کنیم.
تجربه های انسان مختلفن و عقل به هر کدوم از این تجربه های بی شکل، سر و شکل می ده. از تجربۀ معرفتی گرفته، تا تجربۀ زیبایی، تجربۀ اخلاقی، و موضوع این کتاب: تجربۀ دینی.
تجربۀ دینی
حرف رودولف اوتو اینه که همین حرف کانت در مورد تجربۀ دینی هم صادقه. بشر در اصل «تجربۀ دینی» داره، نه «دین». یه تجربۀ احساسی مبهم ولی پرقدرت که فرد رو در خودش غرق می کنه. اما این تجربه هیچ مفهومی نداره. صرفاً یه تجربۀ احساسی و غیرعقلانیه. اما ذهن بی کار نمی شینه. همون طور که کانت هم گفت، ذهن همیشه فعاله و سعی می کنه تمام تجربیات بشری رو توی چهارچوب های مفهومی خودش جا بده و قابل فهم کنه. اسطوره ها و ادیان، نتیجۀ این فرایند هستن. دین و اسطوره وقتی پیدا می شه که ذهن اون تجربۀ احساسی رو با مفاهیم خودش توضیح بده.
این مفاهیم در طول تاریخ متفاوت بودن. یه مدت انسان جادواندیش بود، و تجربۀ دینی خودش رو به ارواح و نیروهای خبیثه نسبت می داد. می دونستید که لفظ «خلسه» در حقیقت یعنی دزدیده شده و به کسی گفته می شد که جن روحش رو دزدیده باشه؟ عرب های بادیه نشین تجربه های دینی خودشون رو این طوری توضیح می دادن. شمن های آسیای مرکزی هم توضیح مشابهی داشتن.
اما به تدریج دوران جادوباوری گذشت و جای خودش رو به دوران دینی داد و ذهن بشری همون تجربۀ مبهم رو این بار با مفاهیم جدیدی توضیح داد. دیگه صحبت از خدا و خدایان پیش اومد و آیین ها و مناسک. در این دوران کسانی که تجربۀ دینی داشتن می گفتن موجودی برتر از جهان رو ملاقات کردن و دیگه ارواح خبیثۀ ساکن خرابه ها رو علت تجربۀ خودشون نمی دونستن. موجودی برین و پاک که در حضورش، عارف احساس ناچیزی و ناپاکی می کرد و با انجام آیین ها و توسل به واسطه ها، تلاش می کرد ارزش ملاقات رو پیدا کنه.
در دوران فلسفه باوری به یک نحو، و در دوران اخلاق باوری نهضت اصلاح دینی هم باز به نحو دیگه ای این تجربۀ دینی توضیح داده می شد.
رودولف اوتو می گه: تجربه یک تجربه است، اما تفاسیرش در هر زمان و هر فرهنگ متفاوته و منجر به پیدا شدن ادیان و فرقه های مختلف شده. تجربه در همۀ این ها یکیه و بخش ثابت تجربۀ بشریه. همون طور که از زیبایی به وجد میاییم، گاهی هم این تجربۀ دینی رو حس می کنیم. این تفاسیره که متفاوته.
این «تفسیر» رو به یاد داشته باشید. باز هم ازش استفاده خواهیم کرد.
میان پرده: شلایرماخر
اولین بار شلایرماخر بود که متوجه این شد که دین، «الهیات» نیست. الهیات یعنی چی؟ یعنی اثبات خدا، اثبات زندگی پس از مرگ، اثبات این، اثبات اون. یعنی استدلال های فلسفی و شبه فلسفی آوردن برای درست کردن یه نظام غیر قابل خدشۀ الهیاتی. چیزی که به خصوص در هزار سالۀ اخیر تقریباً با دین هم معنی شده. شلایرماخر گفت: این دین نیست. دین یه مجموعه گزاره نیست که وقتی دونه دونه اثباتشون کردیم، دیندار بشیم. دین یه احساسه. چه احساسی؟ «احساس وابستگی مطلق». احساس این که من در تمام زمینه ها به چیز دیگه ای وابسته م.
رودولف اوتو می گه: شلایرماخر هرچند به درستی توجه کرد که روح دین، احساسه، نه اندیشه، اما در تشخیص اون احساس اشتباه کرد. «احساس وابستگی مطلق» فرض می گیره که علت و معلولی به کاره و من معلول چیز دیگه ایم. اما علت و معلول صرفاً چهارچوب های مفهومی ذهن ما هستن. یعنی ما «علت و معلول» رو تجربه نمی کنیم. حس نمی کنیم. احساس معلولیت وجود نداره. پس احساس «وابستگی مطلق» نمی تونه وجود داشته باشه.
پس تجربۀ دینی چیه؟
رودولف اوتو می گه: تجربۀ دینی احساسیه که رو به سوی چیزی داره که بهش می گیم «امر قدسی». یعنی این احساس معطوف به یک شیء محسوس نیست. معطوف به یه نماد دینی یا یه متن دینی نیست. هیچ موضوع مشخصی در جهان محسوس نداره. به خاطر همین هم اوتو به امر قدسی می گه امر «نومنی». چون ما به ازایی در جهان «فنومنی» نداره. ولی بیشتر از این سعی نمی کنه این چیز رو توضیح بده، چون هر توضیح از اون چیز، تلاشی برای تفسیر کردن و عقلانی کردنه. دوباره ذهن وارد می شه و چهارچوب های مفهومیش رو می چینه. به جاش میره سراغ خود اون احساس و سعی می کنه با مثال و تشبیه، عناصر این احساس رو توضیح بده. هر چند اول کار می گه: اگه کسی خودش قبلاً این احساس رو تجربه نکرده باشه، توضیحات من بی فایده است. اما نزدیک ترین احساس به تجربۀ دینی، «تجربۀ هیبت»ـه.
تجربۀ هیبت (Sublime)
تجربۀ هیبت رو اولین بار ادموند برک تشخیص داد. برک متوجه شد وقتی یه چیز خطرناک ما رو تهدید کنه، خب ما می ترسیم. مثلاً آتشفشانی که کنارش باشیم ما رو می ترسونه و ما شروع می کنیم به فرار کردن. یا امواج سهمگین طوفان، اگه ما توی کشتی باشیم، ما رو زهره ترک می کنه.
اما اگه همین وقایع ترسناک رو از یه فاصلۀ امن ببینیم، دیگه «ترس» وجودمون رو نمی گیره. مثلاً تماشای همین آتشفشان و طوفان اما وقتی مطمئن باشی خودت صدمه نمی بینی، اما نه اون قدر هم دور که هیچ ترسی حس نکنی، بلکه بینابین. در این حالت، یه حس هیبت آدم رو می گیره، آدم میخکوب می شه و مجذوب عظمت این پدیده می شه. این ترس نیست، یه لذت هولناکه. حس ناچیز بودن در مقابل یه پدیدۀ عظیم و ویرانگر. عین این حرف رو سهروردی هم زده و توی کتاب «صفیر سیمرغ» حضور در معرکهٔ جنگ رو یکی از محرک های حس معنوی معرفی می کنه.
رودولف اوتو می گه این نزدیک ترین احساس به احساس امر قدسیه که من می گم.
مفهوم امر قدسی
توی تجربۀ امر قدسی، ما با یه چیز رازآلود و مبهم مواجه می شیم. رازآلود یعنی چی؟ هم یعنی غیر قابل فهم عقلانی، و هم یعنی «دیگری». به کلی متفاوت. حس می کنیم که چیزی که حس می کنیم مال این جهان نیست. یه چیزی که با این جهان تناسبی نداره. اما در عین حال وارد این جهان شده. این جاست. هر چند دیده نمی شه. و این چیز رازآلود و مبهم به ما احساس هیبت و دهشت می ده، به قول رودولف اوتو «مور مور می شیم». اما همزمان شوق و جذبه ما رو می گیره. از این چیز می ترسیم، چون در جهان آشنای ما جا نمی گیره، اما همزمان ما رو به خودش جذب می کنه. می خوایم بهش نزدیک بشیم. می خوایم این حس دهشت ادامه پیدا کنه. شبیه میخکوب شدن در برابر طوفان و آتشفشان. دقت کنید که این امر قدسی «خدا» نیست. گفتیم امر قدسی هیچ چیزی که بتونیم روش اسم بذاریم نیست. انگار یه احساس بدون موضوعه. اما وقتی ذهن میخواد برای خودش توضیح بده که این احساس از کجا اومد، چی بود که منو این طور وحشتزده کرد، به یه مفهوم نیاز داره، گاهی این مفهوم روح و جنه، گاهی خدا.
بذارید همین جا متوقف بشیم و چند نمونه از این «دهشتناک» بودن امر قدسی رو ببینیم. گفتیم که در ادیان همیشه سعی می کردن این حس رو تفسیر و تصویر کنن. مثلاً رودولف اوتو به ماسک های دینی وحشتناک قبایل آفریقایی اشاره می کنه. می گه برای ما عجیبه که اینا در مناسک دینیشون از این تصاویر وحشت انگیز استفاده می کنن. اما وقتی متوجه بشیم که می خوان چه احساسی رو در مناسکشون تجربه کنن، اون وقت دیگه چندان عجیب نیست. احساس احترام همراه هیبت. احساس غیر عادی بودن. نامتناسب بودن. یه انسان بدوی چطور اینو به صورت نقاشی و مجسمه در میاره؟ با ماسک هایی که انسانن اما انسان نیستن و چهره هایی دِفورمه دارن.
مثال دیگه که اوتو می زنه، معماری کلیسای گوتیکه که فضای داخلی کلیسا رو تاریک نگه می داره. همیشه برای من که با مسجدهای پرنور آشنا بودم، تاریکی کلیساها سؤال بود. اما اوتو می گه اینم برای ایجاد همون احساسه، احساس ترس رازآلوده. مور مور شدن از یه چیز مبهم.
مثال دیگه موسیقی و نقاشی چینیه که به گفتۀ اوتو، بیشتر از اون که مشتمل بر چیزی باشه، مشتمل بر تهی بودنه. نقاشی چینی سعی می کنه با خطوطش و چینش صحنه ش، تا جای ممکن خالی بودن صحنه رو نمایش بده. موسیقی چینی هم همین طور، سعی می کنه نوعی تهی بودن رو در خلال نت های کشیده ش القا کنه. این البته مثالی از «دهشتناک» بودن امر قدسی نیست، بیشتر مثالی از رازآلود بودنشه. احساس حضور چیزی که هر چی نگاه می کنی نیست.
تفسیر تجربۀ دینی و پیدایش ادیان
تا اینجا بخش اصلی حس رو توضیح دادیم.
بعد رودولف اوتو توضیح می ده که چطور تلاش برای تفسیر این احساس با مفاهیم عقلانی، منجر به ظهور ادیان شده.
مثلاً آدم هنگامی که امر قدسی عظیم و دهشتناک رو حس می کنه، از طرف مقابل احساس می کنه که در مقابل این امر قدسی ناچیزه. این ناچیزی فقط در اندازه نیست (توی طوفان و آتشفشان بیشتر بحث اندازه بود، انسان حس می کنه در مقابل عظمت طوفان، ناچیزه) بلکه در «ارزش» و «منزلت» هم هست. انسان حس می کنه آلوده است. لیاقت حضور در برابر این امر قدسی رو نداره. این باعث می‌شه درک امر قدسی همیشه همراه با حس گناه باشه. نه این که آدم واقعاً یه گناه عملی انجام داده باشه. آدم حس می کنه ذاتش آلوده است. گفتیم که امر قدسی رازآلوده، یعنی «دیگری» و به کلی متفاوت. خب آدم حس می‌کنه ذاتاً متفاوت از امر قدسیه، اون پاکه و آدم آلوده است. این وقتی با مفاهیم دینی «تفسیر» می شه، تبدیل می شه به مفهوم آشنای «گناه ذاتی». پس گناه یه احساس جداگانه در دین نیست. نمی شه احساس دینی رو تجربه کرد بدون احساس گناه. احساس گناه بیانگر جایگاه فرد در مقابل امر قدسیه.
همین طور باقی مفاهیم اساسی دین، از جمله مجازات و عذاب الهی، در حقیقت چیزی نیست جز تلاش ذهن برای تفسیر احساس غیرعقلانی، به وسیلۀ مفاهیم عقلانی. مفهوم عذاب الهی از کجا اومده؟ ذهن از تجربۀ دینی دچار وحشتی دینی می‌شه و وقتی میخواد علت این وحشت غیرعقلانی رو طوری توضیح بده، از مفهوم مجازات و خشم الهی استفاده می‌کنه. در جواب این سؤال که: علت این ترس چیه؟ میگه: چون خدا قهّاره. می تونه منو به خاطر گناهکار بودنم مجازات کنه. نه گناه اخلاقی و دینی. به صرف وجود داشتنم، به صرف ارتباط داشتنم با خدا، مستحق مجازاتم.
مثال خیلی جالب اوتو، یه روایت عجیب از توراته. تورات می گه وقتی خدا به موسی مأموریت داد به مصر بره، موسی اطاعت کرد و راهی شد، اما ناگهان در میان راه خدا به موسی حمله کرد و خواست بکشدش. این یکی از عجیب ترین و غیر قابل فهم ترین روایت های توراته و هیچ مشخص نیست انگیزۀ خدا از این خشم بی دلیل چیه. اوتو می گه: هیچی. واقعاً انگیزه ای وجود نداره. این بیان عریان و بی پیرایۀ تجربۀ دینیه. تجربۀ یه امر وحشتناک که هر لحظه می تونه آدم رو بی دلیل مجازات کنه.
مفهوم دینی دیگه که اوتو پیگیری می کنه، مفهوم تقدیره. ذهن غرق در حضور پرهیبت امر قدسی احساس ناچیزی می کنه، حس می‌کنه هیچ کاره است و همه چیز وابسته به اون امر قدسیه. وقتی میخواد این احساس رو با مفاهیم قابل فهم تفسیر کنه، آموزۀ تقدیر ازش بیرون میاد. خدا همه چیز رو مقدر می کنه و انسان هیچ کاره است.
مؤخره: لاوکرافت و بورخس
وقتی در مورد امر قدسی می نوشتم، کسی گفت این احساسیه که خداناباورها تجربه نمی کنن. اگه حق با رودولف اوتو باشه، این طور نیست. چون به باور اوتو این بخشی از تجربۀ بشریه و ربطی نداره که جادوباور باشی یا فلسفه باور یا خداباور. دو نمونه که به ذهنم رسید می تونن برای یه خداناباور هم تجربۀ امر قدسی به همراه داشته باشن، داستان های لاوکرافت و بورخس هستن. هر دوی این نویسنده ها سعی می کنن چیزی غیرعقلانی، غیر این جهانی، و وحشت انگیز رو تصویر کنن و اگه به قدر کافی توی داستان هاشون غرق بشید، می تونید اون دلهرۀ لذت بخش مواجهه با امر بی معنی رو حس کنید.
August 31, 2010
The thesis of this book is that a sense of God's presence, with its attendant emotions of sacredness, wonderment and awe, is the fundamental starting point of genuine religion. Everything else -- doctrine, ritual and theological speculation -- are reliant upon, and derived from this experience. Otto coined the word numinous (from the Latin numen, meaning sacred presence) to describe it. This does not mean that chronologically in a person's life other experiences, such as intellectual curiosity, may not occur first; merely that the numinous apprehension of God is, ultimately, the one thing needful.
My objection to Otto's thesis is his assertion that the numinous experience is a priori in character, "not to be derived from 'experience' or 'history.'" Put another way, the raw data from which we derive conceptual knowledge can be attained by non-empirical, non-sensory means. He also denies this process is in any way supernatural.
This position is derived from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and is what, more than any other idea, makes possible the antagonism between science and religion. What is needed is an epistemology which expands a rational empiricism to include experiences of such impalbables as religious awe and the apprehension of beauty.
Apart from this disagreement, Otto's explication of the numinous experience, philosophically, psychologically and historically is fascinating and illuminating. I especially appreciated his examples from art, music and literature. The fact that his explication brings out so clearly the philosophical issue with which I disagree is of great value. This is a valuable and seminal work of theology.
My objection to Otto's thesis is his assertion that the numinous experience is a priori in character, "not to be derived from 'experience' or 'history.'" Put another way, the raw data from which we derive conceptual knowledge can be attained by non-empirical, non-sensory means. He also denies this process is in any way supernatural.
This position is derived from the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, and is what, more than any other idea, makes possible the antagonism between science and religion. What is needed is an epistemology which expands a rational empiricism to include experiences of such impalbables as religious awe and the apprehension of beauty.
Apart from this disagreement, Otto's explication of the numinous experience, philosophically, psychologically and historically is fascinating and illuminating. I especially appreciated his examples from art, music and literature. The fact that his explication brings out so clearly the philosophical issue with which I disagree is of great value. This is a valuable and seminal work of theology.
November 14, 2019
Otto's use of Kant's notion of the sublime to designate the Holy is very appealing at first. However, the sublime in Kant remains in the subjective category. What is sublime in the final analysis in Kant is human rationality (the power of reason) that overcomes and surpasses the uncontainable: the infinite scope of reason overcoming the finite capacity of imagination/sensibility. Given Kant's analysis of the sublime, then, the Holy would have to exceed the sublime. Another major flaw in Otto is the confusion or non distinction between the beautiful and the sublime, which Kant rigorously distinguishes. For Otto, what is beautiful (e.g., a Zen painting) is also the sublime. In fact, what defies rational articulation for Otto is sublime. Aesthetic objects, lacking conceptual determination (to put it in Kantian terms), for example, would be sublime and thus Holy for Otto. But not everything that defies conceptual determination is holy, such as love, death, birth, a face-to-face encounter, etc.
One chapter in the middle of the book, however, Otto's analysis of the Book of Job, is remarkable in that Otto sees the realm of and confrontation with evil as truly beyond the rational and brings out the post-modern elements in the ancient Book of Job: 'Why must reality make sense?' 'It defies rationality.'
Returning back to Otto and Kant, perhaps one must appreciate the Kantian moment before the sublime turns into a subjective category; and perhaps this is what Otto saw the glimpse of in Kant. Recall that in Kant's analysis of the sublime, the imagination falls short of the magnitude or the dynamic of the object that defied the scale of sensibility and at that moment recoils back to itself. Imagination falls short of the object in its apprehension. The object exceeds sensibility. Kant cannot proceed beyond this point, given his rigorous delimitation of human knowledge. Instead, he turns to the subject and locates the sublime in the infinite rational capacity (of which autonomy is one of the chief examples or the only example). But why must one turn to the subject? Why not hold on to one's gaze fixed on the object that exceeds one's capacity to gaze? What would happen then? How could such an 'encounter' be described? Jean-Luc Marion did, as did Emmanuel Levinas.
It must be noted that Marion's notion of "saturated phenomena" comes from Otto, who speaks of the holy as follows: "the numinous [a Kantian term] completely permeated and saturated with elements signifying rationality, purpose, personality, [and] morality" (Oxford, 1931, p. 39). The holy, the abyss of being as Tillich (an admirer of Otto) would later call it, grounds all rationality, manifestation, and morality. The irrational grounds the rational, for Otto; and theology lies in between.
In celebration of the tenth edition of Otto's The Idea of the Holy Paul Tillich writes in his small essay entitled "The Category of the 'Holy' in Rudolf Otto" (which originally appeared in Theologische Blätter (vol. 2, 1923, Spalten 11-12):
One chapter in the middle of the book, however, Otto's analysis of the Book of Job, is remarkable in that Otto sees the realm of and confrontation with evil as truly beyond the rational and brings out the post-modern elements in the ancient Book of Job: 'Why must reality make sense?' 'It defies rationality.'
Returning back to Otto and Kant, perhaps one must appreciate the Kantian moment before the sublime turns into a subjective category; and perhaps this is what Otto saw the glimpse of in Kant. Recall that in Kant's analysis of the sublime, the imagination falls short of the magnitude or the dynamic of the object that defied the scale of sensibility and at that moment recoils back to itself. Imagination falls short of the object in its apprehension. The object exceeds sensibility. Kant cannot proceed beyond this point, given his rigorous delimitation of human knowledge. Instead, he turns to the subject and locates the sublime in the infinite rational capacity (of which autonomy is one of the chief examples or the only example). But why must one turn to the subject? Why not hold on to one's gaze fixed on the object that exceeds one's capacity to gaze? What would happen then? How could such an 'encounter' be described? Jean-Luc Marion did, as did Emmanuel Levinas.
It must be noted that Marion's notion of "saturated phenomena" comes from Otto, who speaks of the holy as follows: "the numinous [a Kantian term] completely permeated and saturated with elements signifying rationality, purpose, personality, [and] morality" (Oxford, 1931, p. 39). The holy, the abyss of being as Tillich (an admirer of Otto) would later call it, grounds all rationality, manifestation, and morality. The irrational grounds the rational, for Otto; and theology lies in between.
In celebration of the tenth edition of Otto's The Idea of the Holy Paul Tillich writes in his small essay entitled "The Category of the 'Holy' in Rudolf Otto" (which originally appeared in Theologische Blätter (vol. 2, 1923, Spalten 11-12):
The unconditioned pours itself out in the form, which at the same time bursting every form that it has given itself. The rational forms are not only rational, but in each of them (and, all the more, the further they are from formalism) the mystery of 'Being,' on which all reality rests, is contained. Every form is, on the one hand, superficial and, on the other hand, an expression of Being, from which it grows and in which it sinks and loses itself. This accounts for every individuals form, as for the totality of every form.Marion draws from these two thinkers when he speaks of the "saturated phenomena."
(Chris L. Firestone and Nathan Jacobs trans. in Chris L. Firestone's Kant and Theology at the Boundaries of Reason, Appendix A, p. 5).
July 25, 2013
For one who is more than tired of Systematic Theology which forces God into a box made by man and that you have to be either Calvinist or Armenian when I guess I could be just a Christian who knows there is a third category... This book looks into the transcendent reality of Father, His Only Son and their Holy Spirit.
C.S. Lewis once wrote, "I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand." This pronouncement applies to Rudolf Otto's classic "The Idea of the Holy" (which Lewis had read.) This book explores the esoteric and ineffable, and is best approached with a pen or pencil in hand to underline passages and write in the margins. It is not a lengthy book (less than 200 pages in the edition I own) but chewing the sinewy theology takes some work to digest.
Traditional theology has usually concerned itself with doctrine, with focus on the rational aspects of God. Otto, following the tradition of "mystics" St. John of the Cross, St. Ann and others (NOT shamans or spiritist), gave careful consideration to an oft-neglected aspect of theology: the non-rational aspects of God. In doing so, he coined the word "numinous" to depict that which transcends or eludes comprehension in rational terms i.e peace that transcends understanding! It suggests that which is holy, awesome, and 'wholly other.' He also applies the expression "mysterium tremendum" to the numinous, describing that which is hidden, esoteric, beyond conception or understanding, awe-inspiring, fear-instilling or uncanny, an absolute overpoweringness of an ineffable transcendent Reality.
Otto illustrates his concepts with scripture passages such as Isaiah 6, where the vision of the Lord and his robe filled the temple. God's holiness overwhelmed Isaiah, who cried, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips." Other illustrations include the feeling of the numinous evoked by Bach's Mass in B minor, the 'Popule meus' of Thomas Luiz, or the contrast of light and darkness found in cathedrals or forest glades. Which helped me understand why I cry when I listen to it and cleansed in mind/heart. Most helpful to me was his analysis of the book of Job, showing how God's answer to Job about the mystery of suffering demonstrates the numinous in the character of God. Otto seems, for the first time in my reading experience, to give helpful insight for why Job never received a direct answer to his questions about suffering.
Otto's terse classic has unfortunately been largely forgotten. I hope that it sees a revival in its readership, for it deserves to be studied and discussed with each new generation of readers
C.S. Lewis once wrote, "I believe that many who find that 'nothing happens' when they sit down, or kneel down, to a book of devotion, would find that the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand." This pronouncement applies to Rudolf Otto's classic "The Idea of the Holy" (which Lewis had read.) This book explores the esoteric and ineffable, and is best approached with a pen or pencil in hand to underline passages and write in the margins. It is not a lengthy book (less than 200 pages in the edition I own) but chewing the sinewy theology takes some work to digest.
Traditional theology has usually concerned itself with doctrine, with focus on the rational aspects of God. Otto, following the tradition of "mystics" St. John of the Cross, St. Ann and others (NOT shamans or spiritist), gave careful consideration to an oft-neglected aspect of theology: the non-rational aspects of God. In doing so, he coined the word "numinous" to depict that which transcends or eludes comprehension in rational terms i.e peace that transcends understanding! It suggests that which is holy, awesome, and 'wholly other.' He also applies the expression "mysterium tremendum" to the numinous, describing that which is hidden, esoteric, beyond conception or understanding, awe-inspiring, fear-instilling or uncanny, an absolute overpoweringness of an ineffable transcendent Reality.
Otto illustrates his concepts with scripture passages such as Isaiah 6, where the vision of the Lord and his robe filled the temple. God's holiness overwhelmed Isaiah, who cried, "Woe is me, for I am ruined! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips." Other illustrations include the feeling of the numinous evoked by Bach's Mass in B minor, the 'Popule meus' of Thomas Luiz, or the contrast of light and darkness found in cathedrals or forest glades. Which helped me understand why I cry when I listen to it and cleansed in mind/heart. Most helpful to me was his analysis of the book of Job, showing how God's answer to Job about the mystery of suffering demonstrates the numinous in the character of God. Otto seems, for the first time in my reading experience, to give helpful insight for why Job never received a direct answer to his questions about suffering.
Otto's terse classic has unfortunately been largely forgotten. I hope that it sees a revival in its readership, for it deserves to be studied and discussed with each new generation of readers
May 10, 2020
يُعد كتاب رودلف أوتو "المقدس" أو "فكرة القدسي" واحد من أهم الكتب في علم الأديان لعدد من الأسباب، أولها هو المنهج اللي استخدمه أوتو، الكتاب يعتبر فكرته في عنوانه الفرعي تقصي عن العامل غير العقلاني في المقدس وعلاقته بالعامل العقلاني، وأهميته تكمن في إنه تقصي فنومنولوجي بامتياز.
روجيه كايو كان أعتبر الكتاب مقاربة نفسية في التقصي عن روية الإنسان للمقدس، بالأضافه إن الكتاب بيغلفه طابع لاهوتي لإن أوتو عالم لاهوت بالأساس، لكن بنظرة أشمل أتفق مع مرسيا إلياد بإن الكتاب واحد من الكتب المهمة الأولى اللي استخدمت الفنومنولوجيا في علم الأديان. وهو المنهج اللي تبناه يواكيم واش ومرسيا إلياد في كتير من أبحاثهم لاحقا.
ثانيها الاهتمام اللي أولاه للمقدس بحد ذاته وكانت بادرة مهمة في تاريخ علم الأديان، بالرغم من وجود أبحاث أقدم عن المقدس لكن كتاب أوتو كانت أهميته أكبر.
ثالثها وأهمها هو استفادة عدد كبير من علماء الأديان اللاحقين ببحثه، البعض كانت استفادتهم بدون طرق الموضوع بشكل خاص بهم، والبعض استفاد من البحث وبنى عليه عدد من الأبحاث الأخرى، وأهمهم مرسيا إلياد في كتاب المقدس والعادي وعدد من كتبه الأخرى، وفي سوسيولوجيا الأديان استفاد منه روجيه كايو في كتابه الإنسان والمقدس.
روجيه كايو كان أعتبر الكتاب مقاربة نفسية في التقصي عن روية الإنسان للمقدس، بالأضافه إن الكتاب بيغلفه طابع لاهوتي لإن أوتو عالم لاهوت بالأساس، لكن بنظرة أشمل أتفق مع مرسيا إلياد بإن الكتاب واحد من الكتب المهمة الأولى اللي استخدمت الفنومنولوجيا في علم الأديان. وهو المنهج اللي تبناه يواكيم واش ومرسيا إلياد في كتير من أبحاثهم لاحقا.
ثانيها الاهتمام اللي أولاه للمقدس بحد ذاته وكانت بادرة مهمة في تاريخ علم الأديان، بالرغم من وجود أبحاث أقدم عن المقدس لكن كتاب أوتو كانت أهميته أكبر.
ثالثها وأهمها هو استفادة عدد كبير من علماء الأديان اللاحقين ببحثه، البعض كانت استفادتهم بدون طرق الموضوع بشكل خاص بهم، والبعض استفاد من البحث وبنى عليه عدد من الأبحاث الأخرى، وأهمهم مرسيا إلياد في كتاب المقدس والعادي وعدد من كتبه الأخرى، وفي سوسيولوجيا الأديان استفاد منه روجيه كايو في كتابه الإنسان والمقدس.
May 5, 2022
The book is best known for developing the notion of "the numinous", a sense of the mysterium tremendum, a "non-rational, non-sensory experience or feeling whose primary and immediate object is outside the self". Intellectually, the style is strange to me. It is words about words, and full of motivated reasoning; despite those things, it is still a forceful example of how a pre-scientific intellect may deepen our understanding of the world. It only slightly changed my concept of the numinous, but I still value the book as an example of that pre-scientific mode of thinking: Otto has in many ways marvellous instincts, quite foreign to me, and it is enjoyable and enlightening to see him follow those instincts. I suspect the book will stay with me.
April 1, 2025
I haven't the faintest idea what this book was about.
I read it. I read every word of it. I took notes on it...more than I thought. I still have no idea what this book was about. While reading it I often wondered: am I just stupid, or are German theologians just impossible to understand? After all, this is the second German theologian of the 1930s-1940s era that I have read, the other being Bonhoeffer, and I didn't understand any more of Bonhoeffer than I did of Otto.
The few nuggets that I gleaned from this book are that the idea of holiness isn't, or perhaps it's better to say 'wasn't originally' or 'shouldn't' be simply that which is morally good. That which is 'holy' is something set apart, something which cannot be comprehended or plumbed by the human intellect. It can be felt, the edges of it can be somewhat defined by analogies to other, similar ideas, but it cannot be explicated in its entirety. Even though this is the case, we all inherently recognize and feel the idea of holiness.
He explained this using a whole bunch of analogies, the only one of which I understood was hunger. We all know what hunger is, we have all experienced hunger, but imagine trying to explain hunger to someone who had never felt it before, who had only existed in the state of satiation their entire lives. It would be remarkable difficult to do. It's already remarkably difficult to do. What is hunger? An empty feeling in your stomach. Only when we point to where we feel hunger, it's not usually in the stomach at all. And what, precisely, is an empty feeling? The description of an 'empty feeling' is already quite metaphorical by itself, why does an 'empty stomach' feel different than an 'empty head'? It's the same word, why does the noun it describes change the meaning so much? Holiness is much the same thing, we all know it because we have all felt it, but when tasked with describing it, we all fall short.
Okay. So far so good. This makes sense. God is omniscient and omnipowerful and omnipresent, so it makes sense that his holiness too would be outside of our comprehension. The thing, though, is that Otto presents this not as a bug, but as a feature. He used a quote from Tersteegen to sum up this idea that I really liked "A comprehended God is no God." We often complain about not being able to understand God, his motivations, his goodness, his plans for our lives, but what if that inability to understand is not a cause for complaint but a cause for worship? This is the point of the book, I think, that western Christianity has lost its sense of its own limitedness. In our struggle to categorize everything and understand everything, we forget that we cannot comprehend God, for by doing so we have brought him down to our own mortal level. Our very incapacity to fully know God is what makes him God.
If that is true however, then we are left with the question of how do we go about worshiping that which we do not understand? If we cannot describe in words that which is indescribable, then how do we worship it? He seems to be pushing for a worshipful silence, or meditation, like the mystics used to do and says that this sort of worship is missing from modern churches.
I think this is probably closer to being correct than incorrect. Especially in this new century we are surrounded by bells and whistles and notifications and we rarely stop to just be in silence. I guess that it is because silence is rather terrifying. It's the aural equivalent of looking into the void and realizing just how tiny of a speck you are. I guess the realization of that truth and the dwelling on it also constitutes worship in Otto's framing of it.
At least, I think this is the main idea of the book, if so, it took a great deal of words to get to it. But honestly, I'm probably only scraping the barest surface of what was said here, because I really really struggled with it.
I think my next devotional book will be something super easy like: Baby's Alphabet of Bible Names. Sounds nice and digestible after this.
I read it. I read every word of it. I took notes on it...more than I thought. I still have no idea what this book was about. While reading it I often wondered: am I just stupid, or are German theologians just impossible to understand? After all, this is the second German theologian of the 1930s-1940s era that I have read, the other being Bonhoeffer, and I didn't understand any more of Bonhoeffer than I did of Otto.
The few nuggets that I gleaned from this book are that the idea of holiness isn't, or perhaps it's better to say 'wasn't originally' or 'shouldn't' be simply that which is morally good. That which is 'holy' is something set apart, something which cannot be comprehended or plumbed by the human intellect. It can be felt, the edges of it can be somewhat defined by analogies to other, similar ideas, but it cannot be explicated in its entirety. Even though this is the case, we all inherently recognize and feel the idea of holiness.
He explained this using a whole bunch of analogies, the only one of which I understood was hunger. We all know what hunger is, we have all experienced hunger, but imagine trying to explain hunger to someone who had never felt it before, who had only existed in the state of satiation their entire lives. It would be remarkable difficult to do. It's already remarkably difficult to do. What is hunger? An empty feeling in your stomach. Only when we point to where we feel hunger, it's not usually in the stomach at all. And what, precisely, is an empty feeling? The description of an 'empty feeling' is already quite metaphorical by itself, why does an 'empty stomach' feel different than an 'empty head'? It's the same word, why does the noun it describes change the meaning so much? Holiness is much the same thing, we all know it because we have all felt it, but when tasked with describing it, we all fall short.
Okay. So far so good. This makes sense. God is omniscient and omnipowerful and omnipresent, so it makes sense that his holiness too would be outside of our comprehension. The thing, though, is that Otto presents this not as a bug, but as a feature. He used a quote from Tersteegen to sum up this idea that I really liked "A comprehended God is no God." We often complain about not being able to understand God, his motivations, his goodness, his plans for our lives, but what if that inability to understand is not a cause for complaint but a cause for worship? This is the point of the book, I think, that western Christianity has lost its sense of its own limitedness. In our struggle to categorize everything and understand everything, we forget that we cannot comprehend God, for by doing so we have brought him down to our own mortal level. Our very incapacity to fully know God is what makes him God.
If that is true however, then we are left with the question of how do we go about worshiping that which we do not understand? If we cannot describe in words that which is indescribable, then how do we worship it? He seems to be pushing for a worshipful silence, or meditation, like the mystics used to do and says that this sort of worship is missing from modern churches.
I think this is probably closer to being correct than incorrect. Especially in this new century we are surrounded by bells and whistles and notifications and we rarely stop to just be in silence. I guess that it is because silence is rather terrifying. It's the aural equivalent of looking into the void and realizing just how tiny of a speck you are. I guess the realization of that truth and the dwelling on it also constitutes worship in Otto's framing of it.
At least, I think this is the main idea of the book, if so, it took a great deal of words to get to it. But honestly, I'm probably only scraping the barest surface of what was said here, because I really really struggled with it.
I think my next devotional book will be something super easy like: Baby's Alphabet of Bible Names. Sounds nice and digestible after this.
June 2, 2014
Rudolf Otto's book deserves pride of place for his articulation of "the idea of the holy" and his usage of the term "numinous" to describe "the otherness of God." Otto particularly develops the idea of the non-rational element in our encounter with God. He elaborates various aspects of these encounters, "creature feeling", "awefulness", "overpoweringness", and "energy" or "urgency". One of the things I appreciated in this work is that Otto distinguishes "non-rational" from irrational and sees a place for rationality and non-rationality to complement each other in religious life.
The book also includes examples of the numinous in scripture, and in the writings of those as diverse as Luther and Chrysostom, and in appendices, in Robertson, Watts, Blake, Ruskin, and others. Because of his familiarity with world religions, Otto includes examples from other religions, both eastern and western, as well as the more "primitive".
The appendices of this work are quite interesting as well. I've already mentioned some of the material covered in these. One had to do with "numinous sounds", those responses made in different languages when confronted with the "awefulness" or "holiness" of God. Another was on silent worship, and the numinous--something to be considered in the culture of "noisy" extroverted worship in many of our churches.
There were two serious places where I found myself parting company with Otto. One is his evolutionary understanding of the development of religion which he incorporates into his development of the numinous from primitive responses of terror in face of the "daemonic" to what he sees as the supreme expression in Christianity. Not only may this be patronizing to other religions, but it also runs counter to another idea that is worthy of consideration: that the knowledge of there being one supreme God may be prior to the worship of many gods or animistic religion. Otto acknowledges the idea of God above the gods in passing but in the main is committed to this evolutionary schema. This work was first published in 1923 when scientists in a variety of disciplines were proposing evolutionary schema under the influence of Darwin, most notably social-Darwinism, and so this approach, which was widespread in the study of world religions, is understandable.
The other place where I part company is his relegation to the "non-rational" the accounts of the resurrection and other miraculous elements. What is troubling, even where Otto might allow for something objective occurring, is to say that all events of these kind are mystical, non-rational, and subjective. One can still say they are "real" in the sense that they were real to the observers, but because they cannot be rationally explained, they are not "real" in an objective sense.
This is a demanding book to read. The translator mentions that some commented that the translation is better than Otto's German! I would not discourage reading the book either for this reason or my objections. Otto reminds us that a truly infinite God is beyond our ability to explain God, even as theologians are committed to the task of articulating what may be known and worshiped of this God.
The book also includes examples of the numinous in scripture, and in the writings of those as diverse as Luther and Chrysostom, and in appendices, in Robertson, Watts, Blake, Ruskin, and others. Because of his familiarity with world religions, Otto includes examples from other religions, both eastern and western, as well as the more "primitive".
The appendices of this work are quite interesting as well. I've already mentioned some of the material covered in these. One had to do with "numinous sounds", those responses made in different languages when confronted with the "awefulness" or "holiness" of God. Another was on silent worship, and the numinous--something to be considered in the culture of "noisy" extroverted worship in many of our churches.
There were two serious places where I found myself parting company with Otto. One is his evolutionary understanding of the development of religion which he incorporates into his development of the numinous from primitive responses of terror in face of the "daemonic" to what he sees as the supreme expression in Christianity. Not only may this be patronizing to other religions, but it also runs counter to another idea that is worthy of consideration: that the knowledge of there being one supreme God may be prior to the worship of many gods or animistic religion. Otto acknowledges the idea of God above the gods in passing but in the main is committed to this evolutionary schema. This work was first published in 1923 when scientists in a variety of disciplines were proposing evolutionary schema under the influence of Darwin, most notably social-Darwinism, and so this approach, which was widespread in the study of world religions, is understandable.
The other place where I part company is his relegation to the "non-rational" the accounts of the resurrection and other miraculous elements. What is troubling, even where Otto might allow for something objective occurring, is to say that all events of these kind are mystical, non-rational, and subjective. One can still say they are "real" in the sense that they were real to the observers, but because they cannot be rationally explained, they are not "real" in an objective sense.
This is a demanding book to read. The translator mentions that some commented that the translation is better than Otto's German! I would not discourage reading the book either for this reason or my objections. Otto reminds us that a truly infinite God is beyond our ability to explain God, even as theologians are committed to the task of articulating what may be known and worshiped of this God.
Read
April 3, 2012Fear of the Shadow, the daemon, is the beginning of subjective religious experience according to Rudolf Otto in The Idea of the Holy. Our utterly deferential fright is encapsulated in that hoary Old Testament expression, “the Wrath of Yahweh.” (18) Otto calls it the numinous experience, when our “blood runs cold” and our “flesh creeps.” We recognize the sacred, the hallowed, the holy when it triggers an acute and overwhelming emotion, all out of proportion to the event – wonder, awe, astonishment, stupor, dread. “Here we have a terror fraught with an inward shuddering such as not even the most menacing and overpowering created thing can instill. It has something spectral in it.” (14) This is the encounter with the divine, that which is “wholly other” from the physical/rational self, that which is “wholly other” from what can be recognized or understood.
The ancients accepted the ineffable experience as a part of physical reality. They saw spirits in rocks and rivers. The hibernating beast came out of an uncanny place. Wild animals looked at people with the eyes of disguised gods. And the boldest of ancient people, as do bold people throughout time, sought to harness some small part of that ineffable power and energy. Magic was born – the effort “to appropriate the prodigious force of the numen for the natural ends of man.” (33)
complete posting at https://maryoverton.wikispaces.com/Th...
The ancients accepted the ineffable experience as a part of physical reality. They saw spirits in rocks and rivers. The hibernating beast came out of an uncanny place. Wild animals looked at people with the eyes of disguised gods. And the boldest of ancient people, as do bold people throughout time, sought to harness some small part of that ineffable power and energy. Magic was born – the effort “to appropriate the prodigious force of the numen for the natural ends of man.” (33)
complete posting at https://maryoverton.wikispaces.com/Th...
May 19, 2009
Old school theology book. One more famous study trying to proove that there is an a priori religious impulsion. Of course it cann't be based on reason. A renewal of irrationalistic stream inside theology, in the time of Bergson, Dada, Charles Fort, Freud, First World War. An effort to establish a bridge with the wholly other. What is nouminous? The sixth chapter of Isaiah, Bach, Medelson, or silence itself? Of course it is the miracle. But what is greater miracle than the life, the spirit, the soul, where the presence of the supernatural can appear. It could be titled: "Jesus and the Paranormal", not in the sense of Bible's historical analysis, but of an analytic of the elements of spiritual experience.
September 27, 2015
This was assigned reading for Paul Schaick's Philosophy of Religion course at Grinnell College in Iowa. Given the very little attention paid to it in class, I've always presumed he was required to include the text in the syllabus. In any case, I read it very quickly and wasn't impressed. The class itself was primarily devoted to the close analysis on Anselm's ontological arguments.
October 8, 2014
I enjoyed the unfolding of Jungian analysis, the concepts of holy terror and awe, and above all, the feeling of absolute sincerity. This wasn't a book of flowery nonsense, nor was it remotely a self-help book. I believe I'll be thinking about it for years down the line and appreciate a few of the nuances. We shall see.
March 9, 2022
Fascinating and worth a read. But particularly toward the end the chapters felt scattered. Perhaps that's simply because I couldn't always follow his connections. In the version I read, there were lots of French, Latin, German, and Greek words with no translation that he expects you to know. So I only gleaned small bits and pieces. I wonder if there's an annotated version out there which would help explain some context.
Quotes:
“These two qualities, the daunting and the fascinating, now combine in a strange harmony of contrasts, and the resultant dual character of the numinous consciousness, to which the entire religious development bears witness, at any rate from the level of the ‘daemonic dread’ onwards, is at once the strangest and most noteworthy phenomenon in the whole history of religion. The daemonic-divine object may appear to the mind an object of horror and dread, but at the same time it is no less something that allures with a potent charm, and the creature, who trembles before it, utterly cowed and cast down, has always at the same time the impulse to turn to it, nay even to make it somehow his own. The ‘mystery’ is for him not merely something to be wondered at but something that entrances him; and beside that in it which bewilders and confounds, he feels a something that captivates and transports him with a strange ravishment, rising often enough to the pitch of dizzy intoxication; it is the Dionysiac-element in the numen” (The Idea of the Holy, pg 31).
Quotes:
“These two qualities, the daunting and the fascinating, now combine in a strange harmony of contrasts, and the resultant dual character of the numinous consciousness, to which the entire religious development bears witness, at any rate from the level of the ‘daemonic dread’ onwards, is at once the strangest and most noteworthy phenomenon in the whole history of religion. The daemonic-divine object may appear to the mind an object of horror and dread, but at the same time it is no less something that allures with a potent charm, and the creature, who trembles before it, utterly cowed and cast down, has always at the same time the impulse to turn to it, nay even to make it somehow his own. The ‘mystery’ is for him not merely something to be wondered at but something that entrances him; and beside that in it which bewilders and confounds, he feels a something that captivates and transports him with a strange ravishment, rising often enough to the pitch of dizzy intoxication; it is the Dionysiac-element in the numen” (The Idea of the Holy, pg 31).
January 7, 2021
Rudolf Otto, adică întâlnirea cu mysterium tremendum (taina înfricoșătoare); cu numinosul care reprezintă legătura irațională cu divinitatea -ceva deosebit ce nu are nimic omenesc sau cosmic și care îi dă celui care îl trăiește sentimentul stării de creatură, făcându-l să-și simtă nimicnicia conștientizând în același timp că nu este decât pulbere și cenușă. Amalgamând fascinația, admirația, cu oroarea și cutremurarea, apare astfel sacrul -un surplus viu în toate religiile, un necunoscut ireductibil -neantul.
O analiză obiectivă a modalităților experienței religioase cărora atributele raționale nu le poate epuiza esența divină.
O analiză obiectivă a modalităților experienței religioase cărora atributele raționale nu le poate epuiza esența divină.
April 14, 2022
Reading this justly influential text as an irreligious non-Christian, one encounters a number of stumbling blocks. Most grating is the obnoxious tone of barely concealed Christian triumphalism masquerading as detached comparitivism. The treatment of Islam is a case in point, which we are informed represents "the very essence of Fanaticism." Otto's denunciation of the god of speculative philosophy in favor of a living/personal god rests on a notion of divination which presupposes that the holy is revealed in supernatural exceptions to the laws of nature. Whatever we may think of this appeal to interiority, it responds to a caricature of naturalism, rather than engaging with Spinoza or Hume's arguments against miracles. In one of his outbursts against rationalist religion, Otto even makes the outrageous claim that proofs of god are inherently coercive. Otto insists that while the capacity for divination is latent in every person it is "only disclosed as a special endowment and equipment of particular gifted individuals" - ultimately, a form of spiritual elitism.
Once these flaws are recognized, it becomes possible to salvage many of the claims Otto defends. His core argument concerning the importance of non-rational elements in religious experience is persuasive, focusing on the feelings of dependence and fascination exercised by the numinous. Against extreme egocidal forms of mysticism which annihilate the self, Otto holds that an account of the numinous "cannot dispense with the rational." The text is peppered with perceptive observations that stress the importance of figurative language, including suggestive readings of the numinous nature of the Wrath/Jealousy of Yahweh and of Luther's theology of desperation. A highlight is the remarkable reading of the Cross as "the mirror of the eternal Father (speculum aeterni Patris), and not one of the Father alone- the highest rational interpretation of the holy-but of Holiness as such." Otto is at his best when discussing the aesthetics of the numinous, and the text is filled with interesting discussions of the spectral and the daemonic as precursors to the properly religious idea of the sacred.
Mark Fisher in Ghosts of my Life references this text, and his commentary is worth quoting at length:
"perhaps we can rescue the numinous from the religious. Otto delineates many variants of the numinous; the most familiar to us now would be ‘spasms and convulsions’ leading to ‘the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy’. But far more uncanny in the ultra-agitated, present is that mode of the numinous which ‘come(s) sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship.’ [...] This is not an inner but Outer calm; not a discovery of a cheap New Age ‘real’ self, but a positive alienation, in which the cold pastoral freezing into a tableau is experienced as a release from identity."
Following Fisher's argument, this text is best approached as a manual for positive alienation, one deeply attuned to uncanny dynamics of what we could call 'primal specularisation'.
***
Take two: At first blush Otto's numinous seems hopelessly bound to outdated monotheistic assumptions. We don't need to use the metaphor of divine wrath to recognize its truth - fear and trembling are perfectly natural reactions to the stupefying effects of the sublime. Otto is probably right, once the chips are down, that we need something like the numinous, even if he's almost certainly wrong to insist that the numinous has nothing to do with the god of the philosophers. Philosophers can't believe in a God that wouldn't be rational - the numinous isn't arbitrary, better to characterize it as a universally shared psychosis.
Once these flaws are recognized, it becomes possible to salvage many of the claims Otto defends. His core argument concerning the importance of non-rational elements in religious experience is persuasive, focusing on the feelings of dependence and fascination exercised by the numinous. Against extreme egocidal forms of mysticism which annihilate the self, Otto holds that an account of the numinous "cannot dispense with the rational." The text is peppered with perceptive observations that stress the importance of figurative language, including suggestive readings of the numinous nature of the Wrath/Jealousy of Yahweh and of Luther's theology of desperation. A highlight is the remarkable reading of the Cross as "the mirror of the eternal Father (speculum aeterni Patris), and not one of the Father alone- the highest rational interpretation of the holy-but of Holiness as such." Otto is at his best when discussing the aesthetics of the numinous, and the text is filled with interesting discussions of the spectral and the daemonic as precursors to the properly religious idea of the sacred.
Mark Fisher in Ghosts of my Life references this text, and his commentary is worth quoting at length:
"perhaps we can rescue the numinous from the religious. Otto delineates many variants of the numinous; the most familiar to us now would be ‘spasms and convulsions’ leading to ‘the strangest excitements, to intoxicated frenzy, to transport, and to ecstasy’. But far more uncanny in the ultra-agitated, present is that mode of the numinous which ‘come(s) sweeping like a gentle tide, pervading the mind with a tranquil mood of deepest worship.’ [...] This is not an inner but Outer calm; not a discovery of a cheap New Age ‘real’ self, but a positive alienation, in which the cold pastoral freezing into a tableau is experienced as a release from identity."
Following Fisher's argument, this text is best approached as a manual for positive alienation, one deeply attuned to uncanny dynamics of what we could call 'primal specularisation'.
***
Take two: At first blush Otto's numinous seems hopelessly bound to outdated monotheistic assumptions. We don't need to use the metaphor of divine wrath to recognize its truth - fear and trembling are perfectly natural reactions to the stupefying effects of the sublime. Otto is probably right, once the chips are down, that we need something like the numinous, even if he's almost certainly wrong to insist that the numinous has nothing to do with the god of the philosophers. Philosophers can't believe in a God that wouldn't be rational - the numinous isn't arbitrary, better to characterize it as a universally shared psychosis.
July 8, 2024
This was one of the most fascinating books of the year. Highly recommend!
“By the continual living activity of its non-rational elements a religion is guarded from passing into 'rationalism'. By being steeped in and saturated with rational elements it is guarded from sinking into fanaticism or mere mysticality, or at least from persisting in these, and is qualified to become a religion for all civilized humanity. The degree in which both rational and non-rational elements are jointly present, united in healthy and lovely harmony, affords a criterion to measure the relative rank of religions- and one, too, that is specifically religious. Applying this criterion, we find that Christianity, in this as in other respects, stands out in complete superiority over all its sister religions. The lucid edifice of its clear and pure conceptions, feelings, and experiences is built up on a foundation that goes far deeper than the rational. Yet the non-rational is only the basis, the setting, the woof in the fabric, ever preserving for Christianity its mystical depth, giving religion thereby the deep undertones and heavy shadows of mysticism, without letting it develop into a mere rank growth of mysticality. And thus Christianity, in the healthily proportioned union of its elements, assumes an absolutely classical form and dignity, which is only the more, vividly attested in consciousness as we proceed honestly and without prejudice to set it in its place in the comparative study of religions. Then we shall recognize that in Christianity an element of man's spiritual life, which yet has its analogies in other fields, has for the first time come to maturity in a supreme and unparalleled way.”
“By the continual living activity of its non-rational elements a religion is guarded from passing into 'rationalism'. By being steeped in and saturated with rational elements it is guarded from sinking into fanaticism or mere mysticality, or at least from persisting in these, and is qualified to become a religion for all civilized humanity. The degree in which both rational and non-rational elements are jointly present, united in healthy and lovely harmony, affords a criterion to measure the relative rank of religions- and one, too, that is specifically religious. Applying this criterion, we find that Christianity, in this as in other respects, stands out in complete superiority over all its sister religions. The lucid edifice of its clear and pure conceptions, feelings, and experiences is built up on a foundation that goes far deeper than the rational. Yet the non-rational is only the basis, the setting, the woof in the fabric, ever preserving for Christianity its mystical depth, giving religion thereby the deep undertones and heavy shadows of mysticism, without letting it develop into a mere rank growth of mysticality. And thus Christianity, in the healthily proportioned union of its elements, assumes an absolutely classical form and dignity, which is only the more, vividly attested in consciousness as we proceed honestly and without prejudice to set it in its place in the comparative study of religions. Then we shall recognize that in Christianity an element of man's spiritual life, which yet has its analogies in other fields, has for the first time come to maturity in a supreme and unparalleled way.”
June 24, 2013
Vastly learned. Seriously off, with brilliant passages.
July 26, 2022
For me, the weakness of this book was in its hybrid methodology: at once philosophy and theology to the detriment of both.
I’m reminded of what CS Lewis said about Boethius (how lucky that I just read The Discarded Image!): he talked about theological concepts in purely philosophical terms because that was his chosen medium. Not so here. Otto makes great points in philosophically unsatisfying ways, with abundant assumptions and argumentative leaps.
On the other hand, the theological implications were rather underwhelming. Many of same conclusions could have been reached, often have been reached, in simple sermons (that being a quantitative rather than qualitative assessment). His discussion of the numinous and apophasis was less poignant and effective than Pseudo-Dionysius or the Cloud author since it overtly took to explaining that which the purely theological texts admit cannot be explained.
I think I was particularly disappointed because of the author’s imperative for the reader not to go further into the study unless they have specifically felt the numinous presence the book wanted to outline. That was a big green flag for me, the kind of thing that the Cloud author would say, did say, to his readers. But as someone whose interest in the holy has sprung from encounters with it, I was disappointed in the lack of depth and, to put it bluntly, numinous quality of the study. I’ve read much better philosophical inquiries into religious phenomena by Kant, Levinas, Ricoeur, Arendt, and Agamben, agree or disagree as I may, and better theological inquiries by a host of writers.
With all of that said, I think Otto is generally correct about quite a bit (and wrong about quite a bit, none of which is unforgivable to my mind), but I encountered little here that I haven’t encountered elsewhere, and none of it was presented better here than in other texts. With all that’s out there these days, I doubt I’d recommend this one.
I’m reminded of what CS Lewis said about Boethius (how lucky that I just read The Discarded Image!): he talked about theological concepts in purely philosophical terms because that was his chosen medium. Not so here. Otto makes great points in philosophically unsatisfying ways, with abundant assumptions and argumentative leaps.
On the other hand, the theological implications were rather underwhelming. Many of same conclusions could have been reached, often have been reached, in simple sermons (that being a quantitative rather than qualitative assessment). His discussion of the numinous and apophasis was less poignant and effective than Pseudo-Dionysius or the Cloud author since it overtly took to explaining that which the purely theological texts admit cannot be explained.
I think I was particularly disappointed because of the author’s imperative for the reader not to go further into the study unless they have specifically felt the numinous presence the book wanted to outline. That was a big green flag for me, the kind of thing that the Cloud author would say, did say, to his readers. But as someone whose interest in the holy has sprung from encounters with it, I was disappointed in the lack of depth and, to put it bluntly, numinous quality of the study. I’ve read much better philosophical inquiries into religious phenomena by Kant, Levinas, Ricoeur, Arendt, and Agamben, agree or disagree as I may, and better theological inquiries by a host of writers.
With all of that said, I think Otto is generally correct about quite a bit (and wrong about quite a bit, none of which is unforgivable to my mind), but I encountered little here that I haven’t encountered elsewhere, and none of it was presented better here than in other texts. With all that’s out there these days, I doubt I’d recommend this one.
July 28, 2022
Otto ronda el término por él creado de lo "numinoso". Su intención en suscitar un reconocimiento emocional o sentimental en el lector a través de esta ronda en torno a lo irracional en la idea de Dios. Hablamos entonces de un ensayo escrito con un particular método y que trata asuntos escurridizos, de difícil concreción.
Lo numinoso incluye tanto las formas más primitivas y toscas, como las propias de religiones evolucionadas y refinadas, moralizadas y racionalizadas. Especial atención merece el cristianismo.
Combina partes luminosas y claras con otras más oscuras y densas. A veces me he visto avanzando en la lectura más por obra de intuiciones que de comprensión propiamente dicha.
Lo numinoso incluye tanto las formas más primitivas y toscas, como las propias de religiones evolucionadas y refinadas, moralizadas y racionalizadas. Especial atención merece el cristianismo.
Combina partes luminosas y claras con otras más oscuras y densas. A veces me he visto avanzando en la lectura más por obra de intuiciones que de comprensión propiamente dicha.
September 18, 2025
feels so slovenly giving this a star rating
5 *s for inventing my favourite concept :)
i want to read mysticism east and west next, all my favourite parts were his comparisons from the Bhagavad Gita.
other parts were a bit scattered particularly towards the end where i found it hard to understand the train of thought…
5 *s for inventing my favourite concept :)
i want to read mysticism east and west next, all my favourite parts were his comparisons from the Bhagavad Gita.
other parts were a bit scattered particularly towards the end where i found it hard to understand the train of thought…
August 26, 2018
The trouble with guys like German theologian Rudolf Otto and "Beat Friar" William Everson is that they've been indoctrinated with the tenets of the Semitic (Judeo-Christian-Muslim) religious mythos. These tenets and foundational concepts include transcendence, a gendered deity, unworthiness and the need for atonement, etc. Hence, all their contentions take these ideas as given. This skews their arguments and renders them rather irrelevant to those whose views differ from the Western parochial mainstream.
First of all, is a sense of the numinous, which Otto claims is the basis of all religion, a human universal? Freud claimed that he had no inkling of any such mood, emotion, instinct or intuition. Otto acknowledges that such people exist, for on page 8 he requests that those who have no such presentiment of the numinous, not read his book! (I wonder if Freud read "The Idea of the Holy.") I'll assume that, while some may lack completely any consciousness of the numinous and some mystics devote their entire lives to its evocation, most people catch glimpses of the numinous at various points in their lives, and have some idea of the subjective experience Otto is referring to.
So what is the object of this numinous instinct? What, exactly is the "numen" to which this feeling yearns or pertains? To Otto, the answer would be: God. The transcendent father God of the Bible, no less. To a Pantheist like poet Robinson Jeffers the object would be quite different, something imminent or inherent to nature. To the Taoist it would be the ineffable Tao, to a Buddhist the Void, etc. But how do we know that the numinous instinct has an object? How do we know that it isn't a subjective psychological experience that evolved in response to some selective exigency in the natural environment? In other words, why should we not assume that it isn't an adaptation? How do we know that mystics aren't simply adept at self-stimulation of the nucleus accumbens or some other neural locus?
My own sense of the numinous was never felt in church. In fact, it was never felt indoors, unless I was looking out a window. It's always felt outdoors in nature and is closely associated with images of sublimity, loneliness, distance, peace, even death. I feel it most strongly in November. There are things I can do to evoke it but I prefer to let it come unbidden. I don't particularly feel that the numen is "wholly other." In fact, I tend to feel a oneness with it. Nor do I experience the "creature-consciousness" of powerlessness or inadequacy before the "mysterium tremendum." I don't particularly feel abashed or tremble with awe or religious dread, but feel a certain sad joy, rather. I think that those timorous, tremulous feelings, which Otto lists as aspects or attributes of the numinous emotion, are artifacts of Otto's Semitic religious orientation. He would relate these feelings with the "conviction of sin" that convinces one of the need for redemption. Otto would have it that it's the sinners, in response to this conviction of unworthiness, who demand redemption, not God who requires it. Hence, Jesus died to satisfy or assuage felt human guilt, not because God demands blood for the remission of sin, as Paul proclaims in the Book of Hebrews. Weird.
I feel that it's important to read books like "The Idea of the Holy" if for no other reason than to sample how theologians think. I think it's also interesting to explore ideas about what the numinous emotion portends, how it's engendered, what it means, etc. There's actually a lot to Otto's disquisition I agree with. I just wish it'd been written by someone more objective and not by someone who regards Christianity as the highest human development of the religious instinct. The topic cries out for in depth consideration by a Pagan or Pantheist, or by evolutionary psychologists or neurologists. Maybe such treatments have been done. "So many books, so little time..."
First of all, is a sense of the numinous, which Otto claims is the basis of all religion, a human universal? Freud claimed that he had no inkling of any such mood, emotion, instinct or intuition. Otto acknowledges that such people exist, for on page 8 he requests that those who have no such presentiment of the numinous, not read his book! (I wonder if Freud read "The Idea of the Holy.") I'll assume that, while some may lack completely any consciousness of the numinous and some mystics devote their entire lives to its evocation, most people catch glimpses of the numinous at various points in their lives, and have some idea of the subjective experience Otto is referring to.
So what is the object of this numinous instinct? What, exactly is the "numen" to which this feeling yearns or pertains? To Otto, the answer would be: God. The transcendent father God of the Bible, no less. To a Pantheist like poet Robinson Jeffers the object would be quite different, something imminent or inherent to nature. To the Taoist it would be the ineffable Tao, to a Buddhist the Void, etc. But how do we know that the numinous instinct has an object? How do we know that it isn't a subjective psychological experience that evolved in response to some selective exigency in the natural environment? In other words, why should we not assume that it isn't an adaptation? How do we know that mystics aren't simply adept at self-stimulation of the nucleus accumbens or some other neural locus?
My own sense of the numinous was never felt in church. In fact, it was never felt indoors, unless I was looking out a window. It's always felt outdoors in nature and is closely associated with images of sublimity, loneliness, distance, peace, even death. I feel it most strongly in November. There are things I can do to evoke it but I prefer to let it come unbidden. I don't particularly feel that the numen is "wholly other." In fact, I tend to feel a oneness with it. Nor do I experience the "creature-consciousness" of powerlessness or inadequacy before the "mysterium tremendum." I don't particularly feel abashed or tremble with awe or religious dread, but feel a certain sad joy, rather. I think that those timorous, tremulous feelings, which Otto lists as aspects or attributes of the numinous emotion, are artifacts of Otto's Semitic religious orientation. He would relate these feelings with the "conviction of sin" that convinces one of the need for redemption. Otto would have it that it's the sinners, in response to this conviction of unworthiness, who demand redemption, not God who requires it. Hence, Jesus died to satisfy or assuage felt human guilt, not because God demands blood for the remission of sin, as Paul proclaims in the Book of Hebrews. Weird.
I feel that it's important to read books like "The Idea of the Holy" if for no other reason than to sample how theologians think. I think it's also interesting to explore ideas about what the numinous emotion portends, how it's engendered, what it means, etc. There's actually a lot to Otto's disquisition I agree with. I just wish it'd been written by someone more objective and not by someone who regards Christianity as the highest human development of the religious instinct. The topic cries out for in depth consideration by a Pagan or Pantheist, or by evolutionary psychologists or neurologists. Maybe such treatments have been done. "So many books, so little time..."
September 2, 2025
Wissenschaftsgeschichtlich bedeutend, gleichwohl ein merkwürdiges Werk.
Otto dekonstruiert das alltagssprachliche Verständnis des Begriffes „heilig“ als etwas prinzipiell Gutes, ethisch hochwertiges, indem er nachweist, dass dessen Ursprung im „Numinosen“, etwas rational Unerklärbaren liegt, dessen Erlebnis oft mit Angst und Schrecken, oder aber Leere verbunden ist. Otto stellt expliziert klar, dass aus seiner Sicht jemand, der sich nicht auf dieses Erleben einlässt, Religion nie wird verstehen können.
Bei seiner Analyse stützt er sich nicht allein, auf Biblische Texte sondern auch auf teilweise selbstübersetzte Quellen asiatischer Religionen, sufistische Texte und christliche Texte, und – wie von einem Vertreter des Bildungsbürgertums siner Zeit zu erwarten – Goethe. Zudem verweist er oft auf die bildende Kunst. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es ausgesprochen ärgerlich, dass in der benutzten Ausgabe der Bildteil der frühen Auflagen nicht mitaufgenommen wurde (ob der bereits in der zugrundeliegenden Ausgabe von 1936 weggespart wurde, habe ich nicht überprüft). Das „Heilige“ ist für Otto mithin eine religionshistorische Konstante.
Allerdings ist das Werk keineswegs von rein religionshistorischen und -phänomenologischen Interesse geleitet, denn es ist eindeutig normativ. Die Absicht Ottos ist es, die Überlegenheit des (lutherischen) Christentums als die vollkommene Form des Heiligen nachzuweisen. Während das Buch also für ein religionswissenschaftliches Werk zu normativ ist, ist es für eine theologische Abhandlung auffallend relativistisch: Das Christentum ist deshalb wahr(er), weil sich das, was allen Religionen zugrunde liegt, in ihm am besten manifestiert. Das Leiden des Gerechten (Hiob, Jesus) stellt für ihn die höchste Form des Numinosen dar, der „Sohn“ verkündet das Heilige nicht nur, in ihm ist es präsent.
Die Sprache ist von zahlreichen stilistischen Eigenheiten geprägt, zudem gibt sich Otto als Anhänger einer Ortografiereform zu erkennen. Problematisch erscheint mir, dass Otto jüdische liturgische Texte mit Reim übersetzt, was wohl kaum ohne Abstriche bei der inhaltlichen Übereinstimmung zu haben sein dürfte.
Die beiden Nachworte von Jörg Lauster und Peter Schütz (biographisch, theologiegeschichtlich) und Hans Joas (Heiligkeitsdiskurse in der damaligen Religionswissenschaft) kontextualisieren das Werk in herausragender Weise.
Otto dekonstruiert das alltagssprachliche Verständnis des Begriffes „heilig“ als etwas prinzipiell Gutes, ethisch hochwertiges, indem er nachweist, dass dessen Ursprung im „Numinosen“, etwas rational Unerklärbaren liegt, dessen Erlebnis oft mit Angst und Schrecken, oder aber Leere verbunden ist. Otto stellt expliziert klar, dass aus seiner Sicht jemand, der sich nicht auf dieses Erleben einlässt, Religion nie wird verstehen können.
Bei seiner Analyse stützt er sich nicht allein, auf Biblische Texte sondern auch auf teilweise selbstübersetzte Quellen asiatischer Religionen, sufistische Texte und christliche Texte, und – wie von einem Vertreter des Bildungsbürgertums siner Zeit zu erwarten – Goethe. Zudem verweist er oft auf die bildende Kunst. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es ausgesprochen ärgerlich, dass in der benutzten Ausgabe der Bildteil der frühen Auflagen nicht mitaufgenommen wurde (ob der bereits in der zugrundeliegenden Ausgabe von 1936 weggespart wurde, habe ich nicht überprüft). Das „Heilige“ ist für Otto mithin eine religionshistorische Konstante.
Allerdings ist das Werk keineswegs von rein religionshistorischen und -phänomenologischen Interesse geleitet, denn es ist eindeutig normativ. Die Absicht Ottos ist es, die Überlegenheit des (lutherischen) Christentums als die vollkommene Form des Heiligen nachzuweisen. Während das Buch also für ein religionswissenschaftliches Werk zu normativ ist, ist es für eine theologische Abhandlung auffallend relativistisch: Das Christentum ist deshalb wahr(er), weil sich das, was allen Religionen zugrunde liegt, in ihm am besten manifestiert. Das Leiden des Gerechten (Hiob, Jesus) stellt für ihn die höchste Form des Numinosen dar, der „Sohn“ verkündet das Heilige nicht nur, in ihm ist es präsent.
Die Sprache ist von zahlreichen stilistischen Eigenheiten geprägt, zudem gibt sich Otto als Anhänger einer Ortografiereform zu erkennen. Problematisch erscheint mir, dass Otto jüdische liturgische Texte mit Reim übersetzt, was wohl kaum ohne Abstriche bei der inhaltlichen Übereinstimmung zu haben sein dürfte.
Die beiden Nachworte von Jörg Lauster und Peter Schütz (biographisch, theologiegeschichtlich) und Hans Joas (Heiligkeitsdiskurse in der damaligen Religionswissenschaft) kontextualisieren das Werk in herausragender Weise.
December 27, 2008
The classic work on religious experience. Otto takes the idea that there is a raw, "numinous" experience (which he elaborates at some length. He says that religion rationalises this numinous experience to create the Holy. When they lose touch with the numinous, rational religious forms - rites, theologies, myths etc - are dead and lifeless.
Though he never mentions his name, Otto is in effect taking to task Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity. To study religion, however, one must come to terms with both of these giants.
Though he never mentions his name, Otto is in effect taking to task Feuerbach's Essence of Christianity. To study religion, however, one must come to terms with both of these giants.
November 30, 2022
The author includes many profound concepts. Sadly, they are lost on many readers due to the lack of readability, unnecessarily long sentences, and difficult sentence structure where his points are lost in the verbose delivery. Don’t start reading this if you’re easily distracted or if you don’t have a VERY stout cup of coffee to keep you focused and awake.
April 6, 2019
In the background of some of the more salient discussions of late to do with religion, and popularized by CS Lewis in particular, is the concept of the numinous. Here is the relevant passage, according to wikipedia:
C.S. Lewis described the numinous experience as follows in The Problem of Pain:
Suppose you were told there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told "There is a ghost in the next room," and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It would not be based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is "uncanny" rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called Dread. With the Uncanny one has reached the fringes of the Numinous. Now suppose that you were told simply "There is a mighty spirit in the room," and believed it. Your feelings would then be even less like the mere fear of danger: but the disturbance would be profound. You would feel wonder and a certain shrinking—a sense of inadequacy to cope with such a visitant and of prostration before it—an emotion which might be expressed in Shakespeare's words "Under it my genius is rebuked." This feeling may be described as awe, and the object which excites it as the Numinous.[8]
As the term owes its derivation ultimately to Rudolf Otto, you might as well look up the primary text, which is freely available: The Idea of the Holy. It's one of those books you need not read all the way through, or even very much of, in order to get the gist; but if you do, it's something you can then just as easily spend an hour or a week just thinking about a sentence or a paragraph from, as reading all the words of. One interesting thing to note is that Otto cautions us right up front against facile appropriation of his work of just the sort which it is so often put to, and which I am sure I am just as prone to as anyone:
... I feel that no one ought to concern himself with the Numen ineffablile who has not already devoted assiduous and serious study to the Ratio aeterna. (Foreword)
Time to brush off my Euclid and Aquinas, I guess. I came to Otto not via Lewis, most of whose apologetic work I'm still unfamiliar with, but from reading Karen Armstrong, on Pullman's recommendation. And even with that, it might not have made it to the top of my reading list if not for the curious prominence, not of the numinous as such, but of the word Holy, in the Final Fantasy series. But more on that another time.
Anyhow, Otto's Idea of the Holy proved to be such a powerful corrective to the rational studies dominant before his time, outside Nietzsche and Freud, and hanging on today in all sorts of reactionary positivism and New Atheism, that now we can speak perfectly comfortably of the spiritual or the numinous or the holy, until we stop to think for a moment about what it is we mean by them. Still, that's been true since Socrates, as Kierkegaard so exhaustively pointed out, or as Lewis, memorably, puts it in the mouth of one of his characters: "it's all in Plato!"
To highlight just a couple of more recondite connections worth attention, though: Auerbach, in his masterpiece Mimesis, has a discussion of creatureliness, a topic which may also have been popularized by Otto but which you don't hear much about anymore. Effectively, it's the opposite of the Holy, that in us by which, paradoxically, we recognize the Holy as wholly Other. Another expression of the core idea gets developed in terms of music, where Otto refers us to the well-documented holy genius of Bach (Credo, Mass in B Minor), as well as a couple of less conspicuous exemplars: Mendelssohn (Psalm 2) and Thomas Luiz / Tomas Luis de Victoria (Popule meus).
continued: see Devotional Language, by Johannes Sloek
C.S. Lewis described the numinous experience as follows in The Problem of Pain:
Suppose you were told there was a tiger in the next room: you would know that you were in danger and would probably feel fear. But if you were told "There is a ghost in the next room," and believed it, you would feel, indeed, what is often called fear, but of a different kind. It would not be based on the knowledge of danger, for no one is primarily afraid of what a ghost may do to him, but of the mere fact that it is a ghost. It is "uncanny" rather than dangerous, and the special kind of fear it excites may be called Dread. With the Uncanny one has reached the fringes of the Numinous. Now suppose that you were told simply "There is a mighty spirit in the room," and believed it. Your feelings would then be even less like the mere fear of danger: but the disturbance would be profound. You would feel wonder and a certain shrinking—a sense of inadequacy to cope with such a visitant and of prostration before it—an emotion which might be expressed in Shakespeare's words "Under it my genius is rebuked." This feeling may be described as awe, and the object which excites it as the Numinous.[8]
As the term owes its derivation ultimately to Rudolf Otto, you might as well look up the primary text, which is freely available: The Idea of the Holy. It's one of those books you need not read all the way through, or even very much of, in order to get the gist; but if you do, it's something you can then just as easily spend an hour or a week just thinking about a sentence or a paragraph from, as reading all the words of. One interesting thing to note is that Otto cautions us right up front against facile appropriation of his work of just the sort which it is so often put to, and which I am sure I am just as prone to as anyone:
... I feel that no one ought to concern himself with the Numen ineffablile who has not already devoted assiduous and serious study to the Ratio aeterna. (Foreword)
Time to brush off my Euclid and Aquinas, I guess. I came to Otto not via Lewis, most of whose apologetic work I'm still unfamiliar with, but from reading Karen Armstrong, on Pullman's recommendation. And even with that, it might not have made it to the top of my reading list if not for the curious prominence, not of the numinous as such, but of the word Holy, in the Final Fantasy series. But more on that another time.
Anyhow, Otto's Idea of the Holy proved to be such a powerful corrective to the rational studies dominant before his time, outside Nietzsche and Freud, and hanging on today in all sorts of reactionary positivism and New Atheism, that now we can speak perfectly comfortably of the spiritual or the numinous or the holy, until we stop to think for a moment about what it is we mean by them. Still, that's been true since Socrates, as Kierkegaard so exhaustively pointed out, or as Lewis, memorably, puts it in the mouth of one of his characters: "it's all in Plato!"
To highlight just a couple of more recondite connections worth attention, though: Auerbach, in his masterpiece Mimesis, has a discussion of creatureliness, a topic which may also have been popularized by Otto but which you don't hear much about anymore. Effectively, it's the opposite of the Holy, that in us by which, paradoxically, we recognize the Holy as wholly Other. Another expression of the core idea gets developed in terms of music, where Otto refers us to the well-documented holy genius of Bach (Credo, Mass in B Minor), as well as a couple of less conspicuous exemplars: Mendelssohn (Psalm 2) and Thomas Luiz / Tomas Luis de Victoria (Popule meus).
continued: see Devotional Language, by Johannes Sloek
July 30, 2024
Have on old marked up copy from a Philosophy of Religion class where this was the first book we read (the second was Freud's The Future of an Illusion). Otto starts right off by basically saying don't bother reading if you are a non-believer. Why does he do that? Because the experience of the Holy is irrational, and using it as a basis for belief (as many do) is on the same level as the argument from faith. You either accept them or you don't, no way to argue with those experiences. Moving on from that point, what Otto does is thoroughly describe what this experience of the holy consists of and what it is not. He's careful to distinguish religious experience from aesthetic experience. This used to be a point of argumentation, but do you get that creature feeling when you look at art, say Picasso's "Guernica," or whatever most moves you? Otto goes deep into the experience and this makes for fascinating reading.
March 18, 2025
Важная работа, однако слишком предвзятая в пользу христианства. Рудольф Отто считает христианство наивысшей ступенью религии: и ясные понятия то у него есть, и мистическая глубина. Одним словом - "более совершенная религия", потому что де проявила в себе в полной мере все стороны религии как таковой. Однако в таком подходе есть изъян: Отто смотрит на авраамическую религиозность и называет её единственно возможной религиозностью, в той или иной мере проявляемой у других народов. Получается явный фокус на религиях востока. Языческие культы в такой картине мира предстают "грубыми и примитивными" формами, первоначальными побуждениями к подлинной религии. Внимания им почти не уделено, вместо этого нахваливается Евангелие и мудрейшая еврейская традиция. В общем, в какой-то момент начинается неприкрытое христианское мессианство, и под конец трудно сказать, чего было больше: мессианства или религиоведения.
Интересные идеи тоже есть: нуменозное и его проявление, дивинация, "совершенно иное". И самое главное: то, что сфера иррационального в человеке являет собой великий тайник всего самого сакрального и сокровенного.
Интересные идеи тоже есть: нуменозное и его проявление, дивинация, "совершенно иное". И самое главное: то, что сфера иррационального в человеке являет собой великий тайник всего самого сакрального и сокровенного.
September 8, 2020
En svår men intressant bok. Kärnan är i begreppet Numen, som är gudomlig anslagskraft. Otto följer detta begrepp, på ett skrämmande lärt sätt, genom både de bibliska religionerna och deras avarter, och i den dharmiska. Jag kommer att behöva smälta boken, för den tvingar mig till omvärdering av flera idéer som jag trodde att jag behärskade, såsom Augustinus syn på viljan och dess relation till själen. Samtidigt stärker den kopplingen mellan personlig gnosis och organiserad religion - eller i alla fall organiserade trossystem - och den bygger en grund för en mer sokratisk kristendom.
Jag är djupt imponerad, även om jag vet att jag bara förstår en bråkdel, och förmodligen kommer behöva läsa om den om några år.
Jag är djupt imponerad, även om jag vet att jag bara förstår en bråkdel, och förmodligen kommer behöva läsa om den om några år.
September 3, 2019
A little densely-worded, can be slow-going and ponderous...but some worthy flashes of insight sprinkled here-and-there. Nicely-paired companion piece to William James.
Got this title from Bill Kerwin Thanks Bill!
Got this title from Bill Kerwin Thanks Bill!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 124 reviews