Reflections On Wisdom

REFLECTIONS ON WISDOM: Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panikkar
Author(s): Elizabeth M. Glaser

Source: Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Summer 2000), pp. 411-426
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41178969
Accessed: 12-06-2019 09:14 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal
This content downloaded from 111.93.136.226 on Wed, 12 Jun 2019 09:14:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
REFLECTIONS ON WISDOM:
Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panikkar
Elizabeth M. Glaser
Introduction
At first glance, Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panik

seem unlikely theological companions. These two vis
are not only centuries apart but worlds apart in life ori
and theological insight. It would appear even more incon
to link a medieval mystic whose God calls her "my dear d
with a prodigiously learned scholar who describes the re
life as a cosmotheandric experience.
Julian, a recluse, spent the major portion of her life, a
we are able to determine, in or near the medieval city o
wich, a busy port some 100 miles northeast of London. R
Panikkar is a highly respected twentieth-century philos
theologian whose education spans three doctorates an
background crosses at least two frontiers: the Western cu
Catholic Spain and the Eastern culture of Hindu Indi
would say he stands at the confluence of four rivers: Chr
Hinduism, Buddhism, and Secularity.)
Because she is a mystic, Julian's language is often puzzli
led with imagery waiting to be interpreted. The visions of
are similar to our disjointed dreams but are conceived in
awareness." Somehow we are able to make sense of these vision-
ary experiences, but we have tried to enclose their radical theol
ogy in a pre-fabricated framework. Acclaimed only in this
century,2 the theology of Julian of Norwich has been inserted,
with some exceptions and somewhat tenuously, into traditional
Elizabeth M. Glaser is a former member of a Roman Catholic religious commu

nity and a former staff member for the New York State Legislature. She is now
retired but continues her study and research in religious subjects.
Soundings 83.2 (Summer 2000). ISSN 0038-1861.
412 SOUNDINGS Elizabeth M. Glaser
Christian theology. To harmonize w

deviations, however, is to water down
As a philosopher/ theologian at hom
tions, Panikkar has developed a comp
any attempt at systematic formulatio
ignored, however, for the sake of
path. It is through his christic princ
sion that Julian, and perhaps other
The power of Julian's theology is
Panikkar's radical interpretation of
When Panikkar wrote his books on
Christ of Hinduism some twenty/ thir
read them may have been caught u
ment of the concept of Christ and T
dimensions - although this was contr
enamored. Subsequently, however, I
not because the fascination had fade
humanity in terms of "Man" and G
was unsettling and intimidating, lik
the reading by incessantly buzzing
Panikkar's works continued until A Dwe
to my attention. Wisdom had become
morass of Christian doctrine with it
often opaque vocabulary (including s
sion," "transubstantiation," "kenosis,"
tionable biblical "truths," and its
stances insidious in their promotion
title, therefore, was appealing.
Wisdom was also my connection wi
can be a rocky road. One can easily b
obsession with blood and skin in her
and death. Her insistent naming of C
was as intriguing as Panikkar's love-r
Aside from the dynamic influence o
there a nexus which joins these tw
that the vision-linked understanding
choress runs parallel to the dense an
twentieth century philosopher of re
says of Panikkar, that his religious stud
traditional boundaries" (3), can also b
Reflections on Wisdom 413
they both claim to be within the fold of orthodoxy, they have

articulated a theology which is no longer simply a variation on a
theme but one which has creative new doctrinal and spiritual
significance.
Wisdom is a bread that nourishes the work of these two. Their
thoughts converge, particularly in relation to two fundamental
Christian doctrinal bulwarks, Incarnation/Christ and Trinity.
Wisdom's Path
The momentum of theological and spiritualist interest in W

dom has lifted up both female and male voices. Among the w
men are Kathleen O'Connor and Elizabeth Johnson. O'Con
says of the Wisdom Woman in Proverbs that She has a "puzz
mutuality" (67) with God,4 and Johnson notes that Wisdom
an "intimate solidarity with the unoriginate God" (165).
There is no doubt that the Wisdom literature of Jewish sc
ture, the base for Christian Wisdom speculation and interpr
tion, is ambiguous and incomplete, even confusing. At ti
Wisdom is like a child playing in the universe before God del
ing in "His" creation. (Not as Raymond Brown depicted Wisd
however: "like a little girl helping God in making a new toy w
and eventually . . . she wants to live in the doll's house with
toys" (208 n315) [!] but somewhat like a "child on the rim of
ation . . . [walking] into the area left by the sun" [Powers 13
At other times, She speaks as God.
Notwithstanding the ambiguity of Jewish scripture, the con
tions between Jesus's words in Christian scripture and Sophia
Sirach and Proverbs are remarkable. Brown and Roland Murp
both acknowledge the relationship of Wisdom in Jewish Scr
ture to the Christ of Christians. Brown lists more than twenty s
ings in what he calls "the massive number of echoes (of Wisd
in John" (210), while in his chapter on "Lady Wisdom" Murp
brings to bear the multiplicity of the roles of Wisdom which
with little effort be ascribed to Jesus Christ (135ff). One of
more obvious comparisons is Sirach 24 with Matthew 1 1 :
Come to me, all you that yearn for me and be filled with my fruit
(Sir. 24.18)
Come to me, all you who are weary and find life burdensome,
I will refresh you. (Matt. 11.28)
Another is Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24 with John 1 :
The Lord begot me, the firstborn of his

poured forth, at the first, before the
From the mouth of the most high I c
In the beginning was the Word; the W
and the Word was God. (John 1.1 )5
If one is impressed by the suggesti
son that Wisdom in Proverbs 8.22-31 is not human wisdom but
another name for what Christians have called "Christ" and that it
constitutes an autobiography of the "Second Person of the Trin-
ity," Panikkar's opening chapter in A Dwelling Place for Wisdom
may be disappointing. For instance, "itself replaces "herself in
the widely accepted translation of Proverbs 9.1: "Wisdom has pre-
pared a dwelling place for herself (7).6
Wisdom for Panikkar is a human invariant. We seek a more
intense happiness than mere satisfaction of desire; we all have
deep sense of longing for salvation, resurrection or enlighten-
ment (12). He describes wisdom as the core of life, as touching
all of reality. According to Panikkar, we cannot possess wisdom
but we can prepare a dwelling for it and allow ourselves to b
overwhelmed and transformed by it (19). Wisdom for Panikkar
"resembles a kind of integrated experience that shapes our lives"
(9). It is recognized in the experience of peace, joy, and freedom
(25).
Occasionally, Panikkar goes beyond the human ways of wisdom
to the divine. Several provocative statements suggest a possible
development into a full-fledged divine figure:
1. "Wisdom has a childlike, filial relationship to the source of all
being." (9)
2. We "can only be found by wisdom, not set out in search of it."
(21)
3. "Wisdom has to be incarnate" (18).
The first statement evokes the haunting appearance of a Wis-

dom who, when there were no depths, was brought forth and was
"his" delight day by day (from Proverbs 8.24, 30). The second
statement suggests that Wisdom is not an abstract principle or an
object to be found but has a life of Her own. The third declara-
tion links the divine to the human, not only in Jesus but in hu-
manity in general. Panikkar explains that "Wisdom lives in us in
the same way that the incarnation is experienced by Christian
mystics" (18).
To name God Wisdom is a whole new orientation toward God
and life. We have identified with the God of dominance, judg

ment, and a future paradise too long. The God of many theolo-
gians and churchmen inflicts pain for transgressions or redeem
us through the torture and death of "His only-begotten Son."
In Julian, Wisdom is strongly linked to divinity. Although she
gives the name Wisdom to Christ, it is shared by the whole Trin
ity. "And the deep wisdom of the Trinity is our Mother ..."
(285). When she uses Wisdom for the "second person," it is usu-
ally accompanied by Power/Truth for the Father and Goodness/
Love for the Holy Spirit. Of these three images of God, Love is
the most troublesome. According to Julian, we are willing to ac
cept power and wisdom in God, but the ardor and completeness
of God's love for us escapes us. Although we have drawn many
inferences from human love and as Abraham Heschel points out
God cannot be less than "man,"7 it is difficult to think of onesel
as beloved of God. Julian's Love/Wisdom God is familiar and
courteous (331), a paradigm for human love. "He" is beholden
to us for our good deeds (253) and "he" defers to her. There i
no anger in "Him."
Although Julian expresses the trinitarian relationship in tradi-
tional terms, i.e. the Son is the Wisdom of the Father (276), for
her, Christ is Wisdom and Mother Wisdom in whom we are all
enclosed. Christ is the true Mother of life and all things. By asso-
ciation, Jesus is Mother Wisdom.
Julian reflects the Wisdom of Proverbs 8.31 ("I found delight
in the sons of men") when she observes that we are the bliss and
honor of the Son (216). We have known much of the dark side of
God but too little of the God of joy, bliss, and delight of Julian.
Not only does the naming of God as Wisdom mediate a differ-
ent God from the traditional God of history and theology, but it
is of vital significance that Wisdom as uncreated Reality pertains
to the principle and personification of what Christians have
known as Christ. Wisdom is not only expression (Logos) but the
totality of self, inter-related to all that is. For Julian, Wisdom is
centered in Christ. For Panikkar, Christ is the name given in
Christianity to a principle hidden or known by another name in
other religions - the Christie principle; or can one say, the Wis-
dom principle?
Theological Companions
For the ordinary Christian, to accept the doctrinal

tions of "true man and true God," i.e. Christ/Jesus,
three-in-oneness of the Trinity, requires a formidabl
faith. Do we know what it is to be human at the highes
And what does it mean to be "true God"? In traditional t
God is omniscient, omnipotent, immutable, etc. Jesus w
of these. Brown points out that the son in the parable of
nants in the vineyard, who is a prototype of Jesus, is de
agapetos, uniquely loved (89). Is this not what Jesus
Uniquely loved and in turn loving uniquely? We can only
at the concept of a human being filled with the plenitu
vinity, a divinity which existed in Jesus but which may b
ered a birthright of humanity. To see how Jesus is "true
true God" we must change our idea of God and of "m
both Julian and Panikkar, Christ is the name not only of
Nazareth but of every human being, each of whom can b
nized as a christophany.
In his christic principle and cosmotheandric intuition,
kar envisions Christ as the symbol of all reality (153). Re
sists of three dimensions: the cosmos, the divine and the
the threefold core of all that is.8 Christ is the name Christians
give to a mystery which has made its appearance since the begin-
ning of the world (106). Christ is timeless and universal.
If Christians are able to liberate the christic principle from their
religion, Christianity, then this principle can be experienced as a
dimension that is at least potentially present in every human be-
ing, assuming that no absolute interpretation is added to it. One
can say the same about similar principles in other traditions. (151)
The christic principle is the mystic center of religious traditions.
Panikkar's christic principle has both incarnational and trinita-
rian aspects. Although it is in and through Jesus that we know of
the reality of Christ, the incarnational aspect of Panikkar's chris-
tic principle is not totally embodied in Jesus of Nazareth. Incar-
nation does not "need to mean exclusive 'hominization' in a
single individual" (The Cosmotheandric Experience 151). This is
to say that there are other saviors. He simply points to the m
tery of the christic principle whereby "the risen Jesus is m
than the Jesus of Nazareth" (The Unknown Christ 14) and Jes
the Christ but the Christ is not just Jesus. "The mystery of Jesu
death and resurrection are not exceptions only in (the) case of

Jesus" (70). Christ is "a continued incarnation, not simply in the
body but also in the actions and events of all creatures" (153).
According to Panikkar, Christians have couched their doc-
trines in terms of a cosmology which is no longer applicable. He
warns that theological problems today are usually cosmological
in origin. For instance:
• Resurrection is a traditional cosmic world view but difficul-
ties arise in a "post-newtonian world view and post-cartesian

concept of space and time, matter and spirit" (143).
• Stemming from an old cosmology, the virgin birth is based
on the premise that original sin was transmitted by human
semen (143).
• Transubstantiation and creation ex nihilo no longer make

sense in a molecular and evolutionist world view (143).
• The Nicene Creed was formulated within a different cosmol-
ogy (145).
Panikkar's aim is not to endorse a solely scientific cosmology
but rather to affirm the need for a new cosmology whereby theol-
ogy and cosmology recognize their interdependence. We catch
glimpses of the new cosmology he is considering when he says of
Christ's universality, "We reach here another cosmology, one dis-
solving the problem of singularity and universality" (141).
Universality does not have to be quantitative, and the concrete is
not the particular. Thus in the concreteness of one person can
live the fullness of divinity.
We must understand that Panikkar reserves the concept of Be-
ing, or Person, for the "second person" of the Trinity ( The Trinity
48, 51). Neither the Father (apophatism) nor the Spirit (imma-
nence) can be said to be Being or Person, only the "Son." Christ
is the Reality in which all beings participate.
Being, however, does not exhaust the possibilities of Christ.
Christ for Panikkar is still the Mystery appearing at the beginning
of the world. Note the identification of Christ with Wisdom in
the following quote: "Christ has always been at work everywhere
... he was present not only when God created all things, fixing
the heavens and commanding the waters, but also when the In-
dian rishis composed and handed down the sruti . . . for God's
wisdom (sophia, sakti) was delighted

God at all times, playing in the world,
the children of men" (The Unknown
For Panikkar, as incarnation is not l
is not limited to God (71). Panikkar's
description of the entire realm of b
extrapolate. All reality is trinitarian
the constitutive dimensions of matter, the human, and the
divine.
The cosmos, the first dimension, is not only a growing, chang-

ing universe, but it has within itself the immediate cause of its
own movement. This is the divine in the cosmos. The dynamism
(divine urge) is built into its innermost core (The Cosmotheandric
Experience 74). "Matter is as enduring as spirit" (73). In relation to
humans, things are not indifferent to us nor are we indifferent to
them (145). The love of the material is universal in humanity
(143). We even suffer in our own flesh the disorders of the uni-
verse (133).
The thirst for the "ever more," for a greatness or a reality be-
yond ourselves, stands for the divine dimension in humans. Tra-
ditionally this ever-more has been experienced as an-other, as
God, as the mystery of the beginning and the beyond (74). But
the divine can no longer be projected on "another." If we can no
longer do this - on the basis that philosophically any reference
to a Supreme Being or Being itself as God is untenable and con-
tradictory - then the ever-more is experienced as the infinite
dimension of reality itself. Transcendence, immanence, and in-
finity can be attributed to the human because "every being tran-
scends everything - including . . . 'itself, . . . (every being) is
infinitely immanent, i.e. inexhaustible and unfathomable" (61)
and freedom itself is the human taste of infinity (67). In relation
to the latter, Panikkar argues that freedom has little to do with
choice; it is not limitlessness but a much deeper dimension:
when the human being can spontaneously will that which trans-
forms her, she is free. Anything before that is not freedom.
Panikkar's understanding of the concept of divinity in his cos-
motheandric intuition is perhaps the most startling of the three
dimensions. Humanity and matter "exist" in God! In the divinity,
the humanizing bent is constitutive of Being. If Being disappears,
God disappears as Creator, as God. "God is meaningless without
creatures" (even if we can posit the "existence" of God without

humanity or cosmos) (The Cosmotheandric Experience 60). We are
as important to God as She/He is to us. God and humanity are
more than Creator and created. The cosmos also is constitutive
of God. An example of this integration of matter and humanit

in God is the Christian concept of "the Body of Christ," grant
that Christ's body is not the same as ours (66). The world is th
glory of the "Lord" and therefore cannot be separated from
Her/Him.
From the distance of the fourteenth century, Julian's words
drift back to us and mesh with Panikkar's radical contemporary
theology of the christic principle and cosmotheandric experi-
ence. While much of Julian's christology is shaded by orthodox
concepts like expiation and atonement, her Christ has incarna-
tional and trinitarian aspects similar to Panikkar's. Julian believes
in all the tenets of Christianity (with doubt creeping in on the
ramifications of sin), but she fearlessly accepts the consequences
of her visions.
In her Short Text, Julian's thoughts are concentrated on the

Passion of Jesus. The humanity of the Christ of her visions be-
comes a prism for her theology of the goodness and beauty of
God in her Long Text. Understanding connects with vision, inter-
preting the details with precision as in the parable of the Lord
and servant, but always preserving the Mystery. To Julian, Christ
is not only Jesus of Nazareth who was born in time but also all
human beings throughout pre-history and history. "For in the
sight of God all men are one man and one man (Adam) is all
men" (270). "For in all this our good Lord showed his own Son
and Adam as only one man" (275). She continues in the same
vein when she says, "When Adam fell, God's Son fell; because of
the true union which was made in heaven, God's son could not
be separated from Adam, for by Adam I understand all mankind"
(274). This story begins with Adam and creation. The fall of
Adam and the falling of Christ were into the human condition of
suffering and sorrow. Rather than a creation and re-creation, she
reveals in her parable of the servant that the task of Adam the
gardener and Christ the gardener is the same: in Panikkar's
words, "to bring the universe to its fruition" (62) or in orthodox
language, to complete the "Body of Christ."
Whenever Julian speaks of "soul" in

logically speaking of Jesus as a hum
ing. Her definition of "soul" is: "a
Christ's beloved soul is holy by bein
underscores the specialness of Jesus
the highest power is the blessed s
"makes no distinction in love between the blessed soul of Christ
and the least soul that will be saved," (285) [for] "our Father may
not, does not wish to assign more blame to us than to his own
beloved Son Jesus Christ" (275). We are so accustomed to knit-
ting the humanity of Jesus with divinity that we forget that if we
believe that each person "has" a soul, however we define it, Jesus
also as "true man" has a soul. Jesus remains human in "heaven"!
He does not dissolve into spirit!
Although there can be no doubt that Julian believed that the
Incarnation, the embodiment of God, was concentrated in one
man, Jesus Christ, her words went beyond what was the accepted
teaching of the Church. Some of her declarations test the as-
sumption that God's presence in a human being takes place in
one historical moment. In her anthropology of substance and
sensuality, she establishes the pre-existence of Christ. "And so in
Christ our two natures are united, for the Trinity is compre-
hended in Christ, in whom our higher part is founded and
rooted, and our lower part the second person has taken, which
nature was first prepared for him!' (291; emphasis mine). If Christ is
God, as so many Christians believe, and is the Logos of John's
Gospel and/or the Wisdom of Proverbs, that nature did not
come about when the human form of Jesus took place but ex-
isted for all ages.
The ontological bond which we have with God, Julian's sub-
stance or "first making," expresses itself in life and being. Julian
uses the word "enclose" to signify this ontological bond. We are
enclosed in God. On the other hand, our soul encloses God,
which would suggest divinity in humankind. Thus the "soul" be-
ing made of nothing, according to Julian, is open-ended having
no beginning and no end. (Julian warns, however, that we should
not apply these ideas to ourselves in a particular way [303].) The
incarnation means the joining of the sensual with the substance.
Sensuality does not have so much to do with the tendencies of
the flesh, but with changeableness and the limitations of space/
time. Julian states paradoxically, "For at the same time that God
joined himself to our body in the maiden's womb, he took our
soul, which is sensual, and in taking it, having enclosed us all in
himself, he united it to our substance" (292). Surely one cannot
believe that the goodness of God rests with one span of historical
time beginning with the birth of Jesus and all other human be-
ings are retrospectively included. Incarnation, the means by
which we increase, is the embodiment of God in humanity and
humanity in God. "Formed" and "transformed" could appropri-
ately be used for substance and sensuality.
Julian identifies the "mid-person" of the Trinity (Christ) as the
originator of humanity, as the body in which all humanity is en-
closed and as the one of the return journey. She continues her
trinitarian references when she says that only the "second Per-
son," in whom is our "increasing," contains our sensuality while
our substance is in each person of the Trinity. Although she as-
signs the several attributes of substance to the Father, she never-
theless indicates that our being, as Panikkar affirms, comes from
the "second person."
Throughout the ages we have struggled with the intricacies of
tri-unity. Theological and philosophical speculations on Trinity
have centered mainly on explanations of circularity and/or relat-
edness/communion. Although Panikkar and Julian follow the
traditional perambulations in speaking of Trinity, both (Panikkar
to a lesser degree) rise above the circularity and patriarchal nam-
ing in which the Father is primary and the Holy Spirit is an "and"
in the dualism of Father and Son. (The fact that the relationship,
the "and," is as real as the "relata," as Panikkar points out, does
not on a practical level raise the "and" to equality in popular
consciousness.)
In The Trinity and the Religious Experience, Pannikar explains the
Silence which is the Father. The Father remains the Source, the
Originator. All characterizations of Trinity as Father-Son-Spirit,
Source-Being-Return to Being, or I-Thou-We, therefore, limp be-
cause of their emphasis on the first member of the threesome.
Julian's Trinity does not emphasize the Father as source, origi-
nator or locus of kenosis. She approaches the threeness by way of
complementary triads: Light, Life, and Love; and Father,
Mother, and Lordship, but the triad she employs most frequently
is Might/Truth, Wisdom, and Love/Goodness. Nuth explains
that "might," the Middle English equ

the ability to accomplish what one
the personal relationship of the Tri
naming, one can say that each memb
without the others: might/ truth is un
and love; wisdom is not wisdom without truth and it is sterile
without love; love is insipid without power/ truth and wisdom.
Another possible objection which can be raised is that it under-
cuts incarnation; this, of course, would be unthinkable to Julian.
The scriptural foundation of Wisdom, however, is itself a personi-
fication of God, leaving Jesus intact as incarnate Wisdom.
Julian holds that in our "first making" we are shaped to God's
image as Trinity. As is the uncreated Trinity, we creatures are
made up of might, wisdom and love. We are given all we need to
be what we are and must be. This image and likeness to God
includes our "reason," our life and our being. These too are of
the uncreated nature of God.
Julian thinks of reason in two different ways. As an essential

quality of our substance, it seems akin to an innate ability to seek,
know, and find God through whatever mental ability we possess.
As an intellectual faculty reason is identified with understanding
in the triad of memory, reason, and will.9 The playing field is
level for everyone in this first making. But these qualities are not
static. We are destined to become more like God through our
sensuality (her "second making," which she extols as "precious"
and "glorious.") Our natural foundation of life, being, and rea-
son is insufficient to "save us," that is, to let us develop into full
growth, for it is "easier to come to a knowledge of God than it is
to know our own soul" (288). With the mercy of incarnation and
the grace of the Spirit, however, "whether we are moved to know
God or our soul, either motion is good and true" (288).
How can an "even"10 Christian come to understand the trinita-
rian and christic principles set forth by Julian and Panikkar?
Without being steeped in theology or philosophy, we can still
bear witness to our own three-fold relationship with God.
Conceptualized in such words as Mystery, the Sublime, the In-
effable, the Absolute, or Nothingness, we acknowledge that God
cannot be the same as we are, that we cannot touch or gaze on
transcendence, that God is beyond being or substantiality. This is
what our reason tells us and our emotions demand of us. This is
Panikkar's Silence of the Father and Julian's Truth, a naked

Truth divested of any substance or comparison, "the Truth of
truth" (Panikkar The Silence of God 135).
We experience God also by manifestation. The God who can-
not be seen or contacted shows Herself as the Shekinah in a
burning bush or a pillar of fire, and, for Christians, as the p

tude of divinity in Jesus Christ. Other traditions have their
manifestations. The divine makes herself accessible. We can de-
velop a personal relationship with God, if only in prayer, or

low a path to a Reality beyond our ordinary lives.
Wherever beauty, goodness, and truth permeate, if only m
mentarily, there is Spirit. It is, as Abraham Heschel says, "our
acy of wonder," our search in the face of Mystery, our hope a
conviction that there are limits to suffering, our recognition
the glory of God {Between God and Man), This is Julian's God
Love.
If a theology does not result in praxis or spirituality, it is "as

sounding brass." In spite of the theological complexities of these
two writers, their theology bespeaks their spirituality.
For Panikkar, the biblical sentence, "Wisdom has made a
dwelling Tor itself,'" has been a mantra throughout his life. Con-
templation, wisdom, and joy go together. While the fruit of wis-
dom is an imperturbable joy (2), joy is also a concomitant of
contemplation. Religion should be a place of joy and freedom.
As a Buddhist, he can even speculate about substituting the word
"joy" for "suffering" in his reformulation of the "Four Noble
Truths Discourse," joy being the "primordial, natural, human
state" {The Silence of God 160).
Julian experiences a God full of joy and love. God's relation-
ship with her can be expressed in her own words: courteous and
familiar. Whether or not derived from her consciousness of
Christ as Mother or Mother Wisdom, it is an intimate relation-
ship reminiscent of Jesus's relationship with his "abba." In con-
templating God within the soul and the permanency of that
joining, she rejoices in the knowledge that we are made like a
God who is all bliss, delight and joy. Basking in this kind of love,
Julian's benevolent understanding of sin11 and her general theo-
logical assumptions firmly establish her in joy and an inviting
optimism.
For Julian's "even Christians" of tod

and theologies between the two pole
standard formulae of faith and the w
has said, "we live on the fringe of rea
reach the core" (Between God and Ma
like passivity to the inconsistencies,
assaults on one's sense of justice and
and structure may be options on one
within a particular tradition may be
but this does not come easily. Remem
tage that lets her be at home where
"The Homecoming" 53) is more th
heartened by the prospect of climbi
rounded "by a tangle of dark woods"
NOTES
1 . Said of the soul (Julian of Norwich 246) .

2. According to Colledge and Walsh, the first modernized version of Ju
Long Text was published in 1670 by the Benedictine monk Serenus Cr
Translated versions of the Middle English texts were not widely dis
nated, however, until this century. Colledge's and Walsh's critical text
original manuscripts and their own modernized edition which perm
the full range of Julian's ideas to be revealed were published only in
(Colledge and Walsh 17).
3. Witness the volume honoring him and commenting on his work (Pra
4. In this article, in keeping with an open stance, I refer to God as "She
cept in quoting or explaining the author quoted.
5. Biblical references are taken from The New American Bible. It is to be noted
that Sirach is not part of the Hebrew or Protestant canon.
6. Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from Panikkar's work are taken from
A Dwelling Place for Wisdom and are identified by page number only.
7. "Unless, therefore, God is at least as real as my own self; unless I am sure
that God has at least as much life as I do, how can I pray?" (Heschel, Man's
Quest for God 61).
8. For an early exposition of some of Panikkar's basic themes, see "Colligite
Fragmenta."
9. As Denise Nowakowski Baker explains, memory, understanding and will are
Augustinian terms (109). It could also be noted that Richard of St. Victor,
1 2th century, attributes power, wisdom and goodness or love to the Persons
of the Trinity. It would seem that Julian's sources were numerous. To name
only a few suggested by various authors: William of St. Thierry, Bernard of
Clairvaux, Paul, Bonaventure, Eckhart. Notwithstanding the ubiquitousness
of Augustine's influence in theology, given the scant knowledge we have of
Julian's acquaintances or library, any claim of indebtedness is purely specu-
lative. In any case, whoever they were, their contributions cannot diminish
Julian's originality.
10. Julian's word for fellow, or as I use it, ordinary Christian.

11. Julian's lengthy pondering on sin would require an extended treatment not
relevant to this article. The most controversial among her ruminations is
the possibility of universal salvation. Another iconoclastic proposal is the
lack of need for forgiveness in God. This is rooted in the lack of anger in
God. For further reading on the subject of sin, see Nuth 80, 117-55; Baker
63ff, esp. 79-82; M. L. del Mastro; and Peters.
WORKS CITED
Baker, Denise Nowakowski. Julian of Norwich's Showings, From Vision

Princeton: Princeton UP, 1994.
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. New York: Paul-
ist, 1994.
Colledge, Edmund and James Walsh. Introduction. Julian of Norwich Showings.
Ed. and trans. Edmund Colledge and James Walsh. New York: Paulist,
1978.
Del Mastro, M.L. "Juliana of Norwich: Parable of Lord and Servant - Radical
Orthodoxy." Mystics Quarterly 13 (1988): 84-93.
Heschel, Abraham Joshua. Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism. Ed.
Fritz A. Rothschild. New York: Free Press. 1965.
roads, 1954.
Johnson, Elizabeth. She Who Is: The Mystery of God in F
New York: Crossroad, 1992.
Julian of Norwich. Showings. Trans. Edmund Colledge and James Walsh. New
York: Paulist, 1978.
Murphy, Roland E. The Tree of Life. New York: Doubleday, 1990.
Nuth, Joan M. Wisdom's Daughter: The Theology of Julian of Norwich. New York:
Crossroad, 1991.
O'Connor, Kathleen M. The Wisdom Literature. Wilmington: Michael Glazier,
1988.
Panikkar, Raimon. "Colligi te Fragmenta: For an Integration of Reality." From
Alienation to At-One-Ness. Ed. Francis A. Eigo, OSA. Proceedings of the The-
ology Institute of Villanova University. Villanova, PA: Villanova UP, 1977.
19ff.
Eastham. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.
Westminster/Iohn Knox, 1993.
1979.
1973.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1964.

Peters, Brad. "The Reality of Evil Within the Mysti
Mystics Quarterly 14 (1987): 195-202.
Powers, Jessica. Selected Poetry of Jessica Powers. E
Morneau. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 198
Prabhu, Joseph, ed. The Intercultural Challen

NY: Orbis, 1996.

Reflections On Wisdom

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Reflections On Wisdom

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

REFLECTIONS ON WISDOM: Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panikkar

Author(s): Elizabeth M. Glaser

Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panikkar

At first glance, Julian of Norwich and Raimon Panik

Elizabeth M. Glaser is a former member of a Roman Catholic religious commu

Soundings 83.2 (Summer 2000). ISSN 0038-1861.

Christian theology. To harmonize w

they both claim to be within the fold of orthodoxy, they have

The momentum of theological and spiritualist interest in W

The Lord begot me, the firstborn of his

The first statement evokes the haunting appearance of a Wis-

To name God Wisdom is a whole new orientation toward God

and life. We have identified with the God of dominance, judg

For the ordinary Christian, to accept the doctrinal

death and resurrection are not exceptions only in (the) case of

ties arise in a "post-newtonian world view and post-cartesian

• Transubstantiation and creation ex nihilo no longer make

wisdom (sophia, sakti) was delighted

The cosmos, the first dimension, is not only a growing, chang-

creatures" (even if we can posit the "existence" of God without

of God. An example of this integration of matter and humanit

In her Short Text, Julian's thoughts are concentrated on the

Whenever Julian speaks of "soul" in

that "might," the Middle English equ

Julian thinks of reason in two different ways. As an essential

Panikkar's Silence of the Father and Julian's Truth, a naked

burning bush or a pillar of fire, and, for Christians, as the p

velop a personal relationship with God, if only in prayer, or

If a theology does not result in praxis or spirituality, it is "as

For Julian's "even Christians" of tod

1 . Said of the soul (Julian of Norwich 246) .

10. Julian's word for fellow, or as I use it, ordinary Christian.

Baker, Denise Nowakowski. Julian of Norwich's Showings, From Vision

Eastham. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1993.

Westminster/Iohn Knox, 1993.

Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1964.

Prabhu, Joseph, ed. The Intercultural Challen

Anda mungkin juga menyukai