/lit/ - Literature

>>12587613
>The temple is the word and the word became flesh. Jesus is the one true church that is not sealed in the foundations of a building.
That is right, it is the Communion established by, well, Holy Communion

A thread for discussion of Orthodox literature. I open with two excerpts from The Ascetic Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian

>Mercy and justice in one soul is like a man who worships God and the idols in one house. Mercy is opposed to justice. Justice is the equality of the even scale, for it gives to each as he deserves; and when it makes recompense, it does not incline to one side or show respect of persons. Mercy, on the other hand, is a sorrow and pity stirred up by goodness, and it compassionately inclines a man in the direction of all; it does not requite a man who is deserving of evil, and to him who is deserving of good it gives a double portion. If, therefore, it is evident that mercy belongs to the portion of righteousness, then justice belongs to the portion of wickedness. As grass and fire cannot coexist in one place, so justice and mercy cannot abide in one soul. As a grain of sand cannot counterbalance a great quantity of gold, so in comparison God’s use of justice cannot counterbalance His mercy


>I also maintain that those who are punished in Gehenna are scourged by the scourge of love. Nay, what is so bitter and vehement as the torment of love? I mean that those who have become conscious that they have sinned against love suffer greater torment from this than from any fear of punishment. For the sorrow caused in the heart by sin against love is more poignant than any torment. It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways. It torments sinners, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend. But it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability.

If you have money and want very high quality mystical books, I strongly recommend the Holy Transfiguration Monastery translations of the Ascetic Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, and the Ladder of Divine Ascent. Very expensive but painstaking translation and editions that will outlive you.

For asceticism, a good introduction is "The Path to Salvation", by Theophan the Recluse

For an intro to doctrine I suggest reading "On the Incarnation", by Saint Athanasius. Then read Romans and the rest of the NT

For a comprehensive introduction beyond that, I recommend the multi volume "Orthodox Christianity", Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

Novels, check out Laurus, the Way of the Pilgrim, and of course The Brothers Karamazov

Orthodox cartoon: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XP0J2eDPIjU

Orthodox hymns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noetoc2W4Pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDoyZtkrU0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VI234C5f620
https://youtube.com/watch?v=IomxvOTf-So
https://youtube.com/watch?v=g4Og5koL9Pk
https://youtube.com/watch?v=o3LLR8zPvVk

>>12512120
The reviewer makes a critical error in divorcing the Holy Fools of the book from "Eastern Christianity." The book in fact uses the Eastern Christian tradition of the Holy Fool, it doesn't conjure up some new fool. And there is religious hierarchy, it's used in the book as an opponent to folk superstition (where that is dangerous, although usually it's portrayed as merely quaint). The work, unlike Dostoevsky's religious novels, is not polemical in the least against modernism or atheism or anything like that, true faith is presented in contrast to dangerous superstitions of the middle ages (but, again, superstition in the work is generally portrayed as quaint and harmless, only occasionally as dangerous).'

>His botched attempt to deliver their child tests the limits of prayer and folk medicine: “The blood was flowing from the womb and he could not stanch it. He took some finely grated cinnabar in his fingers and went as deeply into Ustina’s female places as he could.” Arseny acknowledges his malpractice, but not the fact that she’s gone forever.

COMPLETELY misses the point. The death is ultimately a consequence of sin, in this case fornication, and that is overtly mentioned in the book.

>Most of his silent communion is not with God, but with Ustina’s spirit.
Again, completely misses the point. Arseny and Ustina are one in an unsanctified matrimony (this is made expressly clear), and Aresny's quest is to repair their sinful unity. They are one, he's not just "communing with her spirit," they are man and woman as one flesh, and his works and prayer are in her name.

>The prophets put forward a peculiar explanation for their extraordinary visions. They don’t necessarily attribute it to their spirituality. They see soothsaying as a kind of physical phenomenon, related to either the circularity of time or to its illusoriness.
The prophets don't proclaim they see vision because of their spirituality, because they are humble, humility is a major requirement for their visions. But it's made clear they see these visions because they are spiritually gifted.

Anyway, that's all.

>>8673657
The reviewer makes a critical error in divorcing the Holy Fools of the book from "Eastern Christianity." The book in fact uses the Eastern Christian tradition of the Holy Fool, it doesn't conjure up some new fool. And there is religious hierarchy, it's used in the book as an opponent to folk superstition (where that is dangerous, although usually it's portrayed as merely quaint). The work, unlike Dostoevsky's religious novels, is not polemical in the least against modernism or atheism or anything like that, true faith is presented in contrast to dangerous superstitions of the middle ages (but, again, superstition in the work is generally portrayed as quaint and harmless, only occasionally as dangerous).'

>His botched attempt to deliver their child tests the limits of prayer and folk medicine: “The blood was flowing from the womb and he could not stanch it. He took some finely grated cinnabar in his fingers and went as deeply into Ustina’s female places as he could.” Arseny acknowledges his malpractice, but not the fact that she’s gone forever.

COMPLETELY misses the point. The death is ultimately a consequence of sin, in this case fornication, and that is overtly mentioned in the book.

>Most of his silent communion is not with God, but with Ustina’s spirit.
Again, completely misses the point. Arseny and Ustina are one in an unsanctified matrimony (this is made expressly clear), and Aresny's quest is to repair their sinful unity. They are one, he's not just "communing with her spirit," they are man and woman as one flesh, and his works and prayer are in her name.

>The prophets put forward a peculiar explanation for their extraordinary visions. They don’t necessarily attribute it to their spirituality. They see soothsaying as a kind of physical phenomenon, related to either the circularity of time or to its illusoriness.
The prophets don't proclaim they see vision because of their spirituality, because they are humble, humility is a major requirement for their visions. But it's made clear they see these visions because they are spiritually gifted.

Anyway, that's all.

Can we talk about the particularly Orthodox themes in Dostoevsky, like existentialism, confession and universal reconciliation?

One thing I think plays a prominent role in his work is the Orthodox conception of hell. Unlike the Roman Catholic conception, hell is not a state of separation from God, it is actually the same as heaven. God's love is a fire and a light, and it bliss for those who love it, but agony to those who hate it--the corruption of sin gets in the way of fully feeling it penetrating our being, which is comfort to some, but a hindrance to others. A good illustration, I think, is how after Raskolnikov commits his murders, love becomes almost unbearably hateful to him, he doesn't want people to care for him, it's painful. He is in a state of hell. Porfiry is, of course, Satan, the Adversary (the explicit giveaway is him winking with his left eye, a motif also used in The Brothers Karamazov by Smerdyakov).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs