Талк, вопросы Опции

[Ренат]

Мне нужно сведения ,почему Талка считали еретиком,кроме того к чему выводы Талка подаються как вроде Слова?Ведь последние проповеди звуковые Васильева основаны на интепритации Слова Талком.Неужели все дураки в Новой Церкви были и все разом заблуждались отрицая Талка?В частности в одной из последних проповедей я услышал примерно следующее- Иисус Христос до прославления не был Богом да и после прославления там не все так просто. У нас есть Слово и именно оно есть авторитет,а оно говорит что Иегова вочелоовечился и что Иисус Христос после прославления есть Бог неба и земли.и последнее есть истина не требуящая мыслить вне времени и пространства,и нет правды в том чтобы все так вольно интерпретировать,почему мы должны полагаться на мнения людей как инстанция истин,

[Виталий Сардыко]

Мне нужно сведения ,почему Талка считали еретиком,кроме того к чему выводы Талка подаються как вроде Слова?Ведь последние проповеди звуковые Васильева основаны на интепритации Слова Талком.Неужели все дураки в Новой Церкви были и все разом заблуждались отрицая Талка?В частности в одной из последних проповедей я услышал примерно следующее- Иисус Христос до прославления не был Богом да и после прославления там не все так просто. У нас есть Слово и именно оно есть авторитет,а оно говорит что Иегова вочелоовечился и что Иисус Христос после прославления есть Бог неба и земли.и последнее есть истина не требуящая мыслить вне времени и пространства,и нет правды в том чтобы все так вольно интерпретировать,почему мы должны полагаться на мнения людей как инстанция истин,

THE SCIENCE or CORRESPONDENCY, by Charles Augustus Tulk. Edited by Charles Pooley. Speirs, London, 1889.

REVIEW or TULK'S SCIENCE OF CORRESPONDENCY, by James Spilling, in the Morning Light of August 10th, 1889.

REVIEW OF TULK'S SCIENCE OF CORRESPONDENCY, in the New Church Messenger of September 11th, 1889.

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE, CHARACTER, AND RELIGIOUS OPINIONS OF CHARLES AUGUSTUS TULK. By Mary Catherine Hurne. Second edition. With a short introductory chapter or historical outline of the author's life, by Charles Pooley. London, Speirs, 1800.

CHARLES AUGUSTUS TULK. An essay by Richard McCully, in the New Church Magazine of March, 1890.

MR. TULK ON THE DIVINE HUMANITY. An essay. By Richard McCully, in the New Church Magazine of May, 1890.

IN New Church Life for October, 1889, a review of the republication of Tulk's Science of Correspondency was presented, and attention was called to a statement; in that work, where the entire Doctrine of the LOED, as revealed to the New Church, was unequivocally repudiated. A brief outline of the vital points of Tulk's heresy was also presented. It was not, at the time, thought necessary to enter into a detailed refutation of this heresy, the mere statement of which is its condemnation.
Late occurrences, however, have brought to light the fact that there exists in the New Church an unexpectedly widespread sympathy with the opinions of Tulk, and that vigorous attempts have been made during the last twelve months again to thrust Tulkism upon the notice of the Church.
Thus, in August of last year, a highly eulogistic "review" of Tulk's Science of Correspondency, from the pen of the author of The Evening and the Morning, was admitted into the pages of the Morning Light. The heretical kernel of Tulk's teachings is here carefully concealed, and only such passages are quoted as may appear correct, while yet preparing the mind to accept Tulk's peculiar notions. The charge is made that "the ideas some of our friends hold respecting Mr. Tulk's opinion [on the subject of the history of the LORD] are erroneous," in the face of the plain statements to the contrary in the work under review. The writer even states that "it is impossible to describe the beauty and the far-reaching wisdom of these principles as applied by Mr. Tulk to the LORD'S life in the world- His works, His crucifixion, and His resurrection." And yet Mr. Tulk "asserts":

"That all changes and progressions of state, whatsoever and wheresoever attributed to the LORD-whether, in the works of Swedenborg, we read that JEHOVAH GOD assumed and glorified the Humanity, underwent temptations, etc.; or, in the Letter of the Word, that that Humanity, the LORD JESUS CHRIST, was born in space and time, grew to manhood, hungered and thirsted, moved from place to place, suffered and finally died, an object of the senses in this natural world-are so attributed according to the appearance only, existing and subsisting from, and, therefore, corresponding to, those varying states of the human mind according to which the LORD appears" (Sketch of Tulk, p. 50).

Another and very similar review of the same book appeared in the "Literary" department of the New Church Messenger for September 11th, 1889. The heresy of the book is again overlooked, and its opponents are charged with misapprehension of the subject. In support of this charge, a column of extracts from the book is given in another part of the paper, from which it would appear that Tulk held a perfectly sound view with respect to the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Curiously enough, the statement on page 104 is not quoted among the rest, where Tulk asserts that "the mysterious tenet," "that JEHOVAH clothed Himself with a humanity, is to the full as unintelligible as it is erroneous," and where he openly denies that the LORD, in the Human, had a consciousness distinct from JEHOVAH, that He could be tempted to sin, could be crucified and die.
The Messenger, in its plea for Mr. Tulk, calls upon "those who deny the validity of Mr. Tulk's position," "to show that his interpretation of Swedenborg is incorrect, and not meet them with mere denials, or with appeals to the impressions of our senses, which are admitted by all to be unreliable."
It would seem a thankless task again to refute Tulkism, when the refutations of this heresy by such men as Clowes, Hindmarsh, Noble, Mason, and others meet with such a summary condemnation.
(See especially the Intellectual Repository for the years 1828 and 1845.)
The more immediate occasion for the present review is the republication, this year, by Mr. James Speirs, of London, of a pamphlet, originally published by Otis Clapp, Boston, 1850, under the title A Brief Sketch of the Life, Character and Religious Opinions of Charles Augustus Tulk. The present edition is enriched by Charles Pooley (F. R. C. S., F. S. A., F. G. S., etc.), with a short historical outline of the life of the author, who, it will he learned with regret, is the writer of the valued novel, The Wedding-guests, Mrs. Hume-Rothery.
From this "Historical Outline," which is dedicated to "la Signora Contessa Cottrell," the only surviving daughter of Mr. Tulk, we learn that the authoress, while yet a young girl, became acquainted with the Doctrines of the New Church through Mr. Tulk, and that she became his "earnest and devoted pupil," after "his persuasive eloquence" had overcome her many objections.
The Sketch itself is intended as a memorial of Mr. Tulk, whose death, in 1849, had for a year remained utterly unnoticed by any New Church periodical. It is divided into three chapters, treating of the Social and Civil Life of Mr. Tulk; Mr. Tulk as a New Church Christian, and Mr. Tulk's views relative to the interpretation of some propositions of Swedenborg.


It may be of interest to note here that Charles Augustus Tulk was the eldest son of John Augustus Tulk, Esq., who was an English gentleman of independent fortune, and one of the first Newchurchmen. Charles Augustus was born in 1786, and received a liberal classical education. His unusual mental qualities and attainments, his amiable and benevolent character, and his virtuous private life are depicted with considerable vigor, and leave, altogether, a very pleasant impression as far as his individual character is concerned. It leads the reader to hope, for Mr. Talk's own sake, that he was not himself altogether confirmed in the direful falsities of which he was the exponent.
Of Mr. Talk as a "New Church Christian," we learn that he very early became acquainted with the Writings; that in the year 1810 he became one of the founders of the Swedenborg Society, and continued as a member of the Committee of the Society up to the year 1843. It appears that he did not favor the separation of the New Church from the Established Church of England, nor was he in the habit of attending New Church worship, preferring the form of private family worship. He was a frequent contributor to New Church periodicals, and published a number of works, chief among which is the Spiritual Christianity, in which his views are most completely set forth.
Of these peculiar tenets, as expounded in Mrs. Hume-Rothery's sketch, it is not necessary to dwell at present.
The latest efforts to revive the interest in the heresy of Tulk has appeared in the organ of the General Conference of the New Church in Great Britain, the New Church Magazine, in some articles in the March and May numbers of this year, written by Mr. Richard McCully. In these articles Mr. Tulk's two general teachings on the Ideality of Nature and of the LORD'S Human are presented in a summary, and warmly defended. Unfortunately, again, only parts of Tulk's teachings are presented, and no accurate judgment can be formed from Mr. MeCully's presentation.
As an example of the method of deduction peculiar to the defenders of Tulkism, the following may be quoted from page 107 of the March number of the New Church Magazine:

"Physical Influx is consequently an appearance, the creation of all things being through man's internal states of mind and thence into the external or sensuous plane of mind, as declared in the quotation [on p. 103] given from A. C. 3721 (see also 6948, 9440, 9580, 9581, 10,196)."


The passage quoted reads:
". . . The natural [not 'the natural mind' as translated by Mr. McCully] is the ultimate of order. That by this ultimate there is apparently as it were an entrance from nature, is because it is the natural mind with man, by which those things which are of Heaven-that is, which are of the LORD,-inflow and descend into nature, and by the same mind those things [not 'forms'] which are of nature ascend."
The rest of the passage teaches that there is no real entrance or influx from nature into what is above nature. Not a word is said in the whole passage, or in any of the other passages referred to, about the creation of all things, or anything of this world. It would seem self-evident that nature is not created through man, since man was created in nature!
How totally subversive of the Divine order, and how directly opposite to the Doctrines of the New Church Tulk's whole system is may clearly be seen from the following teachings:
"That the Human race is the basis upon which Heaven is founded, is because man was created last, and that which is created last is the basis of all things which precede. Creation began from supreme or inmost things, because from the Divine, and proceeded to ultimate or extreme things, and then first it subsided. The ultimate of creation is the natural world, and in it the terraqueous orb, with all the things which are upon it. When these things had been finished then man was created" (L. J. 9).
Since the lowest things of nature, which make the earths are dead, and these are not changeable [mutabilia] and various according to the states of affections and thoughts as in the spiritual world, but immutable and fixed, therefore there are spaces there, and distances of spaces, these are such, because creation ceases there, and subsists in its rest; thence it is manifest that spaces are proper to nature; and because spaces there are not appearances of spaces according to the states of life as in the spiritual world, these may also be called dead" (D. L. W. 160, A. E. 1218).
In presenting Mr. Tulk's ideas of the Divine "Humanity," the writer presents the disputed parts so guardedly that the reader is led to suppose them in harmony with the Doctrines. We are assured that Mr. Tulk teaches that "as representative effects, our LORD'S life and miracles were most real," that "our LORD assumed the whole humanity" and that "the Divine Truth was born as a man is born, of a woman, and he increased in wisdom and stature as a man increases. What is not honestly brought forth is the fact that Mr. Tulk teaches all these things with the reservation (elsewhere expressed) that they took place exclusively within the natural mind of each individual according to his state, and not independently of man in the external nature, "the existence of any external world of matter, extraneous to and independent of the mind of man being absolutely rejected" (Brief Sketch of the Life of Tulk, p. 43).
The disfavor in which Tulk's views have always stood with the New Church people is attributed, again, by Mr. McCully to misapprehension and prejudices, excited by an "unfortunate" patronage of Tulkism by such writers as Emerson and Henry James, Sr.
Again and again these charges have been brought forth without a shadow of proof. The worthy men who are thus accused are, indeed, no longer in this world, but their writings are extant, and any one can convince himself from these that the accusation is unfounded.
The writer endeavors to enlist the "sympathy" and "admiration" of the men of the New Church for the man who first brought forth these views, though he himself admits "that it is difficult to reconcile every statement of Swedenborg with the teachings of Mr. Tulk." Yet he would wish it believed that "there are few writers more loyal to our great Scribe than Mr. Tulk has been."
Loyalty to the Writings is, indeed, the crucial test of any writer, professing the name of Newchurchman. According to his estimation of the Divine Revelation given to the New Church, and at the same time practical loyalty to it, must Mr. Tulk, as well as all others, be judged. How, then, did Mr. Tulk regard the Writings given by the LORD through Swedenborg?
The writer in the New Church Magazine quotes Tulk as saying, "Berkeley's is but a rude, unfinished truth, compared with the perfect form which its spiritual organization assumes under the heaven-directed hand of our matchless author [Swedenborg]."
In another place Tulk says:

"For twenty years I have made the Writings of Swedenborg my study, holding them to be, what I hold no other writings, except the Word, to be, divinely inspired." . . .


"From a rational perception my conclusions have been drawn of his divine inspiration."-New Jerusalem Magazine, London, 1828, p. 161.

A certain class of the modern disciples of Tulk5known is "Cone-ites," have, in fact, gone so far in their profession of "the inspiration of Swedenborg" as to assert that the Writings, similarly with the Letter of the Word, are, written by correspondences, and contain an internal sense, not discoverable on the surface. An instance of this may be found in a peculiar pamphlet by Henry C. Cone, entitled, To the New Church:

"The Latin Word [the Writings] is the Human rational, and its literal, like the Hebrew and Greek, has its internal system of doctrine."-P. 51.

What this confessed belief of Mr. Tulk of the Divine Inspiration and consequent infallibility of the Writings really amounts to, will be evident from the following quotations of what he says on the same subject in other places.
Thus, in a periodical called the Dawn of Light, published in London in the year 1826, he says, among other things:

"Our illustrious author has written much on the science of correspondences, both in his philosophical and theological works; yet it does not appear that he has anywhere directly revealed the principles of the science. . . . He is content with a different and inferior kind of proof; for, instead of showing clearly and philosophically, how it is so, and why it is so, before he discloses the secret treasures of the Word, he rests his proof upon the accumulation of parallel passages, and so leaves the mind rather subdued by their overwhelming number and the striking way in which they illustrate one another, than thoroughly convinced. . . Such a manner of conveying truth . . . was, perhaps, best suited to the infancy of the Church."-Pp. 52, 53.

Again, in a correspondence with the Rev. Samuel Noble, on the translation of The True Christian Religion, he uses the following expressions:

". . . After all, he [Swedenborg] is but a mortal man, and human composition, most admirable as his undoubtedly is, must participate in the common lot. I no more expect to find his works free from error than that truth is nowhere else to be found. At present, however, they stand pre-eminent."
". . . As for material substance, if our author ever uses it [the term] I should set it down as a mistake."
". . . It would open the door to strange confusion, indeed, if we were to admit the MS. Apocalypse Explained to be of equal authority with E. S's printed writings." (Yet it was on a statement in this very work that Tulk based his peculiar views.-Intellectual Repository for 1819.)
". . . It is not sufficient to study the philosophy of Swedenborg in his works."
". . . It [an expression in the Memorable Relation in The True Christian Religion n. 605] is bad enough as it is; but how utterly repulsive would 'abivi ridens' [I went away laughing) be, if translated honestly."
". . . I still think 'abivi ridens' disgusting, as savoring too much of that spirit which unhappily excited it. Would you consent to translate it faithfully."-Intellectual Repository 406-409.

Finally, in the Preface to his last and chief work, the Spiritual Christianity, he illustrates his faith in the Divine Inspiration of the Writings in this remarkable manner:

"First, then, with respect to those passages in the works of our author which seem to imply a distinction of consciousness between the assumed Humanity and JEHOVAH, I would, once for all, beg to observe, that they are not the purely spiritual sense of the Word of God," because "the purely spiritual sense is wholly abstracted from Person, from times and spaces, and from all things of a like kind, which are the properties of nature."- Page 31.

This, then, is the "loyalty to our great Scribe" of which it is said that "few writers" had it more than Charles Augustus Tulk!

[Дмитрий]

". . . It [an expression in the Memorable Relation in The True Christian Religion n. 605] is bad enough as it is; but how utterly repulsive would 'abivi ridens' [I went away laughing) be, if translated honestly."
". . . I still think 'abivi ridens' disgusting, as savoring too much of that spirit which unhappily excited it. Would you consent to translate it faithfully."-Intellectual Repository 406-409.

Небольшой комментарий по поводу процитированной выше дискуссии об одном месте из ИХР 505, оно же присуствует и в Апокалипсисе Разъяснённом.

Вот более полная выдержка из New Church Life:

"There remains one awful fact, however, which our contemporary does not attempt to explain away,--the angels laughed, actually laughed! How is this to be "interpreted?" Perhaps they only appeared to laugh, but how could they have been so rude as to do something which caused such an appearance? The apologetic attitude of the Messenger reminds us of an incident related by the Rev. Samuel Noble, who, in the year 1819, was associated with Charles Augustus Tulk in translating the True Christian Religion. They came to the Memorable Relation in n. 505, Which terminates with the ludicrous attempt of an raged spirit to throw a candlestick at Swedenborg. But the light went out suddenly, and the spirit, alas, struck the forehead of his companion. "And," says Swedenborg, in closing, "I went away laughing" (Abivi ridens). Mr. Noble wished to translate this literally, but was overruled by Mr. Tulk, who wrote: "I must confess that I see nothing comic in this scene, and I think the abivi ridens disgusting, as savoring too much of that spirit which unhappily excited it." (Intellectual Repository, 1829, p. 409). And so this "disgusting" behavior on the part of Swedenborg was toned down to, "I went away smiling," though even this was rather "uncharitable." Perhaps Swedenborg only appeared to smile. Even the word cahinnare, which means to "laugh loudly," was translated "to smile," and somewhere we have seen it rendered, "they smiled aloud."

Суть здесь в следующем. В ИХР говорится: "«Да, — сказал он, — но всё это делается им не активно, а пассивно»."
«Как можно, — спросил я, — думать, быть уверенным и молиться пассивно? Если вы отбираете у человека его деятельность и содействие, не отбираете ли вы вместе с тем и его способность принимать, а значит, и всё остальное, включая и само это действие веры? Чем становится тогда это ваше действие, если не чем-то чисто воображаемым, что существует только в рассудке? Я надеюсь, что вы не думаете вслед за некоторыми людьми, что действие это бывает только у того, кто к нему предопределён и не знает ничего о том, как он наполняется верой. Они с тем же успехом могут играть в кости, чтобы определить, наполнены они верой или нет. Поэтому, друзья мои, верьте, что человек относительно веры и милосердия действует от себя под Господним руководством, и без такого действия с его стороны ваше действие веры, которое вы зовете господствующим учением христианской церкви, — не больше, чем статуя Лотовой жены из чистой соли, которая позвякивает, если постучать по ней писчим пером или ногтем (Лука 17:32). Это я говорю к тому, что вы делаете такие статуи из самих себя по отношению к тому действию».

Когда я произнес это, он схватил светильник и швырнул было со всей силы мне в голову, но свет погас, и он попал в лицо своему товарищу, а я, рассмеявшись, ушёл."

Талк и Ноубль обсуждали вопросы перевода, Ноубль хотел перевести последнее предложение буквально, но Талк протестовал, говоря, что не видит ничего комичного в описанной сцене, и находит, что "рассмеявшись, ушёл" звучит отвратительно, и слишком отдаёт тем духом, который к несчастью возбудил такие чувства". И поэтому Талк предпочитал заменить это место, на "улыбнушись, ушёл", хотя и это, по его представлению, было достаточно "немилосердным"...

Проблема для современного читателя может показаться ерундовой, а Талк достаточно мелочно-придирчивым, ведь ясно написано, что смеялся-хохотал, и если человек верит, что это боговдохновленные письмена, то зачем тогда отрицать очевидное.

Но суть в том, что как ни странно, в проблеме Талка, не продумавшем здесь, конечно, суть вопроса достаточно глубоко и выставляющем здесь некие претензии к адекватности текста и, и таким образом, Божественности Откровения, кроется определённое побуждение благолюбие и милосердия, которое, возможно, и не присутствовало в явном виде у его оппонентов, которые были, формально, безусловно правыми.

Чтобы понять суть вопроса в отношении вот этого места из Слова, которые многие читали пробегают быстро, рассмотрим следующие места из Слова:

"Реальное духовное возмущение (и особенно, небесное возмущение) не извлекает ничего из гнева природного человека, но из внутренней сущности ревности; которая действительно выражается во внешней форме, как гнев, но во внутренней форме она не является гневом, и даже не является возмущением гнева; но некоторой печалью, которая сопровождается желанием, чтобы это не было так; и в форме более внутренней она является одним только чем-то неясным [modo obsurum quoddam], которое вклинивается в небесное удовольствие из [по причине] не благого и не истинного у другого. [quod jucundum caeleste interpolat ex non bono et vero apud alium.]" ТН 3909

Супружественная Любовь 207: "Некоторое время спустя о посмотрел в направлении города Атеней [Athenaeum]....и услышал необычные возгласы [clamor]. В этих возгласах я слышал нечто из смеха, в смехе нечто из возмущения, а в неудовольствии нечто из печали."

Тайны Небесные 2216:

"'Он сказал, нет, ибо ты действительно смеялась' .... "смеяться" или "смеха" есть побуждением рационального, и действительно побуждение истины или ложности, в рациональном, является источником смеха. До тех пор, пока в рациональном есть такое побуждение, которое проявляет себя в смехе, то в рациональном есть нечто телесное или мирское, и таким образом, одно только человеческое. Небесное благо и духовное благо не смеются, но выражают своё удовольствие и радостность [hilare] в лице, речи, движениях другим образом, ибо есть много вещей в смехе, главным образом, нечто из презрения, которое, даже если не проявляется, тем не менее лежит сокрытым; и смех легко различается от радостности ума, который также производит нечто подобное. Состояние человеческого рационального у Господа описано смехом Сары; и посредством этого означено то, с каким видом побуждения побуждение к истине, принадлежащей рациональному, в то время отделённого от благого, взирало к тому, что было сказано: что его следует отбросить, и облачиться в Божественное; не то, чтобы Господь смеялся, но что он постигал от Божественного, каким было рациональное, и как много в нём было человеческого, которое следовало вытеснить. Во внутреннем смысле это то, что означено через смех Сары."

Из этого ясно, что Чарльз Талк тогда, а это был 1819 год, не постигал ясно, что в том смехе, который описан в ИХР, подразумевался смех, внутри которого присутствовало некоторое возмущение, а внутри этого возмущение некоторая печаль, и даже нечто неясное, которое вклинивается в небесное удовольствие у Сведенборга, по причине отсутствия благого и истинного у его собеседника.

Тогда не было однозначного понимания, что книги Сведенборга - это Новое Слово в полноте, и поэтому было сложнее представить себе рационально, что в сказанных частностях присутствует духовное и небесное, в котором нет ничего о того смеха, который присущ невозрождённым и даже преобразуемым людям, но присутствует исключительно благолюбие и милосердие, которые выражены в букве через нечто подобное тому, что присуще человеку этого мира, но поскольку внешнее в Слове, в своей подлинной внешней форме, является выражением внутреннего, и поскольку предмет рассмотрения в своей сути представляет собой сочетания прекрасных истинностей любви в сочетании с трагическим состоянием духа, который отвергал их, то смех там - это внешнее выражение внутреннего духовного возмущения из более внутренней печали.

Здесь существенным является именно возмущение и печаль, тогда как смех является внешней формой, только похожей на смех людей нашего мира, который переполнен презрением, а иногда даже и совершенно немилосердным издевательством, которое мы часто не замечаем, а поэтому и не замечаем таких мест, считая то, что мы прочитываем как презрительное отношение, чуть ли не само собой разумеющимся.

Главное здесь это внутреннее, которое составляет всякую душу внешнего:

"Speaking with spirits it was said, that the honestum signifies all the moral virtues, and that the decorum was on account of the honestum, thus from it; wherefore it is a form of the honestum, and not the reverse, the two being related, in fact, just as are the essential and the formal; the same thing holds in regard to the good and the true, or the celestial and spiritual; so also with the real and the non-real." SE 4040

[Кочериди Илья]

Проблема для современного читателя может показаться ерундовой, а Талк достаточно мелочно-придирчивым, ведь ясно написано, что смеялся-хохотал, и если человек верит, что это боговдохновленные письмена, то зачем тогда отрицать очевидное.

Сообщение цензурировано модератором