I wanted to move this discussion to its own thread for those interested. Here is a brief piece on apophatic (negative) theology from wikipedia:
In negative theology, it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable, an abstract experience that can only be recognized or remembered—that is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality, and therefore all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided; in effect, it eludes definition by definition:
* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.
Naturally, this parallels Lao Zi's description of the "Tao that can be named" but which "is not the real Tao." The negative methodology was also clearly followed by Nagarjuna, regardless of whether one interprets his views to be totally negative (as in prasangika) or allowing for some positive assertions to be made (svatantrika). While Roman Christianity and its derivatives generally takes a positive (cataphatic) theological approach, Orthodox Christianity accepts both positive and negative approaches.
Pseudo-Dionysius of Areopagite is a Christian theologian accepted by both and quoted extensively by Thomas Aquinas. He strongly embraced the via negativa and arguably reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. This reconciliation is very important to any possible bridge between Buddhist and Christian metaphysics. Neoplatonism describes all life as returning to the divine undifferentiated source at death, fully stripped of individual identities--this process is called henosis. This is different from, but not totally incompatible with, Orthodox Christianity in which the doctrine of Theosis is taught. Theosis is described poetically as the doctrine that "God became man so that man may become God." (St. Athanasius) Theosis is a very important concept that distinguishes Orthodox Christianity from Western Christianity.
The key distinction of Orthodox mysticism is that full henosis, or identification with God's ultimate essence, is not possible for any "individual", since God is beyond all distinctions of individuality. Rather, by the process of purification (Katharsis) and mystical illumination (Theoria), one attains "unity" with God and the individual identity can then be recognized to be the play of God's immanent energy (Energeia). Energeia is the actuality of God's essence inseparable from God's activity. Thus the Neoplatonist notion of God as the ineffible Source is not rejected, nor is the notion of complete unity with that Source rejected. Only the technical caveat that the "individual" can not "identify" with God fully.
It seems to me that the position that is rejected by Orthodox Mysticism can also be expressed in Buddhist language. What the doctrine of Theosis is rejecting would be like saying "I AM the Dharmakaya!" which is absurd since the Dharmakaya is by definition beyond individual identity and extremes of "being" and "non-being." Rather one's identity, when purified of sin and united with God through mysticism, is seen to be the play of God's Energeia. Thus, Orthodox Christianity is in fact rebutting the perceived nihilism of earlier Greek paganism that accepted the doctrine of henosis, or total dissolution into an undefinable, abstract God. It is parallel to rejecting the nihilism of someone claiming a Buddhist view who accepts the Dharmakaya only as the ultimate nature, while rejecting the Rupakaya manifestations. "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." Dharmakaya, which is beyond existence and non-existence, manifests in the play of Energy (Sambhogakaya) and Form (Nirmanakaya). Similarly, in Orthodox Christian mysticism, God's ineffable essence (Ousia) manifests as the play of Energeia and Entelechia (Form-in-Activity).
The goal of Orthodox Christian mysticism is Theosis. This is generally rejected by most forms of Christianity derived from the Roman tradition. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read more about Theosis. Chinese Orthodox Christianity accepted the unity of Tao and Logos. When one understands apophatic theology and Theosis, this is not so much of a stretch.
In negative theology, it is accepted that the Divine is ineffable, an abstract experience that can only be recognized or remembered—that is, human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual, nor can they define the Divine, in its immense complexity, related to the entire field of reality, and therefore all descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false and conceptualization should be avoided; in effect, it eludes definition by definition:
* Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
* God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
* God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
* Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
* God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
* God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
* God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.
Naturally, this parallels Lao Zi's description of the "Tao that can be named" but which "is not the real Tao." The negative methodology was also clearly followed by Nagarjuna, regardless of whether one interprets his views to be totally negative (as in prasangika) or allowing for some positive assertions to be made (svatantrika). While Roman Christianity and its derivatives generally takes a positive (cataphatic) theological approach, Orthodox Christianity accepts both positive and negative approaches.
Pseudo-Dionysius of Areopagite is a Christian theologian accepted by both and quoted extensively by Thomas Aquinas. He strongly embraced the via negativa and arguably reconciled Christianity with Neoplatonism. This reconciliation is very important to any possible bridge between Buddhist and Christian metaphysics. Neoplatonism describes all life as returning to the divine undifferentiated source at death, fully stripped of individual identities--this process is called henosis. This is different from, but not totally incompatible with, Orthodox Christianity in which the doctrine of Theosis is taught. Theosis is described poetically as the doctrine that "God became man so that man may become God." (St. Athanasius) Theosis is a very important concept that distinguishes Orthodox Christianity from Western Christianity.
The key distinction of Orthodox mysticism is that full henosis, or identification with God's ultimate essence, is not possible for any "individual", since God is beyond all distinctions of individuality. Rather, by the process of purification (Katharsis) and mystical illumination (Theoria), one attains "unity" with God and the individual identity can then be recognized to be the play of God's immanent energy (Energeia). Energeia is the actuality of God's essence inseparable from God's activity. Thus the Neoplatonist notion of God as the ineffible Source is not rejected, nor is the notion of complete unity with that Source rejected. Only the technical caveat that the "individual" can not "identify" with God fully.
It seems to me that the position that is rejected by Orthodox Mysticism can also be expressed in Buddhist language. What the doctrine of Theosis is rejecting would be like saying "I AM the Dharmakaya!" which is absurd since the Dharmakaya is by definition beyond individual identity and extremes of "being" and "non-being." Rather one's identity, when purified of sin and united with God through mysticism, is seen to be the play of God's Energeia. Thus, Orthodox Christianity is in fact rebutting the perceived nihilism of earlier Greek paganism that accepted the doctrine of henosis, or total dissolution into an undefinable, abstract God. It is parallel to rejecting the nihilism of someone claiming a Buddhist view who accepts the Dharmakaya only as the ultimate nature, while rejecting the Rupakaya manifestations. "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." Dharmakaya, which is beyond existence and non-existence, manifests in the play of Energy (Sambhogakaya) and Form (Nirmanakaya). Similarly, in Orthodox Christian mysticism, God's ineffable essence (Ousia) manifests as the play of Energeia and Entelechia (Form-in-Activity).
The goal of Orthodox Christian mysticism is Theosis. This is generally rejected by most forms of Christianity derived from the Roman tradition. I encourage anyone interested in this topic to read more about Theosis. Chinese Orthodox Christianity accepted the unity of Tao and Logos. When one understands apophatic theology and Theosis, this is not so much of a stretch.
posted in
Tibetan Buddhism
- 24 replies