SPEAKING ABOUT IT WITHOUT SPEAKING ABOUT IT
We spiritual aspirants like to have something to hold on to and so we
conceive of God in a certain way, form an idea of God. Arising from this is cataphatic theology.
The word cataphatic is formed from two Greek words, "cata" meaning to descend and "femi" meaning to speak. Combined, the words mean approximately “to bring God down in such a way so as to speak of him."
The trouble is, by defining what God, or the divine, is we limit the unlimited, so to speak. To say, for example, that God is love, is to imply that this is the extent of God, that He is only love.
Hence, apophatic theology, which speaks of God in terms of what He is not. God is not love, or is not hate, which is to say that God, in the end, is not something that can be adequately described.
With both cataphatic and apophatic forms of expression, however, we still have something to hold on to, a handle that at the very least gives us a way to talk about God.
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is defined, apophatically, as nirguna or without qualities. Anything imaginable or conceivable is not deemed to be the ultimate reality. A Hindu hymn speaks of Brahman as "one where the mind does not reach." In the Upanishads, Brahman is described as "neti-neti" or "neither this, nor that."
As for the Atman, it is characterized in the Mandukya Upanishad, verse 7, as "not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive, not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive, unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark, non-thinkable, that which cannot be designated.”
The apophatic approach is found extensively in Buddhist philosophy, as well, a lot of speaking about it without speaking about it.
The word cataphatic is formed from two Greek words, "cata" meaning to descend and "femi" meaning to speak. Combined, the words mean approximately “to bring God down in such a way so as to speak of him."
The trouble is, by defining what God, or the divine, is we limit the unlimited, so to speak. To say, for example, that God is love, is to imply that this is the extent of God, that He is only love.
Hence, apophatic theology, which speaks of God in terms of what He is not. God is not love, or is not hate, which is to say that God, in the end, is not something that can be adequately described.
With both cataphatic and apophatic forms of expression, however, we still have something to hold on to, a handle that at the very least gives us a way to talk about God.
In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is defined, apophatically, as nirguna or without qualities. Anything imaginable or conceivable is not deemed to be the ultimate reality. A Hindu hymn speaks of Brahman as "one where the mind does not reach." In the Upanishads, Brahman is described as "neti-neti" or "neither this, nor that."
As for the Atman, it is characterized in the Mandukya Upanishad, verse 7, as "not inwardly cognitive, not outwardly cognitive, not both-wise cognitive, not a cognition-mass, not cognitive, not non-cognitive, unseen, with which there can be no dealing, ungraspable, having no distinctive mark, non-thinkable, that which cannot be designated.”
The apophatic approach is found extensively in Buddhist philosophy, as well, a lot of speaking about it without speaking about it.
posted by Donald L. Simons at
2:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home