[lit-ideas] Re: Kataphatic, Negative and Apophatic Theology

From: JulieReneB@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 20:36:19 EDT
I shared some of the philosophical comments in this thread with some folks  
who do Mysticism as a ....  science.  Yeah, that's what I said.   And I know 
everything that's wrong with that statement, but I'm going to leave  it as is.  
I questioned which kind of "negative theology" would be  consistent with Ayn.  
I got a rather interesting (to me) reply.  It's  interspersed with jargon 
from both Jewish Kabbalism and Hinduism, but (or  so) some of you may find it 
interesting.  And I'm sure it'll spark  further converse <g>.
 
><<In theology, three ways of 'knowing' God are  distinguished.   The first
>is kataphatic,  which affirms  the ability to make positive  statements
>about God.
>
Small  Face
>The second is via negativa, which affirms that  only  negative
>statements can be made about God.
>
Vast  Face

>Apophatic theology asserts that NOT even negative  statements
>can be said of God.
>
Ayn

>Plato, in the  Timaeus, makes it  clear that any talk of the divine must
>be  analogical.
>
Second level of interpretation in the Qabalah. Third,  allusion; fourth, 
Sod (secret).

>First of all, the  divine  cannot be an object of
>understanding:
>
Each perpsective offers  its own level of understanding.

>Second, language is inadequate for  the  job of talking
>directly about the  divine:
>
Om

>Finally, we as mortals  are  limited
>
Prime delusion sustained  by avidya (ignorance that  takes one away from 
knowing one's self as One Self/Atman/Neshamah/Ishvara).  We are immortal 
lions of the One Spirit (qual. nondual), and Ayn alone  exists (nondual).

> and therefore must be satisfied with what is  probable: "for  we
>must remember that I who am the speaker, and you  who are the judges,  are
>only mortal men, and we ought to accept the  tale which is probable  and
>enquire no further".   
>
Avidyic level of dual perspective supporting the disparate identity  of 
drop soul and ocean

>Plotinus makes it clear in the Fifth  Ennead that: the  divine [Small Face] 
is NOT [Ayn] a thing, has NO Being  [Otiqa, Hidden One], but is [Sat, 
existince], rather, the generator of being  [Small Face as Creator]: "The One 
[Small 
Face] is All [Kal] things and NO One of  them [Vast Face and Small Face are 
One]; the source of all things is NOT All  [Ayn]
>things; All things are Its [Vast Face] possession- running back, so  to 
speak, to  it- or, more correctly, NOT yet so, they will be [YHVH is a  future 
third person verb; Ahyeh - "I will be"]".
>
This sounds pretty  good; correlates well with Mystical Qabalah and Sufi  
teachings

>And every kind  of
>understanding of the  divine is a representation of the divine  and
>therefore a downward  movement, or a movement away from the divine.
>
Nondual  perspective

>all understanding, even the purest kind, is only a   mirror
>or reflection, and therefore must be taken  analogically.
>
The purest kind of understanding (Sod level) is  nirvikalpa samadhi.

"God always was, and always is, and always will be.  Or  rather, God
always Is. For Was and Will be are fragments of our  time, and  of
changeable nature, but He is Eternal Being. And this is  the Name that  He
gives to Himself when giving the Oracle to Moses in  the Mount. For  in
Himself He sums up and contains all Being, having  neither beginning  in
the past nor end in the future; like some great  Sea of Being,  limitless
and unbounded, transcending all conception of  time and nature,  

Sounds lovely up to here; gets moibed after  that.
[Footnote: "moibed" is a Hippie expression from the 60's/70's referring  
to a strange folded condition in the leaves on a marijuana  plant.]

>In other  words, our talk of God is always analogical,  distanced from God
>like a flash  of light in a  mirror.
>
Can't speak for the analogical, but as a mystic I have been  taught that 
talk about God in holy company brings us closer to God; chanting  His/Her 
Names brings us closer to God; singing devotional songs with sincere  
passion brings us closer to God; prayer from the deep places in our  
hearts brings us closer to God. OTOH, philosophical convolution  
obscurates the Face of God.

>And yet  God,
>although  nothing worthy of His greatness can be said of Him,   has
>condescended to accept the worship of men's mouths, and has  desired  us
>through the medium of our own words to rejoice in His  praise.
>
dualistic  perspective

>Pseudo-Dionysius.
>
>"There is neither logos,  name,  or knowledge of it.
>
John Lennon fan

Christianity  mostly centers around the Tree of Mashiach, involving an 
overpowering love  for the incarnation of YHVH as Master Yeshuvah (or for 
the Divine Mother  incarnate as Mary). Since the vast majority of souls 
are best suited to a  devotional path in this dark age, it becomes 
obviously curious when the  sublime simplicity of ecstatic love (prema) 
gets obscurated by philosophical  opining. Even Vedantic Bhakti does not 
drag us down with such philosophical  baggage.>>

Julie Krueger

========Original  Message========     Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Kataphatic, 
Negative and Apophatic  Theology  Date: 8/6/2004 1:29:08 PM Central Daylight 
Time  
From: _phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx)   To: 
_lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)   Sent on:    
I had written:

"To remain solely with the  via negativa is to eventually end up in the
difficult spot of having to  explain how one can make statements about
what 'stands outside' that which  makes statements possible."

to which Scribe1865@xxxxxxx  replied:

"A philosopher or theologian may have to explain how such  statements are
possible, but does an individual using via negativa as a  spiritual
exercise?  The need to explain distinguishes between  theologian and
mystic isn't it?  By striving for coherent explanation as  a measure of
transcendental truth, doesn't one unnecessarily restrict the  object of
one's examination?"

There is a difference between using the  via negativa as spiritual
exercise and using it as the sole means of talking  about God.  I was
referring to the latter and hope that it was clear  that there is a place
for the via negativa.

The issue I was raising  was not whether the mystic has to do
transcendental philosophy or theology  but whether the mystic has to, at
some point, draw on kataphatic  theology.  At its simplest, how does one
identify a mystical  experience?


Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Toronto,  ON

------------------------------------------------------------------
To  change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest  on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Re: Kataphatic, Negative and Apophatic Theology

Other related posts:
