Abstract
The notion of nothingness has a long history. Our intent here is to look for the idea of nothingness taken as the negative way in philosophy, theology and literature. This chapter is an introductory to the entire work, and in this chapter we give a brief introduction to Nāgārjuna, to John of the Cross and to their works. What is envisaged in this study is not the fashionable search for commonalities in two traditions, namely, Buddhism and Christianity, and the great thinkers of the negative way in these two traditions – Nāgārjuna and John of the Cross – rather their dissimilarities. This is because we believe that every cultural/religious tradition gives birth to its own thinkability and its own categories to give expression to such thinkabilities. By presenting the negative way in this work in six chapters, we make a comparison and contrast between Nāgārjuna and John of the Cross by highlighting the tenets of their negative way, because we believe that comparison and contrast between the systems of thought have always been there in the history of ideas. Such attempts of comparison and contrast in cross-cultural philosophical traditions will ‘open a ‘new’ way of doing comparative philosophy/theology where concepts developed in different philosophical traditions ‘illuminate’ each other and help us in understanding them better’.
We shall differ in our nothingness.(E. M. Forster, Howards End, Chapter 40).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
We refer here to the works of Hent de Vries (de Vries 1999) by Jacques Derrida (Bradley 2004: 9–46), Michel de Certeau (Certeau 1992) John D. Caputo (Caputo 1997), Jeremy Carrette (Carreette 2000), Jean-Luc Marion (Marion 1991) Denys Turner (Turner 1998), Michel Foucault (Foucault 1990) and Julia Kristeva (Kristeva 1999).
- 2.
Buning says that the via negativa’s ‘influence on modern philosophy (Heidegger and Derrida) and on modern theology (John Caputo, Mark C. Taylor, Jean-Luc Marion) is beyond doubt today’ (Buning 2000: 43). It will not be an exaggeration to say that the via negativa paradigm in contemporary continental thought as well as in critical theory (Lock 1999: 184–198) is ‘both a way of thinking and a manner of writing’ as it ‘attempts to articulate the unsayable’ (Buning 2000: 43). It is also a fact that the ‘post-Derridean debates over the radical possibilities of Christian tradition’ Pseudo-Dionysius takes a centre place (Fisher 2001: 529–548). Arthur Bradley opined about continental thought today: ‘It is now surely incontestable that we are in the midst of a ‘‘theological turn’’ in continental thought to rival the much vaunted ethical and political shifts of the 1980s and 1990s (de Vries 1999). Religious themes, questions and problematic abound in current continental thinking from deconstruction to phenomenology and from genealogy to psychoanalysis in a way that would have been thought unimaginable even a decade or so ago’ (Bradley 2004: 1).
- 3.
According to Panikkar we have epistemological apophaticism, gnoseological apophaticism and ontic apophaticism. Panikkar writes: ‘The term ‘‘apophatic’’ is usually used in reference to an epistemological apophaticism, positing merely that the ultimate reality is ineffable – that human intelligence is incapable of grasping, of embracing it – although this ultimate reality itself may be presented as intelligible, even supremely intelligible, in se. A gnoseological apophaticism, then, comports an ineffability on the part of the ultimate reality only quoad nos. Buddhist apophaticism, on the other hand, seeks to transport this ineffability to the heart of ultimate reality itself, declaring that this reality – inasmuch as its logos (its expression and communication) no longer pertains to the order of ultimate reality but precisely to the manifestation of that order – is ineffable not merely in our regard, but as such, quoad se. Thus Buddhist apophaticism is an ontic apophaticism. Ultimate reality is so supremely ineffable and transcendent that, strictly speaking, Buddhism will be constrained to deny it the very character of being. Being, after all, is what is; but what is, by the very fact of being, is in some manner thinkable and communicable. It belongs to the order of manifestation, of being. And it cannot be considered to be ultimate reality itself’ (Panikkar 1989: 14).
- 4.
By cross-cultural hermeneutics we mean the way we look at a different cultural/tradition other than one’s own to know it in a ‘nontrivial and non-imperialistic way’ (Panikkar 1979). In cross-cultural hermeneutics we consider whether we can celebrate a paradigm, idea or way of thinking on soil not its own and whether such a category of thought can realise in another culture a function similar to the one it has fulfilled in its home culture. ‘We can make legitimate cross-cultural judgements without violently imposing alien standards and norms’ (Bernstein 1996:35). There is a universal validity of hermeneutics for a philosophical approach across geographical and cultural boundaries as explained by Gadamer (Pillay 2002: 330–344). Besides that, the cross-cultural communication and dialogue have become a part of our everyday life as we speak across our cultural boundaries. In comparative philosophy Gadamer is the most important thinker whose work has influenced cross-cultural hermeneutics. In cross-cultural hermeneutical dialogue, we, coming from distinctly backgrounds, can seek to each other’s meaning. It is not to reach a uniformity of beliefs, but to foster a progressive learning process and appreciate the other (Dallmayr 2009: 23–39).
- 5.
This is a conversion. And as Gadamer says, ‘In a conversation, when we have discovered the other person’s standpoint and horizon, his ideas become intelligible without our necessarily having to agree with him’ (Gadamer 2005: 302).
- 6.
Mahāyāna comprises of the two main philosophical schools of Buddhism, namely, the Mādhyamika and the Yogācāra – Vijñānavāda. The term Madhyamaka or Madhyamaka Darśana is an alternative, perhaps an earlier term used for the Middle Way of Nāgārjuna. It is derived from madhya (middle) by the addition of taddhitā suffixes. The Mādhyamika represents the middle critical phase of Buddhist thought, while the first phase was the Ābhidharmika realism (Sebastian 2005: 1–16). Mādhyamika is used for both the system and its advocates. Non-Buddhist writers invariably refer to the system as well as the adherents of it as Mādhyamika. This school is also labelled as Śūnyavāda by the non-Buddhist opponents. The Mādhyamika system has had a continuous history of development from the time of its formulation by Nāgārjuna (c. 150 AD) till eleventh century A.D. (Murti 1998: 83–103).
- 7.
Kenneth Inada would state ‘Indeed, so far as Mahāyāna Buddhism is concerned Nāgārjuna stands out as the giant among giants who laid the foundation of religious and philosophical quests. His supreme position has stood firm for centuries … He was, in short, considered to the second Buddha and he always occupied the second position in the lineage of Buddhist patriarchs in the various sectarian developments of Tibet, China and Japan’ (Inada 1993: 3).
- 8.
The list of thirteen works which Chr. Lindtner considers as genuine are Mādhyamikakārikā, Śūnyatāsaptati, Vigrahavyāvartanī, Vaidalyaprakarṇa, Vyavahārasiddhi, Yuktiṣaṣṭikā, Catuḥstava, Ratnāvalī, Pratītyasamutpādahṛdayakārikā, Sūtrasamuccaya, Bodhicittavivaraṇa, Suhṛllekha and Bodhisaṁbhāra[ka] (Lindtner 2011: 11).
- 9.
With his rejection of all views, of all constructive metaphysics, Nāgārjuna has advocated śūnyatā sarvadṛṣṭīnām (MK 13, 8: 108–109).
- 10.
Śūnyatā is the most central doctrine in the entire Buddhism. Śūnyatā is not understood in the same way in all the schools of Buddhism. Early Buddhism took the meaning of śūnyatā as ‘pudgalaśūnyatā’, that is the substance and the whole are unreal, they are void of reality (śūnya). The dharmas are real here. The Mādhyamika went further and established pudgalaśūnyatā and dharmaśūnyatā. Unreality, or the essence-less-ness, is not confined to any particular aspect of experience; experience itself is śūnya. The term connotes not only unreality, but also reality. Reality itself is śūnya being inexpressible through verbal constructions (dṛṣṭiśūnyatā). The Yogācāra too advocated śūnyatā. There is only consciousness. Consciousness itself is not śūnya. Śūnyatā pertains only to its mode of appearance as objective. Consciousness is infected by the subject-object categories. This infection is unreal (grāhadvayaśūnyatā) (Chatterjee 1987: 21).
- 11.
See the discussion under the heading ‘Sect. 1.1. Why this study?’ and also the footnote 4 above.
- 12.
Our reference here is to the Catuṣkoṭi-tarka. According to catuṣkoṭi-tarka, four and only four views are possible: two are primary and the other two are secondary. Nāgārjuna has clearly systematised these four and formulated them into catuṣkoṭi and prajñāpāramitā is catuṣkoṭi vinirmukta. Nāgārjuna tries to express the inexpressible through this. Nāgārjuna gives the four views in the 27th chapter entitled ‘Dṛṣṭiparīkṣā’ of the Madhyamakaśāstra. We have these views in MK 27, 2: 249–250.
- 13.
The sketch of the mount in the Ascent of Mount Carmel has four parts, and the second is the middle path in which the word ‘nada’ (nothing) is repeated seven times (Kavanaugh 1991: 110–111).
- 14.
Entréme donde no supe, Y quedéme no sabiendo, Toda ciencia transcendiendo (SEC 1: 53).
References
Abbreviations of Original Sources
AMC: The Ascent of Mount Carmel. John of the Cross, Saint. (1991). The collected works of Saint John of the Cross. (K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.) (pp. 101–349). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
DN: The Dark Night. John of the Cross, Saint. (1991). The collected works of Saint John of the Cross. (K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.) (pp. 351–457). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
LFL: John of the Cross. (1991). The Living Flame of Love. In The collected works of Saint John of the Cross. K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.) (pp. 638–715). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
MK: Nāgārjuna. (1960). Madhyamakaśāstra of Nāgārjuna with the Commentary Prasannapadā by Candrakīrti. Buddhist Sanskrit texts No.10. (P. L. Vaidya, Ed.). Darbhanga: The Mithila Institute of Post-graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning.
MKV: Candrakīrti. (1970). Madhyamakavatāra par Candrakīrti. 1970. (Louis de la Vallee Poussin, Ed.). Osnabruck: Biblio Verlag
SEC: John of the Cross. (1991). Stanzas concerning an ecstasy experienced in high contemplation. In The collected works of Saint John of the Cross. (K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.) (pp. 53–54). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
Other References
Barrow, J. D. (2001). The book of nothing: Vacuums, voids, and the latest ideas about the origin of the universe. New York: Pantheon Books.
Bernstein, R. J. (1996). The hermeneutics of cross-cultural understanding. In A. N. Balslev (Ed.), Cross-cultural conversation (Initiation) (pp. 29–41). Atlanta: The Scholars Press.
Bilimoria, P. (2009). What is the ‘Subaltern’ of the philosophy of religion? In P. Bilimoria & A. B. Irvine (Eds.), Postcolonial philosophy of religion (pp. 9–33). Heidelberg: Springer.
Bradley, A. (2004). Negative theology and modern French philosophy. London/New York: Routledge.
Buning, M. (2000). The ‘Via negativa’ and its first stirrings in Eleutheria. In M. Engelberts et al. (Eds.), Beckett and religion: Beckett/aesthetics/politics (Samuel Beckett today/Aujourd’hui, Vol. 9, pp. 43–54). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Buston. (1998). The history of Buddhism in Indian and Tibet: The jewelry of scriptures (Vol. 1, E. Obermiller (Trans.)) 2nd edn. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Caputo, J. D. (1997). The prayers and tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Carreette, J. (2000). Foucault and religion: Spiritual corporality and political spirituality. London/New York: Routledge.
Certeau, M. de. (1992). The mystic fable: The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Vol.1, M. B.Smith Trans.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Chatterjee, A. K. (1987). The Yogācāra Indealism. Delhi: Motillal Banarsidass Publishers.
Dallmayr, F. (2009). Hermeneutics and inter-cultural dialog: Linking theory and practice. Ethic & Global Politic, 2(1), 23–39.
De Jesus, C. (1958). The life of St. John of the Cross. (K. Pond Trans.). London: Longman.
De Nicolas, A. T. (1996). St John of the Cross: Alchemist of the soul – His poetry, his prose. Boston: Weiser.
De Vries, H. (1999). Philosophy and the turn to religion. Baltimore/London: The John Hopkins University Press.
Dutt, N. (2008). Mahāyāna Buddhism. (Rev. ed.). Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan.
Fisher, J. (2001). The theology of dis/similarity: Negation in pseudo-dionysius. Journal of Religion, 81(4), 529–548.
Foucault, M. (1990). Maurice Blanchot: The thought from outside. In Foucalt/Blanchot (J. Mehlman & B. Massumi, Trans.). New York: Zone Books.
Gadamer, H. -G. (2005). Truth and method. (Revised by J. Weinsheimer & D. C. Marshall, Trans.). (2nd Rev. edn.). London/New York: Continuum.
Garfield, J. L. (2002). Empty words: Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garfield, J. L. (2014). Madhyamaka, Nihilism and the emptiness of emptiness. In J. L. Jiu & D. L. Berger (Eds.), Nothingness in Asian philosophy (pp. 44–54). New York: Routledge.
Gethin, R. (1998). The foundations of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ichimura, S. (1992). Re-examining the period of Nāgārjuna: Western India, A.D. 50–150. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 40(2), 8–14.
Ichimura, S. (2001). Buddhist critical spirituality: Prajñā and Śūnyatā. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Pubslihers.
Inada, K. K. (1993). Nāgārjuna: A translation of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā with an introductory essay. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Irvine, A. B., & Bilimoria, P. (2009). Introduction: The state of philosophy of religion and postcoloniality. In P. Bilimoria & A. B. Irvine (Eds.), Postcolonial philosophy of religion (pp. 1–5). Heidelberg: Springer.
Jaspers, K. (1959). Die grossen philosophen (Vol. 1). Munich: Piper Verlag GmbH.
John of the Cross, Saint. (1991). The collected works of Saint John of the Cross. (K. Kavanaugh & O. Rodriguez, Trans.). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
John of the Cross, Saint. (2001). The poems of St John of the Cross. (K. Jones, Trans.). London: Burns & Oates.
Johnston, W. (2003). The inner eye of love: Mysticism and religion. New York: Fordham University Press.
Jones, K. (2001). Introduction. In K. Jones (Ed.), The poems of John of the Cross (pp. 7–14). London: Burns & Oates.
Kalupahana, D. J. (1994). A history of Buddhist philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Kavanaugh, K. (1991). General introduction. In The collected works of Saint John of the Cross (K. Kavanaugh & O.tilio Rodriguez, Trans.) (pp. 9–38). Washington, DC: Institute of Carmelite Studies Publications.
King, R. (2009). Philosophy of religion as border control: Globalization and the decolonization of the ‘Love of Wisdom’ (philosophia). In P. Bilimoria & A. B. Irvine (Eds.), Postcolonial philosophy of religion (pp. 34–54). Heidelberg: Springer.
Krishna, D. (2006). Preface (to the new collection of articles). In D. Krishna (Ed.), Indian philosophy: A counter perspective. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.
Krishna, D. (2011). Comparative philosophy: What it is and what it ought to be. In N. Bhushan, J. L. Garfield, & D. Raveh (Eds.), Contrary thinking: Selected essays of Daya Krishna (pp. 59–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1999). Le feminine et le sacre. Paris: Stock.
Lindtner, Chr. (2011). Nagarjuniana: Studies in the writings and philosophy of Nāgārjuna. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Liu, J., & Berger, D. L. (2014a). Introduction: The conception of nothingness in Asian philosophy. In J. Liu & D. L. Berger (Eds.), Nothingness in Asian philosophy (pp. xi–xxx). London: Routledge.
Liu, J., & Berger, D. L. (Eds.). (2014b). Nothingness in Asian philosophy. London: Routledge.
Lock, C. (1999). Michel de Certeau: Walking the Via negativa. Paragraph: A Journal of Modern Critical Theory, 22(2), 184–198.
Loizzo, J. (Trans.). (2007). Nāgārjuna’s reason sixty: Yuktiṣaṣtikā .New York: Columbia University Press.
Mahoney, T. A. (2004). The Christian apophatism of St. John of the Cross. Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 7(4), 80–91.
Marion, J.-L. (1991). God without being: Hors Texte. (T. A. Carlson, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McGinn, B. (2000). The role of the Carmelites in the history of Western mysticism. In K. Culligan & R. Jordan (Eds.), Carmel and contemplation: Transforming human consciousness (Carmelite studies 8, pp. 25–50). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.
Murti, T. R. V. (1998). The central philosophy of Buddhism: A study of the Mādhyamika system. New Delhi: Harper Collins.
Nakamura, H. (1999). Indian Buddhism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Panikkar, R. (1979). Myth, faith and hermeneutics. New York: Paulist Press.
Panikkar, R. (1989). The silence of God: The answer of the Buddha. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.
Payne, S. (Ed.). (1990). John of the Cross and the cognitive value of mysticism. Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Peers, E. A. (1943). Spirit of flame: A study of St John of the Cross. London: Student Christian Movement Press.
Pillay, N. (2002). The significance of Gadamer’s hermeneutics for cross-cultural understanding. South African Journal of Philosophy, 21(4), 330–344.
Prabhu, J. (2013). Cross-cultural Hermeneutic after Hegel. Cirpit Review, 4, 125–134.
Ramanan, V. K. (2002). Nāgārjuna’s philosophy. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Sebastian, C. D. (2005). Buddhist philosophy: Its three distinct phases and basic thematic unity. The Indian International Journal of Buddhist Studies X, 1–16.
Siderits, M., & Katsura, S. (2013). Nāgārjuna’s middle way: Mūlamadhyamakakārikā. Boston: Wisdom Publications.
Stein, S. E. (2002). The science of the Cross. (J. Koeppel, Trans.). Washington, DC: ICS Publications.
Surin, K. (2009). Afterword: Religion and philosophy between the modern and postmodern. In P. Bilimoria & A. B. Irvine (Eds.), Postcolonial philosophy of religion (pp. 329–336). Heidelberg: Springer.
Tavard, G. H. (1988). Poetry and contemplation in St. John of the Cross. Athens: Ohio University Press.
Turner, D. (1998). The darkness of God: Negativity in Christian mysticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, P. M. (2010). St John of the Cross. London: Continuum.
Walser, J. (2008). Nāgārjuna in context: Mahāyāna Buddhism and early Indian culture. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.
Williams, P. (2009). Mahāyāna Buddhism: The doctrinal foundations (2nd ed.). London/New York: Routledge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer India
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sebastian, C.D. (2016). Nāgārjuna and John of the Cross: An Introduction. In: The Cloud of Nothingness. Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures, vol 19. Springer, New Delhi. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3646-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-3646-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New Delhi
Print ISBN: 978-81-322-3644-3
Online ISBN: 978-81-322-3646-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)