European Journal of Science and Theology, Octob er 2015, Vol. 11, No. 5, 33-44 [601085]

European Journal of Science and Theology, Octob er 2015, Vol. 11, No. 5, 33-44

_______________________________________________________________________
NEGATION AND KNOWLEDGE
APOPHATISM AS A PREMISE OF THE MYSTICAL
EXPERIENCE IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE
VEDAN TIC NON -DUALISM AND
ORTHODOX THEOLOGY

Ioan Dura* and Bogdan -Florin Chirilu tă

Ovidius University, Faculty of Orthodo x Theology, Aleea Universității nr. 1, Corp A, Constanța,
Romania
(Received 1 April 2015 )
Abstract

A simple analysis of the sacred texts of Hinduism and of Christianity highlights the fact
that the Ultimate Reali ty/God is presented under the note of a radical transcendence,
impossible to conceptualize in a notional vocabulary. Out of the need to approximate the
Ultimate Reality, since man, regardless of his religious culture, has always been within
the dynamics of the knowledge of this Absolute – irrespective of whether he sees it as
impersonal or personal – the interpreters of the „Upanishads ‟ and the Christian Holy
Fathers have conceived a special grammar with reference to the Transcendent Reality:
via negativa . Negation is the basic element connecting the philosophy of the vedantic
non-dualism – Advaita , systematized by Śaṅkara (788 -820) and the Christian theology of
the East. Certainly, some mentions are necessary here: we do not aim to make a
comparative analysis in order to evaluate one tradition through the prism of the other.
What interests us is to highlight the common manner of referring to the Ultimate Reality
through the use of negation in the vocabulary regarding the knowledge of the Absolute
in two differ ent philosophical -religious cultures, two religious paradigms that see man,
the universe and the Ultimate Reality differently, though they developed, identically,
one, an apophatic knowledge of Brahman, and the other, an apophatic knowledge of
God.

Keywords: knowledge, theology, Brahman, nirguṇa, avidyā

1. Introduction

Today ‟s society invites us to an intercultural correspondence, and
implicitly to a religious one, correspondence possible insofar two religious
alterities with own identity. If the West i s now experiencing, by secularization, a
metamorphosis in the profile of religion in society, requiring a pseudo -religious

* E-mail: [anonimizat]

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

34
paradigm which discards to the traditional and dogmati c values, eastern
Theology and Indian philosophy, more precisely vedantic non -dualism, are
deeply rooted in the fact of experience . Basically, secularization suggests a crisis
in understanding the Ultimate Reality in its transcendence. A God over which is
impossible to apply an empirical and scientific knowledge has no relevance for
contemporary man, who lives in logic of here and now. From these reasons, we
need today, more than ever, an evaluation of apophatic discourse about Ultimate
Reality, of via negativa , as rational and experiential exercise of asserting the
transcendence.

2. The gnoseological function of negation in Advaita Vedānta

Bernard Barzel highlights that the apophatic theology of Śaṅkara has, as
its essential element, via negativa [1]. A very interesting incursion in the
chronology of the negation method neti, neti (neither so, nor so) is realized by D.
B. Ga ngolli [2]. Considering his predecessors interested in this negative way of
describing the Ultimate Reality in the Upanishads , the vedantic researcher tries
to demonstrate the fact that the formulation neti, neti is adopted by the
Upanishadic authors due t o the awareness of the total impossibility of expressing
using affirmative expressions what Brahman/Ātman is in itself. In this sense, D.
B. Gangoli disapproves of P. Deussen‟s opinion, according to which Brahman is
described as neti, neti , because it is beyond time, space and causality – therefore
what is considered is the absolute transcendence of the Ultimate Reality in
relation to the universe of phenomena – being however convinced that “during
those ancient times, when the Vedas were drafted , it was impossible to formulate
the idea of the aspatial, atemporal and non -causal existence in its ab stract
simplicity” [2, p. xxxi]. Regarding the negation neti, neti , Lakshmi Saxena
wonders what the basic significance of the description neti, neti may be : does it
refer to an absolutely transcendent principle lying in a certain region beyond the
world of phenomena and able to be actualized only in a certain esoteric form of
self-realization? Or does it signify the personal Supreme , at the heart of all the
auspicious, conceived qualities, the negation involving only a negation of the
non-auspicious qualiti es or heya -guṇa? Or does it mean a negation of the cosmic
plurality, the world of names -and-shapes fictively superposed over the purely
undifferentiated Real? Only this last variant is accepted [3].
In the same context, S. Radhakrishnan confirmed the fact that negativ e
definitions are meant to emphasize the inadequate character of the positive
attributes, as applied to the supreme Reality . In the Upanishads, it is stated that it
is impossible to offer any positive determinations of the supreme Brahman. The
famous passa ge neti, neti suggests that Brahman is absolutely non -empirical. It
is beyond the domain of empirical thinking. It is non -intelligible through logical
knowledge. It is the inner nature regarding which no conceptual interpretation is
possible. It is indivis ible, inalienable. It is neither external, nor conditioned by
external causality. To define it, one has to transpose it into an object. We cannot
even say that it is one. It is non -dual [4]. S. Dasgupta was closer to the truth

Negation and knowledge

35
when he confirmed that the ad equate way of indicating Brahman is by neti, neti ,
because one cannot describe it by any positive context, which is always limited
by conceptual thinking. Starting from this criterion of the negation neti, neti as
mark of the incapacity of language to comp rise in words, concepts or definitions
the Ultimate Reality , A.J. Alston concludes that Śaṅkara elaborated a „negative
theology ‟ in many concerns similar to the negative theology of many Christian
mystics [5]. Yet, however, S. Dasgupta repeated the opinion of P. Deussen when
he stated that Ātman is independent from all the limitations of space, time and
cause that coordinate all that is presented objectively and consequently the
empirical universe [6]. At the same time, he considered that the vedantic wise
men had only a vague and dreamy vision about Brahman : “The minds of Vedic
poets so long accustomed to worship deities of visible manifestation could not
easily dispense with the idea of seeking after a positive and definite content of
Brahman. They tried s ome of the sublime powers of nature and also many
symbols, but these could not render ultimate satisfaction. They did not know
what the Brahman was like, for they had only a dim and dreamy vision of it in
the deep craving of their souls which could not be translated into permanent
terms .” [6, p. 44]
Along the line of these remarks , D.B. Gangolli states that neither the
capacity of formulating the idea about Brahman , nor the „vague and dreamy ‟
vision of the Vedic wise men ( Rṣi), nor the inadequacy of the pos itive attributes
was responsible for the adoption of the so -called negative method in the
Upanishads , but the intrinsic and essential nature ( svarūpa ) of Brahman as Light
luminous -in-itself of the witness conscience (sākṣi chaitanya ) in us all. Brahman
as witness conscience or Ātman of all the beings, uniformly, one-without -a-
second , eternal and unchangeable, can never be objectively represented in any
way, being the invisible seer, inaudible hearer, unthought -of thinker, unknown
knower, since there is no o ther hearer, thinker or knower than this One-
Brahman : tad vā etad akṣaraṃ gārgy adṛṣṭaṃ draṣṭraśrutaṃ śrotramataṃ
mantravijñātaṃ vijñātṛ ǀ nānyad ato 'sti draṣṭṛ ǀ nānyad ato 'sti śrotṛ ǀ nānyad
ato 'sti mantṛ ǀ nānyad ato 'sti vijñātṛ (“This is the imperi shable, Gārgī, which
sees but can`t be seen; which hears but can`t be heard; which thinks but can`t be
thought of; which perceives but can`t be perceived. Besides this imperishable,
there is no one that sees, no one that hears, no one that thinks, and no o ne that
perceives .”) [Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣad III.8.11 ] These Upanishadic statements
impose the unique method of exclusion of all the empirical ways of teaching or
knowledge regarding Brahman [2, p. xxxiv ]. This method highlights a „Brahman
revealed in itse lf‟, by the simple elimination of the imaginary wave of the wrong
thinking ( avidya ), built through the projection of limitative additions ( upadhi )
[Bhagavad -Gītā-Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya XVIII.50 ]. Brahman , as the inner, intimate
Self needs no definition or proof to be known: “This entity (Brahma), devoid of
any form as it is, is neither perceptible by any direct ( ocular ) means -of-proof,
nor is it perceptible by inference etc., as there is absence of any indicatory mark
about it (i.e. Brahma)” [ Brahma -Sūtra -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya II.1.6 ]. Actually, it is
impossible for anyone „to define‟ in words or „to formulat e‟ an idea about

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

36
Brahman , for the simple reason that it is beyond discoursive thanking: yatoa
vāchoa nivartante apāpya manasā saha [Taittirīya -Upaniṣad II.9]. Moreover , as
it has been mentioned, Brahman is non -dual light, namely the pure
Consciousness as intuitive experience, by means of which all human activities
are carried out [ Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣad IV.3.6, Kena -Upaniṣad -Śaṅkara –
Bhāṣya I.6, Māṇḍūkya -Upaniṣad -Gaudapā da-Kārikā -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya III.36 ]. It
is in this very area of the non -dual experience that negation has to be understood
in Śaṅkara‟s thinking: far from being a simple exercise of philosophical
dexterity, via negativa has a practical, experiential applicati on in the knowledge
of the Ultimate Reality , as E. Deutsch mentions: “ The via negativa of Advaita
Vedanta also safeguards the unqualified oneness of that state of being called
Brahman and silences all argument that would seek either to demonstrate or to
refute it. Human language has its source in phenomenal experience; hence, it is
limited in its application to states of being that are beyond that experience; logic
is grounded in the mind as it relates to the phenomenal order; hence, it is unable
to affirm, without at the same time denying, what extends beyond that order. All
determination is negation; to apply a predicate to something is to impose a
limitation upon it; for, logically, something is being excluded from the subject.
The Real is without interna l difference and, in essence, is unrelated to the
content of any other form of experience. The Real is thus unthinkable: thought
can be brought to it only through negations of what is thinkable .” [7]
The only test of negation resides in the fact that it fu nctions and leads to
the intuition of the Ultimate Reality , which is nothing else but the most intimate
own Self (ātman ): “… far from neti neti resulting in a void, it culminates in the
supreme self” [8]. It is important to remind the fact that it is not the one engaged
in knowing Brahman that denies the appearance over imposed by avidyā , since
he is not aware of Brahman -as-it-is-in-itself (Brahman Nirguṇa ) at the moment
of his investigation and no quantity of critical reflection, namely intellectual
reasoning, can lead him to the absolute truth ( parāmarthika ), beyond the scope
of all mental reflections, as long as his mind is extroverted. Actually, this is the
Upanishadic teaching that gives the seeker guidance within or an introverted
approach . Thus, thi s is not about listening to an external teaching and then using
a logical dialectics to eliminate the wrong conceptions. Actually, the Upanishads
offer only a return within : the seeker, under the guidance of his teacher and in
agreement with the implicit i nstructions of the Upanishads , gives total attention
to the essential nature of his own Self (ātman ). After that, by a gradual and
prudent process of coordination of his own partial intuition and carefully
checked by the instructor, the person engaged in knowing Brahman becomes
stable in his intuition of Brahman after having eliminated all the
superimpositions established by avidyā : “We have only to eliminate what is
falsely ascribed to Brahman by avidyā ; we have to make no more effort to
acquire a knowledge of Brahman as He is quite self -evident. Thought thus quite
self-evident easily knowable, qui te near, and forming the very Self, Brahman
appears – to the unenlightened, to those whose reason ( buddhi ) is carried away
by the differentiated phenomena of names and forms created by avidyā – as

Negation and knowledge

37
unknown, difficult, to know, very remote, as though He were a separate thing.
But to those whose reason ( buddhi ) has turned away from external phenomena,
who have secured the grace of the Guru and attained the serenity of the self
(manas ), there is nothing else so blissful, so well -known, so easily knowable,
and q uite so near as Brahman .” [Bhagavad -Gītā-Śaṅkara-Bhāṣya XVIII.50 ]
As D.B. Gangolli highlights, it is admitted that a simple negation cannot
offer a complete knowledge of a thing, except if a false knowledge is replaced
by a correct and positive one [2, p. xxxviii ]. It is argued th at it is not enough to
know in the way: “I mistakenly considered something to be a snake”; it is
necessary to complete this knowledge process by the positive knowledge of what
the thing perceived really is in its true nature. A note of precaution is necess ary
in this respect. False knowledge is not non -knowledge, since it occurs. No false
knowledge is non -knowledge, since, like the horns of a rabbit, it occurs. It is
neither the knowledge of a non -entity. Therefore, we need to avoid mistakenly
taking negati on for falsity [9]. Consequently, it is to be noted that positive
declarations in the definition of Brahman are much stronger than negative ones.
Yet, this argument ignores the fact that Brahman , as our own Self, is not in the
need of illumination regardin g its existence or its essential nature. Moreover, as
Śaṅkara observes, “the only function of knowledge” ( vidya ) is to eliminate the
ignorance ( avidya ) shrouding the true nature of a thing: na hi
kvacitsākṣādvastudharmasyāpoḍhrī dṛṣṭā kartrī vā brahmavidyā ǀ avidyāyāstu
sarvatraiva nivartikā dṛśyate ǀ tathehāpyabrahmatvamasarvatvaṃ
cāvidyākṛtameva nivartyatāṃ brahmavidyayā ǀ na tu pāramārthikaṃ vastu
kartuṃ nivartayituṃ vārhati brahmavidyā (“This knowledge has never been
observed either directly to remove some characterist ic of a thing or to create one.
But everywhere it is seen to remove ignorance. Similarly here also let the idea of
not being Brahman and not being all that is due to ignorance, be removed by the
knowledge of Brahman, but it can neither create not put a sto p to a real entity .”)
[Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣad -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya I.4.10 ] Actually, we are available to
know a thing more and more, proportionally to the elimination of our ignorance
about it.

3. Significances of the neti, neti apophatism in Śankara’s thinking

We could del ineate the following ideas regarding the neti, neti
apophatism , by apophatism understanding that recognition of the impossibility
of knowing the Absolute in a positive way, from where the use of negations
denying all that is not the Absolute .

3.1. Neti, n eti – as the denial through ignorance of all empirical properties
established in Brahman ( avidya )

Negations are used in order to cancel the false indications of avidya ,
which obstructs the essential nature of Brahman [10]. After all limiting addit ions
of the two forms – coarse and subtle have been eliminated, what remains is pure

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

38
Brahman , the “the Real of the Real” [ Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣad II.3.6]. The
negation of all distinctions made by avidya virtually means the denial of the
entire phenomenal wo rld superimposed on Brahman. In the knowledge of
Brahman , one must deny the world, with all its luxuriant complexity of names –
and-forms (namārūpa ). In other words, Brahman is the negation of the world
[11].

3.2. Neti, neti – specifies the boundaries betwe en the entirety of the transient
phenomenal and Brahman as Real

Brahman is opposed to all empirical existences [12], and neti, neti
suggests the absolute transcendent nature of Brahman [13], its otherness,
meaning that there is nothing to be compa red with Brahman : the ultimate reality
of the Upanishads is advaitam (non-dual). In this context neti, neti is the premise
of the discrimination ( viveka ) between Real and non-real, between what is true
and what is false or illusory. The negative method of teaching Brahman excludes
it from everything that it is not. All that can be explicitly determined and
denoted by positive attributes falls within the empirical of the plurality and
therefore it is not the non -dual transcendent Brahman . In another line of thought,
everythin g that can be characterized as „this‟ or „that‟ is finally abandoned as
being unreal, since Brahman cannot be singularized. Positive determinations
such as name, form, qualities, etc. are limitations and should therefore be denied
for exp ressing Brahman .

3.3. Neti, neti – as a means of knowledge of Brahman as -how-it is-in-itself ,
free of all names and forms, knowledge which eventually dissolves in the
non-dual experience

The best way to get to know the nature of Brahman is to submitting to a
“negative metaphysics” [14]. The real basis for denial Brahman of its upādhi is
the transcendental experience of the ultimate unity of Reality. Thus it becomes
clear that the advaitic apophatism is directly related to the thesis of
superimposition (adhyāsa ): it denies what is superimposed by ignorance over the
pure non -dual nature of Brahman [15].
When disclaiming all positive determinations that transmute the ultimate
reality into an object of knowledge, what remains is the pure inner nature of the
Self ( Atman ) [Māṇḍūkya -Upaniṣad & Gaudāpaḍa -Kārikā -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya
III.26 ]. The Self is the indisputable datum of all experiences: “The Self being the
substratum or basis for the employment of the means -of-proof, its existence is
supposed to be fully established, prior to such employment of the means -of-
proof. Repudiation of such an one, is not possible. It is adventitiou s entity that
can be repudiated, and never one`s own nature, because he who would seek to be
such a repudiator, would, being the Self (ātma) himself, be the Self`s own
nature .” [Brahma -Sūtra -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya II.3.7] “[…] I t should be understood
that only t he two phenomenal aspects of Brahma are here denied, and Brahma

Negation and knowledge

39
itself is left over (undenied)” [ Brahma -Sūtra -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya III.2.22]. „The
meaning [of the negation neti, neti ] is, that there is nothing besides this Brahm a
and hence it is described as „ not so, not so‟ , and it does not mean that Brahma
itself is non -existent, and this same is indicated to be the transcendent Brahma,
which is not denied. […] The denial stops short of Brahma (i.e. it does not
repudiate it), and does not culminate into a mer e void or Nihility ( Shūnya ).
Therefore we conclude that the denial stops short of Brahma and does not (by
repudiating Brahma) culminate in a mere void or Nihility .” [Brahma -Sūtra –
Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya III.2.22] The non -dual Brahman is “the farthest limit of the
negation of duality, called up by ignorance, and this Brahman supports (the
duality) like a tail” [ Taittirīya -Upaniṣad -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya II.V.1].

3.4. Neti, neti – is, on the one hand, the inability of the human mind to
conceive the transcendental essence of the Ultimate Reality

At R. T. Blackwood we find an interesting interpretation of neti, neti. He
interprets neti, neti in the context of mystical experience: „ Neti, neti – nothing
can be stated at all. Only in this way can the complete ineffability of mysticism
be preserved .” [16] On the other hand, neti, neti it is the expression of “full
unknowableness” of Brahman [17].

3.5. Neti, neti – the only way to communicate the non -dual, unknowable,
ineffable and non -relational nature of Brahman

Brahman can b e denoted only by negations [18 ]. In Brahman all
distinctions and relations are obliterated and outdated and via negativa
guarantees the unqualified unity of Brahman . Brahman, when compared with
anything else, is best understood in the description neti, ne ti as being neither this
nor that, being negatively described as “the other of its own otherness” [19 ]. The
negative description is conceptually the most appropriate of all. In his
commentary on Bhagavad -Gītā, Śaṅkara states that “[…] being inaccessible to
speech, Brahman, the Knowable, is defined in all Upanishads only by a denial of
all specialities, – „Not thus‟ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣad 2.3.6) and „not gross, not
subtle‟ (Bṛhadāraṇyaka -Upaniṣa d 3.8.8) – in the terms „It is not this‟ ”
[Bhagavad -Gītā-Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya XIII.12].

3.6. Neti, neti – as the positive dimension of negation

Neti, neti is not a total negation, but rather is a negation that also says
something positive in the sense that Brahman is the existence par excellence .
Neti, neti “negatives not absolutely everything, but only everything but Brahma ”
[Brahma -Sūtra -Śaṅkara -Bhāṣya III.2.22]. The expression neti, neti , used quite
frequently in the Upanishads and to which Śaṅkara is freque ntly making
reference throughout his comments, is not a denial of Brahman as an entity.
Since Brahman cannot be known or characterized by the finite categories of the

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

40
object, when Brahman/Atman is implied as nirguṇa or neti, neti , it is not
envisaged as vo id. The constant emphasis of the neti, neti negation has a
secondary purpose. First, Brahman is understood by means of a positive
statement, such as Tat tvam asi [Chāndogya -Upaniṣad VI.8.7 ], which represents
the ultimate Reality ( atman ) in us. Thus, the neti, neti negation should be
understood in junction with the positive statement Tat tvam asi : „ Negation is
only a preliminary to affirmation. It means that the Absolute is not conceived
here objectively as merely inferred from outer phenomena; but as reve aling itself
within us. This alters totally the significance of the negative description, for we
are thereby constrained to admit not only its positive character but also its
spiritual nature .” [20 ] Moreover, any objectivity of Brahman is only an inference
from the external phenomena and therefore is not sustainable. In this respect, we
should see both the negative and the positive aspects together, which reveal the
Brahman as indeterminate. As it is expressed in negative terms, Brahman is all –
comprehensive , asserted as something that is beyond negation and affirmatio n
[21].

4. The apophatism in the Orthodox theology – the experiential dimension of
knowledge

Along these clarifications, we might not be wrong stating that Śaṅkara is
probably the vedāntic thinker coming closest to the Christian apophatic
theology, regarding the negation method. Just like Brahman nirguṇa , God in His
quality of Being is incomprehensible and impossible to circumscribe for man‟s
thinking. In Chr istian theology, apophatism has to with knowledge, with a
progress of knowledge from affirmation to negation, from rational deduction to
experience, as is stated by Dionysius the Areopagite: “Besides, we need to try to
find out how we could get to know God , Who is neither intelligible, nor sensible
and not at all a being among all the other beings. It is truer to say not that we
know God according to His nature, which is completely unknown, beyond all
understanding and thinking, but that we, following the g iven of all beings, like a
being that was created by Him from eternity and depicts somewhat likenesses
and images of His divine models, we go up and orderly, according to the
measure of our powers, towards what is above all things, to reach negation and
to go beyond everything and to get to the cause of everything .” [De divine
nominibus , VII.3, P.G. 3, 869CD -872A ]
The apophatic (negative) knowledge of God does not exclude His
cataphatic (positive) knowledge, but details it. When we call God Goodness,
Good, Life, Almighty , Omnipresent, we refer to His works or manifestations in
the world, to the uncreated energies by which God descends to us, and not to His
divine being, which is completely unknowable, as Saint Basil the Great asserted
[Adversus Eunomium , I.6, P.G. 29, 521C ]. By these uncreated energies, God
communicates Himself, while He remains incommunicable in His being and
makes Himself known while remaining unknown in His being. The uncreated
energies differ from the divine Being, yet they are not separa ted from the divine

Negation and knowledge

41
Being, God being present as a Person in them, without being mistakenly taken
for them. In this sense, Saint Gregory Palama teach es: “The divine nature has to
be called at the same time incommunicable and, in a certain sense,
communicabl e; we acquire participation to God‟s nature and yet He remains
totally inaccessible” [ Saint Gregory Palama, Theophanes , P.G. 150, col. 932D ].
On the one hand, God is given innumerable names, on the other hand,
God is the unnamed, the One to Whom, accordin g to His Being, no name is a
good match. F ather Prof essor Dumitru Stăniloae emphasizes that the divine
nature has no name that could express it. All the names are of the works. Even
divinity ( ϑεοτης ) is the name of a work ( ϑεειν – to see). The nature of Go d is
beyond words. The nature of God is beyond the work expressed by the word
divinity, as the subject of the work compared to the work itself [22]. When we
refer to God‟s manifestations, we make positive statements about Him, yet when
we have in view His being, we deny all these affirmations. V. Lossky, making a
clearer presentation of the Orthodox apophatism, highlights that “we cannot
conceive God in Himself, in His essence, in His mystery. Trying to conceive
God in Himself means being reduced to silence , because neither the thoughts,
nor the words can comprehend the infinite in those concepts which, by defining,
set limits. For these reasons, the Church Fathers have used the negative way.
The apophatic way is an attempt to know God not in what He is, but in what He
is not .” [23] Apophatism consists in denying what God is not, without denying
God as a superior Personal Entity.
It is impossible to know God according to His essence or nature, because
we cannot subordinate the divine uncreated essence to the nature of the
semantics of the word and to the meaning of the notion [24]. In this sense, we
need to understand the affirmation of S aint Gregory of Nazianzus: “expressing
God is impossible, yet understanding Him is even more impossible” [ Oratio
XXVIII (Theologica II ), IV, P.G. 36, col. 29C -32A]. The divine Being cannot be
conceived rationally and expressed verbally, being the reality above the beings,
the reality “that we can neither conceive, nor express, nor contemplate
somehow, since He is above everyth ing and completely unknowable” [ De divine
nominibus , I.4, P.G. 3, 592 D ].
Saint John of Damascus, as one who synthesized the patristic thinking,
underlines the incognoscibility of the divine Being: “The Divinity is infinite and
impossible to grasp with th e mind and the only thing that we can understand is
God‟s infinity and incomprehensibility. All that we say in positive terms about
God do not indicate the nature, but what can be found in relation to His nature.
God is nothing like the beings, and this is not because He is not a Being, but
because He is above all the beings, above being. Truly, to be and to be known
are of the same order. What is beyond all knowledge is also in an absolute way
beyond all being; and inversely, what is above the being is als o above
knowledge .” [Expositio Fidei Orthodoxae , I.5, P.G. 94, col. 800AD ]
On the one hand, in the Christian theology, the apophatic does not mean a
total closure of God in Himself, in His own sufficiency, since God, “the Being
that no on e can name, is cal ling Himself „ I Am Who I Am ‟ (Exodus 3 .14)” [23,

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

42
p. 25]. On the other hand, one cannot reduce apophatism to the level of negative –
rational knowledge, to a simple negation of some rational affirmations about
God. Dumitru Stăniloae established three levels, in an ascending direction, of
apophatism: (1) intellectual negative theology; (2) the moment when we leave
any consideration of the concepts taken from nature and any preoccupation of
even denying them, therefore when we go over negation, as intellectual
operation as well, and over a certain apophatic feeling of them, we enter a state
of silence produced by prayer; it is a feeling in the dark of the energies, that has
gone beyond the negative intellectual theology and the apophatic feeling
accompanying it; (3) the vision of the divine light [25].
God is beyond affirmations and negations, these being the operation of
reason in a conceptual process: “There is no affirmation about God […] because
God is above any perfect affirmation the unitary cause of all t hings and beyond
any negation the superiority of the One completely separate from everything and
above everything” [ De mystica theologia , V, P.G. 3, 1048 AB ]. “To God, we
need to acknowledge all the affirmations borrowed from things, as One Who is
the caus e of them all, and we also need to deny to Him, more appropriately,
everything, as He is above everything, yet we should not consider that the
negations deny the affirmations, but we should rather consider that He Who is
above all negation and affirmation is also above all negations” [De mystica
theologia , I.2, P.G. 3, col. 1000B ]. God being undeterminable both for
affirmations and for negations, we can know Him by nonknowledge (αγνωσια ).
By nonknowledge we get to know the One Who is above all the objects o f
knowledge possible. God no longer appears as an object, since the problem is no
longer knowledge but union (ενωσις) [26]. It is precisely this that is the
distinctive note of the apophatic attitude in the Orthodox theology, in which the
accent falls not on intellectual contemplation, but on what is called union : “The
apophatic theology can be understood and expressed; the union is, however,
ineffable and not understood even by those who experience it” [2 2, p. 58].

5. Conclusion s

In conclusion, we are no w in a better position to affirm that the advaitic
philosophy and the Orthodox theology meet in the negative manner of
constructing a discourse on the respectively the Ultimate Reality and God. The
negation neti, neti („neither so, nor so ‟ or „neither this , nor this ‟) does not
represent for Śaṅkara a discourse about Brahman nirguṇa , as one could
understand, when seen from a Christian perspective. Brahman nirguṇa is beyond
the conceptual sphere, be it positive ( sat, jñānam , anantam ) or negative
(nirviśeṣa , niṣkriya , nirvikāra , niravayava , arūpa ), because language, thinking
and knowledge expressed conceptually have to do exclusively with the empirical
sphere. Brahman cannot be measured and no concept circumscribes it.
Circumscribing it in a definition, even a negative one, would mean delimiting it.
This incapacity of the concept, of the word and of thinking to define Brahman

Negation and knowledge

43
nirguṇa suggest the premises of an apophatism based on which Brahman
remains an inexpressible, mystically experienced mystery.
The apopha tic Orthodox knowledge is knowledge by experience,
knowledge in the sense of union . In the experimental apophatic knowledge, on
the one hand, God is perceived [in Christ], on the other hand, what is perceived
lets one understand that what is being perceive d is beyond all one can perceive:
“By what is perceived, He attracts me to Him (for a totally unperceivable Being
would give no hope and no help); while by what is not perceived He stirs my
admiration; and, being admired, He is wanted again; and being want ed, He
purifies us; and purifying us, He gives us a divine likeness; and making us
become so [in His likeness], He speaks to us as with His friends; moreover, the
word dares to say an even bolder thing: God gets united to gods and is known by
them, namely as much as He knows those who know Him” [ Oratio XXXVIII ,
P.G. 36, col. 317CD ].

References

[1] B. Barzel, Mystique de L`Ineffable dans l`hindouisme et le christianisme. Çankara
et Eckhart , Les Éditions du Cerf, P aris, 1982 , 85-111.
[2] D.B. Gangolli, The Perfect & Unique Method of Shankara`s Non -dualism , Hind
Navotthana Pratishthan, Kerala, 2001, xxxi-xli.
[3] L. Saxena, Neo-Hegelian and Neo -Advaitic Monism. A Study in Converging
Perspectives , Bharat Bharati Bhandar, Delhi, 1980, 98.
[4] S. Radhakrishnan, History of Philos ophy. Eastern and Western , Vol. I, George
Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1957, 275.
[5] A.J. Alston, Samkara in East and West Today , in New Perspectives on Advaita
Vedanta. Essays in Commemoration of Prof. Richard De Smet, S.J. Bradley & J.
Malkovsky (e ds.), Konin klijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2000, 108.
[6] S. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. I, The Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1957, 45.
[7] E. Deutsch, Advaita Vedānta: A Philosophical Reconstruction , University of
Hawa i‟i Press, Honolulu, 1969, 11.
[8] J.G. Suthren Hirst, Śaṃkara ’s Advaita Vedānta. A way of teaching , Routledge
Curzon, London, 2005, 144.
[9] K.H. Potter, Presuppositions of Indian ’s Philosophies , Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers Private Limited, Delhi, 1999 , 220.
[10] R.H. Jones, Mysticism Examined. Philosophical Inquiries into Mysticism , State
University of New York Press, Albany, 1993 , 61.
[11] R. Karunakaran, The Concept of Sat in Advaita Vedānta , Sri Śaṅkara Sanskrit
Vidyapeetham Edakkadom, Quilon, 1980, 157 .
[12] B. Correya, Heidegger and Śaṅkar a. A Comparati ve Study of ‘Thinking of Being’
and ‘ Advaita ’, Jyotir Dharma Publication, Kerala, 2003, 182.
[13] J. Grimes, An Advaita Vedānta Perspective on Language , Sri Satguru Publications,
Delhi, 1991 , 72.
[14] J. Payyappilly, The Concept of Man in the Advaita V edānta of Śaṅkara. An Inquiry
into Theological Perspectives , Peter Lang Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften,
Frankfurt, 2005, 99.

Dura & Chiriluță /European Journal of Science and Theology 11 (2015), 5, 33-44

44
[15] L. Gardet and O. Lacombe, L`expérience du Soi. Étude de mystique comparée ,
Desclée de Brouwer, 1981, 109.
[16] R.T. Blackwood, Philos. East West , 13 (1963) 204.
[17] P. Deussen, The System of the Vedānta. According to Bādarāyaṇa`s Brahma -Sūtras
and Çaṅkara`s Commentary thereon set forth as a Compendium of the Dogmatics
of Brahmanism from the Standpoint of Çaṅkara, English translation, D over
Publications, New York, 1973 , 211.
[18] S. Satprakāshānanda, Methods of Knowledge. Perceptual, Non -perceptual, and
Transcendental. According to Advaita Vedānta , George Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1965, 251.
[19] S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy , Vol. II, Geo rge Allen & Unwin Ltd.,
London, 1951, 537.
[20] M. Hiriyanna, Outlines of Indian Philosophy , M/S Kavyalaya Publishers, Delhi,
1994, 375 -376.
[21] P.K. Mohan, Śaṅkara`s Concept of God , Nelanutala Publishers, Nellore, 1978, 66 –
67.
[22] D. Stăniloae, Viața și învățătura Sfâ ntului Grigorie Palama , Scripta, București,
1993, 73.
[23] V. Lossky, Introducere în teologia ortodoxă , Romanian translation , Editura
Enciclopedică, București, 1993, 37.
[24] C. Yannaras, Heidegger și Areopagitul , Romanian translation , Anastasia,
București, 1996, 68.
[25] D. Stăniloae, Ascetica și mistica Bisericii Ortodoxe , Institutul Biblic și de Misiune
al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, București, 2002, 269.
[26] V. Lossky, Teologia mistică a Bisericii de Răsărit , Romanian translation ,
Bonifaciu, București, 1998, 25.