Theory of self & via negativa self

When the Buddha in the Alagaddupama Sutta, which is found in the Majjhima-Nikaya (Sutta 22), speaks about grasping a theory of self (attavâdupâdânam) he has in mind those who think “what is the world, that is the self” (so loko so attâ) (M. i. 135).  Of this particular type of person they believe:

“This the world this the self; after dying I will become permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, I will stand fast like unto the eternal, he regards this as: ‘This is mine, this am I, this is my self’” (M. i 135-36).

Such a theory believes that the world and the self were a possession, that is, a something. The Buddha specifically addresses this to his monks.

“Monks, could you take hold of some possession, the possession of which would be permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, that would stand fast like unto the eternal?  But do you, monks, see that possession the possession of which would be permanent, lasting, eternal, not liable to change, that would stand fast like unto the eternal? (M. i. 137).

The answer the monks give the Buddha is, “No Lord.”  The reason for this is somewhat subtle.  The theory of self or attavada the Buddha regards as a view which is a possession.  So the Buddha’s logic follows that if one depends on a view (a possession), like attavada, from this dependence would arise nothing but grief, suffering, anguish, lamentation, and despair. 

A theory of self, attavada, is simply, eternalism in which self and world are considered to be eternal.  In the commentarial literature of the Udana, about this particular subject, we are to understand that the eternalist takes some particular aggregate among the Five Aggregates, for example, material shape, to be the self and the world.  This he believes to be “eternal, permanent.”

The Buddha’s understanding of self is more a via negativa self, for want of a better term. The Buddhist self doesn’t have to be fabricated or established (this then would be  via positiva).  The disciple does not regard any of the Five Aggregates to be the self, or my self. The standard refrain is generally:

“But monks, an instructed disciple of the pure ones...regards material shape as: ‘This is not mine, this am I not, this is not my self;’ he regards feeling as:  ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards perception as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self;’ he regards the habitual tendencies as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self;’ he regards consciousness as: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self.’  And also he regards whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognised, reached, looked for, pondered by the mind as:’ This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my  self’” (M. i. 136).

As expected the Theravadins go almost bonkers with even the slightest suggestion that the self is implicit with any kind of negation process such as, a, b, c, d, e are not my self.  But philosophically speaking, the via negativa demands an absolute. It is the only means of approaching it.  Here is an example of what I mean.

“Monks, there is a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded.  Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this here that is born, become, made, compounded.  But since, monks, there is an unborn ... therefore the escape from this here is born, become ... is apparent” (Udâna 80).

This is a negative description of nirvana which nevertheless points to a real attainment; a real gnosis. 

 

Comments

[The Zennist]

Laura Smith:

There is a via positiva, too. It is the 4 dhyânas. It is by the dhyânas that Siddhartha awakened (became buddha).

[Laura Smith]

I practice Archetypal Dreamwork which, in itself, is a process of discovering and stripping away that which is known and pathological or shadow. Via Negativa reveals the possibility, the unknown of who we are. To strip away is to reveal. But, I don’t believe that this gnostic spiritual practice can be distilled into an affirmation through negation since it is through alchemy that we find the soul. The striping away is only a step towards alchemy in that it more fully reveals that which is of the soul (feelings) through the negation of that which is not. www.insearchofpuella.blogspot.com

[Jure K.]

Zennist: Never read any Böhme, but I am aware of Hegel's indebtedness to him. Thanks for the quote.

Hegel actually claimed that mystical insight (gnosis?) and speculative philosophy/metaphysics are basically the same thing.

You and Hegel disagree about which of the two is "higher". For you (just like for Buddhism in general, especially Zen), metaphysics is just a description of gnosis, a certain mystical seeing, insight.

But for Hegel the rational, philosophical expression is higher than the mystical, because the mystical lacks the power to express itself rationally. It is confined to "wise silence". While philosophy is able to express through the medium of thought and language.

Basically, he considered his Science of Logic to have accomplished what the mystics never could: put it all into words. Since, for him, nothing is as reliable as syllogisms, logical proofs, deductions, and so on.

In a way, what Hegel tried to do is to make an exact science (out) of mysticism.

The results were seen as sheer madness by some, and pure genius by others. A famous example of his 'mystical logic' at work:

"Consequently, becoming is essence, its reflective movement, is the movement of nothing to nothing, and so back to itself. The transition, or Becoming, sublates itself in its transition: that Other which arises in the course of this transition is not the Not-being of a Being, but the nothingness of a Nothing, and this, to be the negation of a nothing, constitutes Being — Being only is as the movement of Nothing to Nothing, and as such it is Essence; and Essence does not have this movement within it but is this movement, as a being that is itself absolutely illusory, pure negativity, which has nothing without it that could negate it, but negates only its own negativity, which is only in this negation, which latter is only in this negating."

[The Zennist]

Jure K.:

I am sure Hegel came across this:

"For in the one only substance wherein there is no division there can be no knowledge" (Clavis by Boehme).

You see this in the Awakening of Faith shastra.

Where Buddhism differs in all this, is with the requirement of gnosis. No gnosis, it's metaphysical bullshit.

[Jure K.]

The thesis-antithesis-synthesis logic can already be found in Fichte.

Hegel is more radical than Fichte: it's not that Spirit creates its opposite to see itself.

But that Spirit is NOTHING but the negation of its opposite.

It can be understood through Hegel's analysis of what he thought as the highest religion, the absolute, revealed religion (Christianity).

In that analysis you can see how Hegel viewed the dynamic of Absolute and Relative.

Before him, Plato, Plotinus, saw the Absolute as transcendent and indifferent to its emanations.

In the pagan religions, God sends his son, or creates a son, there were avatars, embodiments of God. What is new in Christianity?

For Hegel, the new of Christianity is that Christ is not only the son of God, but IS GOD.

Hegel draws this conclusion to the extreme. If Christ is God, then, who or what dies on the cross? The conclusion is fascinating: God Himself died on the cross.

So, for Hegel, it is not only that the Absolute (God, for instance) needs the Relative (the flesh, suffering Christ) just as a 'narcissistic' means of seeing oneself.

But that the Absolute only truly becomes itself ONLY through the absolute identity with the Relative. When it completely falls into the Relative.

In other words, the Absolute only lives through the Relative.

When you once analysed the Awakening of Faith and explained in the blog what's the difference between the "preexistent enlightenment in all beings" and the "final enlightenment", I think that's the same thing.

The Absolute only becomes itself when it's mediated through the Relative. First, it must suffer, fall, endure the negativity of otherness, ignorance, evil, and so on.

(We should bear in mind that in the 18th-19th century Germany, they didn't know a lot about Buddhism. With today's literature I wonder if Hegel's pick for the "absolute religion" would still be Christianity.)