the Buddha” diminishes the Buddha's philosophical capabilities in light
of his silence (Organ, 1954:125-140; Nagao, 1991:38). On the other hand,
T. Watsuji defends the Buddha's silence as a means of not denying the
validity of philosophical or systematic thinking. Watsuji considers that
“such an attitude (of silence) constitutes the essential characteristic of a
philosophy” (Watsuji, 1927:133-4). Yoshinori insists that the silence is
pragmatic and contemplative (dhy2na; sam2dhi) (Yoshinori, 1991:3-12).2
Yadav interprets Buddha's silence to signify two things: a refusal to
commit metaphysical non-sense and a proposal to diagnose the human
existence whose form is expressed in metaphysics (Yadav, 1977:465).
Further, Nagao discusses the validity of words in contrast to
silence in his essay “The Silence of the Buddha and its M2dhyamic
2 Yoshinori claimed that the pragmatic standpoint fails to provide us with any help “when
religion runs counter to philosophy and metaphysics precisely because metaphysical
transcendence substitutes a conceptual abstraction for authentic transcendence.” However, from
another point of view, he considers that the pragmatic or positivistic explanation is not
without its basis.
Kwangsoo Park: An Analysis of the Buddha's Paradoxical Silence
246
Interpretation” (Nagao, 1991:35-49). He cites three meanings of the
Buddha's silence: first, silence on metaphysical topics (catv2ri
avy2k#tavast^ni: things undetermined, or unelucidated, or unanswered);
second, silence as a sign of approval of a disciple's exposition of a
certain truth, or of acknowledgment for his supplication; and third,
silence as a disagreement with an opponent's questions and arguments
(Organ, 1954:129; Nagao, 1991:36).
The Buddha's silence is different from the silence of the Nihilistic
view. It is to avoid either Eternalism or Nihilism for the metaphysical
questions. The Buddha's silence would be a way to avoid either the
positive or nihilistic approaches. The Buddha's silent approach
influenced M2dhyamika, Yog2c2ra, and in particular, Ch'an Buddhism.
Ch'an masters applied negative expression as the best way to disclose
the ultimate reality which is paradoxically ineffable. Let me examine
three different views in defining the ineffable realm such as the
Nihilistic view, the view of metaphoric resemblance, and the Buddha's
paradoxical silence.
II. The Nihilistic View: Keeping Silence
The Nihilistic view rejects any validity of the words to illustrate
the ultimate reality. The main premise of the nihilistic view is that the
transcendental reality is beyond any finite reality. However, words,
symbols, and metaphors are the finite reality.
In Christian theology, human beings are also living in the finite
reality bounded by time and space. Also, the knowledge of human
beings is limited. In other words, human beings as a finite reality could
never fully understand the transcendental reality, namely God.
Knowledge about God is only possible through His divine revelation.
Divine revelation appears through symbols, people, events, and nature.
However, God remains a mystery. In this case, there is no way for the
finite reality to access the transcendental reality which is beyond any
conventional reality. Based on this reasoning, the people who follow the
Nihilistic view generate the unpretentious conclusion that words cannot
International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Culture
247
illustrate the ineffable reality.
W. T. Stace, in the Mysticism and Philosophy called this nihilistic
view the Dionysian theory which is “the view that no words apply to
the mystical, or to God” (Stace, 1960:288). According to Stace, the
Dionysian theory advocates “nor can any affirmation or negation apply
to it” (Stace, 1960:289). The theory of Dionysus makes the
transcendental reality of God absolutely ineffable.
Steven T. Katz also discusses Christian mysticism and divides it
into two types: the non-absorptive type and the absorptive (or unitive)
type. The non-absorptive type, according to Katz, is reminiscent of
Jewish mysticism:
Jewish mystics envisioned the ultimate goal of mystical
relation, devekuth, not as absorption into God, or as unity with
the divine but rather as a loving intimacy, a ‘clinging to’ God,
a relation which all the time is aware of the duality of God
and systic (Katz, 1978:35-36).
Katz interprets the Jewish mystical experience as the experience of
God in ‘Totally Other’ rather than in ‘Self.’ In the Jewish mystical
experience, Devekuth is the experience of absolute dependence on God.
God is omniscient and omnipresent, while human beings are dependent
upon the graceful power of God. The experience of one's absolute
dependence is the main goal in Jewish mysticism.
The Christian mysticism of Rudolf Otto would be categorized in
the non-absorptive type. Rudolf Otto, in The Idea of the Holy illustrates
the mystical religious experience with the term ‘numinous’ which is