BuddhaEye_FINAL.qxd
1/7/2004
3:42 PM
Page 173
Zen as the Negation of Holiness One might say that for Otto holiness is not simply synonymous with the numinous as such, but is a compound category that synthesizes the numinous with rational and especially moral elements. The holy, therefore, is not bereft of moral reference, but neither is it, as it was for Kant, based on morality, or as it was for Windelband, on truth, good, and beauty. In this sense, Otto’s holiness, based on the numinous, is of a totally different order from that of Kant and Windelband. The Swedish theologian and historian of religion Nathan Söderblom (1866-1931) considered holiness not as something purely moral but as something beyond morality, specifically “religious.” However, insofar as for Söderblom it still requires a moral perfection unattainable by man, this “religious” finality is still conceived in a moral frame of reference. As such, holiness never comes into its own as a nonrational or superrational category, however much Söderblom sees it as a religious concept and excludes those for whom the holy has no meaning as irreligious. Although at first glance Söderblom’s view of holiness seems akin to that of Otto, on closer examination it differs fundamentally from it. For Otto holiness is a state of human consciousness which is sui generis and autonomous, and which cannot be derived from any other form of consciousness. Hence imperfect morality as such does not necessarily conflict with the possibility of holiness. But even Otto’s concept of holiness invites the criticism of being all too humanistic. For it falls short of the concept which dialectical theology has of holiness. Dialectical theology speaks of it as “the divine” or the sacred in the Christian sense of the Holy One, of God. That is to say, in dialectical theology, the holy is never a state of human consciousness. It is something entirely outside of man and has the characteristic of “absolute otherness.” For Otto “creature-feeling”3 is our response to the numinous; and although this numinous seems to be beyond and outside of us, it proves on closer examination to be only a particular state of consciousness within us at the base of our “creature-feeling,” awaiting its chance to be evoked. Obviously it is not located beyond and outside of us. From the point of view of dialectical theology, therefore, Otto’s view of holiness is bound to be criticized for its similarity to the immanent sacredness of mysticism. The “divine” of dialectical theology has nothing in common with levels of human consciousness or creaturely feeling. It sees holiness as an objective reality abso173