Trinity Papers No. 23 - 'Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering ...'

Trinity College THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering: dialogical frontiers in pastoral theology The Noel Carter Lecture, Trinity College A public lecture by the Noel Carter Lecturer in Pastoral Theology, Trinity College, The University of Melbourne, Revd Dr Ruwan Palapathwala 30 October 2002

Trinity Papers Number 23 - January 2003 www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering The Noel Carter Lecture, by Rev Dr Ruwan Palapathwala 30 October 2002 Suffering is common to all and is all around us. It is ironic that each time we take a walk down the street or talk to someone we hear and see the suffering people experience in many forms. That is not to exclude the anguish and the suffering we individually experience in all circumstances of life. We experience suffering when we are parted from those whom we love.

Then, besides the suffering that we experience in relationships, we cannot—at any rate—deny the anguish and the suffering we experience each day when we witness the loss of our youth, our in-built resistance to aging, our looks, our family members and friends who predecease us and when we contemplate our own impending demise.

With the assistance of mass media the reality of suffering and pain that is experienced by people all around the world is brought to our doorsteps. People suffer from oppression, incurable diseases, famine, and both natural and man-made disasters such as terrorism. In the recent times the whole world has witnessed the suffering global terrorism has brought upon individuals, communities and nations. And, sadly, there is hardly any guarantee that we will not again witness such suffering in the near future.

The chilling truth is that there will be much more suffering to be witnessed locally, nationally and globally. All this is suffering and we cannot deny that.

Having touched on links common to all of us in the experience of suffering, we must now discuss how suffering is understood in two great religious traditions of the world, namely Buddhism and Christianity.1 In approaching the subject of suffering I want genuinely and critically to engage in dialogue with these two religious traditions so that we can understand suffering at a very fundamental level and appreciate the enlightening perspectives they offer to help us to deal with and overcome suffering.

But before engaging with the question of suffering I want briefly to outline in three steps the major themes of my lecture and indicate how I am going to deal with the subject.

The three steps presuppose that in the narrowest and broadest sense this lecture on suffering is a lecture on pastoral theology. It presupposes three imperatives with regard to theological work in the present. They are: • 1

The significance of world religions for constructive ‘theological’ work.

Please note that all transliterated and italicised words are Pali.

Page 2

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

• •

October 2002

To acknowledge the ‘theological circle’ but to work outside it on the frontiers of religious thought in dialogue with other great religious traditions of the world.

To have theos, God as the ultimate concern of the theologian and therefore engage with matters which alone are of ultimate value.

With these imperatives in view, I want to give my lecture as a response to three critical questions. They are: 1) Why is it necessary for the pastoral theologian to enter into dialogue with Buddhism on the question of suffering? This is what the present historical moment demands of us, especially in Australia and in the west at large. I will, very briefly, discuss the character of our historical situation and make it clear that I have taken Buddhism seriously not because it is fashionable to do so, but because it is very revealing of our cultural and religious situation today in Australia.

2) What do Buddhism and Christianity have to say about suffering? In answering this question I will critically evaluate the points at which these two traditions diverge and converge in their understanding of suffering so that a fruitful dialogue can take place.

3) What are the Buddhist and Christian resources that can help us deal with the question of suffering?

While the last century is responsible in many ways for having created the comforts we have today, unfortunately—along with advances in technology—it is responsible for creating destruction and devastation in a fashion that humanity had never experienced before. The two World Wars and subsequent politically motivated catastrophes have demonstrated that technology could be used not only to better life, but to cultivate and perpetuate greed and selfishness which could lead ultimately to its destruction.

Alongside these experiences we have also the development of the capital-based market economy in the western world. The irony about all these is not that such advances took place in the west, but that the ‘Christian faith’ which evolved as an inseparable partner of the western tradition provided much of the ‘cultural resources’ that were responsible for such events and developments. By ‘cultural resources’ I mean symbols, meanings, ideologies, and legitimacy that political actors use within a given situation to justify their collective actions, to recruit supporters, persuade bystanders, and neutralise opponents. Christian ‘cultural resources’, for instance, enabled political movements to harness capitalism of which the end results were: individualism, materialism and consumerism as we know and experience them today.

To add to these developments, we might recognise how, along with a personalised message of salvation, the problem of suffering has been made acutely personal and an ‘evil’ against which to fight. We hear this rhetoric even today and there is a strange irony about it.

Related to these events are two issues that I will mention only briefly so that we can immediately recognise how Buddhism can enlighten us on the question of suffering.

The first is our shattered naive belief in human progress which was promised by the

Page 3

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

ideals of the Enlightenment. Those ideals (optimism, rationality, and search for absolute knowledge) fostered the view that self is the agent of all knowledge and is, therefore the medium in which such ideals can materialise and flourish.2 While this placed a very high valuation on the inner self, the soul, if you like, this well-intended project collapsed because it was that very project that brought destruction upon humanity.

This experience came not only to end any belief in this permanent agent or substance known as self, or soul, but also the end of God who was seen as the linchpin of the grand project. Describing this experience, which we now call the ‘post-modern experience’, Mark C. Taylor, said that the post-modern experience ‘begins’ with the death of God and ‘ends’ with the death of ourselves.3 In social and cultural theories where these developments are theorised, the ideal of self came to be recognised as affirming not so much any thing like a soul, but fundamentally a social construct. So, many theorists came to see the self not as a permanent impression of God that resides in the human person and gives the human person a divine identity, but as something that could be constructed by the consumption of mass-produced objects and images. This self is not related to the eternal, but is related to what individuals either buy, or want to buy. As a direct 2

From even a cursory reading of literature that may be termed ‘western’ (e.g. writings of Plato, Aristotle and then the subsequent corpus of literature of the Common Era), irrespective of whether they are on the arts or the sciences, one cannot but notice the repeated use of terms such as soul, self, spirit, and mind. Soul, in the writings of Aristotle is used simply to refer to the form of the body. However, for Plato, most Christian theologians of the first millennium CE, Descartes and many others, soul is the immaterial ‘part’ of the body which is temporarily united with the materiel body. Swinburne, The Evolution of the Soul, Oxford, 1986. The word mind (which is sometimes used interchangeably for soul) is used in two senses. In the first sense mind is taken to refer to the self or subject that thinks, feels etc, and is thus related to an organism. In the second sense, mind is used as a generic term to refer to the metaphysical substance which pervades all individual minds. Ledger Wood, Dictionary of Philosophy, ed., Dagboert D. Runes, Philosophical Library Inc, NY, 1982, p.214. Then the term self, which although normally used interchangeably with ‘person’ lays more emphasis on the ‘inner’, or the psychological dimension of personality than on its outward bodily form. Hence a self is conceived to be the subject of consciousness. In philosophy, a distinction is drawn between substantive and nonsubstantive theories of self. While the former refers to self as a substance—physical or non-physical— the latter, is considered in terms of a mode of substance. Hence for Hume, who is very close to the Buddhist understanding, self is nothing but a bundle of different perceptions, and self, for him, belongs to the category of modes. See D. Parft, Reasons and Persons, Oxford, 1984; B. Williams, Problems of the Self, Cambridge, 1973. Lastly, the word Spirit (Gk. pneuma) really means breath. However, sometimes Greeks used the term to refer to air, as well as the breath of the cosmos. Aristotle believed that heat in pneuma caused the sensitive soul to be transmitted to an embryo, and that it was located near the heart in the mature organism, serving to mediate movement and perception. For the Stoics, spirit is a fine, subtle body forming the soul of the cosmos. It also helps in explaining growth, behavior and rationality. Descartes used the Latin equivalent spiritus from which we have the English word Spirit. Wilbur Long, in Runes (ed), p.316.

3 M.C. Taylor, Erring: A Postmodern A/ Theology, Chicago / London: The University of Chicago Press, 1984, p.6. The impact of this is more severely felt in western theology than in any other discipline. Taylor goes on to show that ‘concepts are not isolated entities’ but rather form ‘intricate networks or complex webs of interrelation and co-implication.’ He shows that the terms ‘God,’ ‘self,’ ‘history’ and ‘book’ make a network in Western theological reflection. The deconstruction of these terms, he claims, calls into question the entire network of concepts which have traditionally grounded theological reflection. Whereas in the modern form the death of God was expressed in humanistic atheism, in postmodern form, Taylor claims, it points to a ‘posthumanistic a/theology.’ He claims also that ‘the failure (or refusal) to come to terms with the radical implications of the death of God has made it impossible for most Western theology to approach postmodernism.’ Ibid. pp.7, 20.

Page 4

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

consequence of this, self and identity have become something for which one ‘shops’, and therefore, the questions concerning an authentic self have become irrelevant to the present.4 In sociological terms, the disappearance of the authentic self can be further explained with reference to Erving Goffman who is seen as an important precursor of the postmodern self. His particular sociological study of people has been in terms of how people perform in social situations and not in terms of what they are ‘inside.’ His important 1959 book, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life,5 in which he records the findings of his study of various institutions that make up social life (e.g. home, the workplace, high school), points out that people act out social roles under curtain circumstances, and thus life is essentially theatrical. He refers to people as actors and demonstrates the different ways in which they act ‘on stage’ and ‘back stage.’

Goffman seems to pay no attention to the modernist questions about whether the self was authentic or not. His only interest was in whether our various performances successfully promote our social survival. Hence the self ‘is not an organic thing that has a specific location, whose fundamental fate is to be born, to mature, and to die; it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and the characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited or discredited.’6 Thus, for Goffman, the self is seen only as a series of facades erected before different audiences. Although the facades seem to appear to emanate from some intrinsic self inside the social performer, the truth is the opposite—the self is a creation of the façade which arises from one’s interaction with other actors on the social stage.

Goffman’s thesis corresponds closely to the post-modern notion that it is not possible to see selves as independent individuals with essences which they then express in whatever ways they personally prefer—the notion of a real, permanent and deep self is, either lost, or replaced with a superficial collage of social constructs.

Thinkers such as Michel Foucault argue that the stable, unified self has always been an illusion. Foucault, having written extensively on elaborate histories of a diverse range of social institutions, argued that they were tied in to the complex operations of power in a given society. He claimed that this power was exercised through surveillance, monitoring and other forms of regulation of people’s lives.

Hence, for Foucault, the modern-day notion of the self is bound up with, and inseparable from, the workings of such structures and institutions. The direct impact of this theory is that none of us can claim to stand apart from the exercise of power.

In the light of this understanding, in his erudite and complex writings,7 Foucault adopts two terms—subject and discourse—and uses them in a quite abstract manner 4

See, for instance, Jameson, Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Durham: Duke University Press, 1999; The Cultural Turn: Selected Writings on the Postmodern, 1983-1998, London ; New York : Verso, 1998; Debord, Society of the Spectacle and Other Films, London : Rebel Press, 1992; Baudrillard, Simulations, tr. Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman, New York : Semiotext(e), c1983, and Mike Gane, (ed), Baudrillard live: Selected Interviews, London ; New York : Routledge, 1993.

5 E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Harmondsworth : Penguin, 1971.

6 Goffman, p.223.

7 Language, Counter-memory, Practice, trs. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, Ithaca, N.Y:

Page 5

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

to deconstruct the notion that there is a thinking and feeling, conscious individual self.

He uses the word subject to refer not to the individual and internal self who has a subjectivity or individual consciousness, but to the one who is given definitions only in the social relationships in which we live. In other words, the self is political, and knowledge of it is connected to power.8 Very briefly, I must say also that the phenomena of AI, computer simulations, and the hybrids of humans and machines have further removed the relevance of an authentic self.9 I wanted to highlight these major developments in the western world over a period of a century to say aloud that those developments have not only compounded the situation we are in today, but more importantly, have caused us to view suffering from a very different and a subjective standpoint.

By and large, the reason for this is the way in which suffering is understood within the Christian tradition which significantly influenced the shaping of the western civilisation since the 3rd century CE. The New Testament, which is the source of the Christian/western tradition, does not discuss why suffering exists in the world. In the Gospel narratives only Jewish attitudes emerge implicitly. That is, suffering is due to a punishment or retribution for sin.

I am of the strong opinion that this relationship between sin and suffering has terribly confused and compounded a clear understanding of what sin is and what suffering is.

This confusion is like when, as we say sometimes, we are not sure whether something is Arthur or Martha.

At this point it is important to highlight how the views of two church Fathers on the presence of suffering have greatly influenced the post-New Testament Christian understandings of suffering. The first is St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) who claimed that humanity at creation was infinitely perfect and suffering was the result of the Fall. The second is Irenaeus (c. 130- c.202 CE) who suggested that humanity was created imperfect and immature and that humanity must attain perfection through a

Cornell University Press, 1977; The Politics of Truth, Sylvère Lotringer & Lysa Hochroth (eds), New York : Semiotext(e), 1997; Technologies of the self, Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, Patrick H. Hutton (eds), Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press, 1988.

8 Foucault, Power/Knowledge, Colin Gordon (ed), Brighton, Sussex : Harvester Press, 1980.

9 Marge Piercy presents an alarming scenario in her fascinating novel: He, She or It. In describing human beings with extensive computerised parts, she implies the possibility of obscuring the boundary between human beings and robots with software which has been engineered to understand humans.

Knopf: New York, 1991. Underlining the profound cultural changes which the information technology has introduced, Howard Rheingold highlights the disembodiment which may take place as a result of techno-sex. He speculates about its effects on society and its conventional morality, and on the social rituals and codes which exist to enforce that morality. Rheingold asks: ‘Is disembodiment the ultimate sexual revolution and/or the first step toward abandoning our bodies?’ Furthermore, he questions whether virtual reality would become a form of electronic LSD—the ‘plug-in drug’ that ‘requires the average American abuser to consume more than seven hours a day, to the profit of those who won the battle for control of the gateway.’ The far reaching impact of these new technologies, as Rheingold underlines, is that ‘people will use cyberspace to get out of their minds as well as their bodies.’ Virtual Reality, London: Secker & Warburg, 1991, pp.352, 255, 356.

Page 6

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

process of becoming in the Maker’s plan. In that, Irenaeus saw suffering as a necessary condition for humanity’s development.

In the light of all these developments in the west, there is an irony about the influence of Buddhism in the west at large. The message of Lord Buddha is seen firstly as a cure for the unbearable saturation of materialism, consumerism and individualism we experience today, secondly, as the source of simple and practical answers to these ills and thirdly, as a religious tradition that provides a guide through life without placing any metaphysical importance on either self or God. We must understand all these issues in order to be able to enter into dialogue with Buddhism and appreciate its insights.

Now, with this broad background, let us ask what Buddhism says suffering is.10 The Buddhist teaching concerning suffering is captured in the Four Noble Truths. The first two truths deal with the fact and the cause of suffering and the other two truths deal with the remedy for suffering and its cessation. Here is my translation of what Buddha supposedly said.

Now this, O Bhikkhus, is the Noble Truth of Dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, sickness is dukkha, dissociation from the loved is dukkha, not to get what one wants is dukkha: in short the five Aggregates (categories/heaps/bundles) resulted/affected by clinging/attachment are dukkha.

There is this Noble Truth of Dukkha: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard before.

This Noble Truth must be penetrated by fully understanding dukkha: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard before.11 The Pali word, du-kkha means difficult to endure, incapable of satisfying, always changing, incapable of truly fulfilling us or making us happy. It means also unease, anxiety, collective-anxiety, physical and emotional pain, and ‘ill’ in the sense of its use in Old English. However, the most popular translation is ‘suffering’.

Without spending too much time on the semantics of the word dukkha, let me say that this truth is not about anything metaphysical. It is not even an ‘absolute’ in the sense we call something, a concept, an absolute. In the same way that dukkha is not an absolute, it is also not personal in the sense that one could say: ‘I suffer’. In spite of all the aches and pains one could experience, they are also not what dukkha means. It is also not the kind of suffering and pain a person, the Devil or even God could inflict upon humanity. Dukkha is the truth about the intrinsic value of all phenomena that are 10

Buddhism, while it has a profound philosophy of its own, is not a metaphysical system of belief. In many respects, the Theravada School especially claims to be fundamentally practical, and the teachings are said to be testable by any person if the right effort is made. It denies, as Buddha himself did, that its teaching has been handed down by a ‘divine revelation.’ Buddha’s claim was that, as a result of his own effort, an ‘ancient path’ which prescribes the means of salvation from Dukkha— suffering and misery of all forms—was rediscovered.

11 Samyutta Nikaya LVI, 11.

Page 7

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

subject to change, and therefore impermanent and without any permanent substance.

Therefore, all phenomena are stricken with dukkha.

Having said that, we come to the most difficult part to comprehend and accept. That is, we, you and I, are also nothing but manifestations of these dukkha-laden phenomena. What do I mean by ‘manifestation’? I mean that the human person is made up of five aggregates (khandha), sometimes translated as heaps.

They are: 1) Name or Mind (nama) MATTER OR BODY (rupa) Manifestation of fleeting mental states Manifestation of forces & qualities Arising (uppada), static or Development (thiti) & Dissolution (banga) Element of Extension (the Substratum of matter) 2) Sensations (vedana) feelings associated with seeing, Combined with the derivative of colour hearing, smelling, tasting, bodily impressions and mental impressions (feelings arising from visual contact) 3) Perceptions (sanna) Element of cohesion (acts as memory of mental and sense Combined with the derivative of objects) odour 4) Mental Formations (samkhara) /Volitional Activities All mental and karmic formations 5) Consciousness (vinnana) Connected to the three mental groups and furnishes the bare cognition of the object.

Element of Heat Combined with the derivative of taste Element of Motion Combined with the derivative of nutritive essence

These make the individual and nothing more and nothing less. What this description of ‘personality’ attempts to convey is that we—like all the constituents, the five heaps—are nothing but phenomena in constant flux (santana). Therefore to believe in a permanent individual is not only a delusion but the very reason to experience suffering. So Buddha said: Now this, O Bhikkhus, is the Noble Truth of the Cause for Dukkha: It is the craving which produces re-birth, accompanied by passionate clinging (relish and lust), relishing this and that (life): It is the craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being, craving for not-being…

This is this Noble Truth of the Origin of Dukkha: such was the vision, insight, wisdom, knowing and light that arose in me about things not heard before.12 12

Samyutta Nikaya LVI, 11.

Page 8

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

A more popular expression of this is to say that Mara (the evil one) has diverted us from our real selves and has tied us to his realm of sensual attachments (kamupanana), that is clinging to attractive and desirable sense objects; creating in us a wanting to find satisfaction in colours and shapes, sounds, odours, tastes, tactile objects, or mental images, objects past, present, or future that arise in the mind, and correspond to material objects either in the world outside or within the body, or which are just imaginings. We instinctively find pleasure, enchantment, delight through the six kinds of sense objects that induce delight and enchantment in the mind perceiving them.

We suffer not only because of sensual attachments, but also because of our attachment to opinions (ditthupadana); clinging to views and opinions, attachment to rites and rituals (slabbatupadana); clinging to meaningless traditional practices that have been thoughtlessly handed down and so on. All these contribute to the attachment to the idea of selfhood (attavadupadana), to the wrong belief of ‘me and mine.’

This is one reason why the Buddha taught that attachment to the self-idea is the root cause of all suffering. This attachment is the source and basis of life; at the same time it is the source and basis of suffering in all its forms. This means the body and mind (five aggregates) which are clung to are suffering. Knowledge of the source and basis of life and of suffering is to be considered the most profound and most penetrating knowledge, since it puts us in a position to give up unskilful clinging completely.

There are three themes that emerge from what we have been discussing. They are: impermanence, dukkha, and no-self or no-soul. In Buddhism these three are known as the three characteristics of existence. Understanding them is seen as the point at which one is able to eliminate attachment and attain the state of nibbana (nirvana in Sanskrit) which means the state in which the turmoil of the aggregates is put to rest which results in the cessation of dukkha. So the remainder of the Noble Truths, the third and the fourth, talk about nibbana and the path to that state which is known as the Eightfold Path: Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Exertion, Right Attentiveness, Right Concentration, Right Aspiration and Right Understanding.

The Eightfold Path leads one gradually on the paths of morality, concentration and finally wisdom that enlightens one to the truth about life.

Besides the sublime nature of the teaching, the tremendous value I see in the Buddhist understanding of dukkha is the ability which it gives us to renounce our false view of the ‘individual.’ Now, at this point you must understand me clearly. Neither Buddhism nor I deny the empirical reality we call the personality or the individual (pudgala).13 What it helps us to both understand and believe is that this idea of the ‘I’ as permanent is a delusion and the precursor to suffering.

13

The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together.

This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future—had been wrongly understood as the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions. K.N. Jayatilleke, The Message of Buddha, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1975.

Page 9

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

This is the very appealing aspect of Buddhist teaching in the west today. It is also the major point at which Buddhism and Christianity first seem to diverge but it is also the point at which they could converge if we critically engage in ascertaining what Buddhism is really denying. Is it denying the ‘self’ in the contemporary sense in the west or is it negating a permanent self (atta)14 in an ultimate way?

At this stage we must acknowledge that in its evolution, the idea of no-self (anatta), has come to a somewhat misleading conclusion which, unfortunately, has been made quasi-canonical in the later development of the Buddhist tradition and it is now propagated by learned teachers of Buddhism.15 That conclusion is the negation of the self in an ultimate sense.16 For the whole period of my academic life I have read through all of the Buddhist Scriptures and have concluded that the ultimate denial of the self cannot be conclusively established within the entire Buddhist Canon and tradition.17 Before we deal with this apparent divergence, at this critical point I must turn to the Christian perspectives on suffering. As I said earlier, there is no ‘original’ teaching in the Christian tradition as to why suffering exists—rather, there is an allusion to the Jewish understanding of suffering’s relationship to sin and also to the devil.18 I think the Jewish tradition borrowed these ideas from the Zoroastrian tradition in Persia which explained suffering as a result of the dualism of good and evil.19 So it is possible that the understanding of the cause for suffering which Christians have inherited is third hand. Thus, in the Christian tradition, we do not even have an answer to the question of why God allows suffering (Rom. 11:33-36).

14

Note that the Pali word for self (atta) is also the word for soul.

What seems to be denied is the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (paramatma). Some Buddhist scholars argue that if the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of a person, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall.

Besides, one cannot understand why different ‘souls’ are so variously constituted at the outset. See Piyadassi, Buddha’s Ancient Path, UK: Rider & Company, 1964.

16 Mind, (manas, which can also be translated as self and consciousness) Buddhists claim, is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases—arising or genesis (uppada), static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought- moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy—all the indelibly recorded impressions—to its successor.

Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is, therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption.

The subsequent thought-moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor – since that which goes to make it up is not identical—nor entirely another—being the same continuity of kamma energy.

Here there is no identical being, but there is an identity in process. Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thoughtmoment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is continuous momentary rebirths without a soul.

17 For instance, there is no mention of the doctrine of self in the Brahmajala sutta which outlines all the heresies. Then, the well-known Anattalakkhana-sutta (Samy Nikkaya, iii, 66) which was the second discourse of Lord Buddha preached to the first five disciples merely denies that the five aggregates were atman or self. The sutta of the simile of the snake (Majjhima Nikkaya, I, 133) too argues against a self being found in the five aggregates.

18 See John Bowker, Problems of Suffering in Religions of the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1970] 1977, p. 50.

19 See Ibid., p. 52.

15

Page 10

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

What is interesting to note though, is that there is a very clear acknowledgment in Jesus’ life that suffering is real and is intrinsic to all phenomena of the world. We find this reflected throughout the New Testament, especially in St. Paul’s words: ‘For we know that the whole creation groans and labours with birth pangs together until now’ (Romans 8:22).

In the Gospels, both in the Synoptics and in John’s Gospel we have a very clear presentation of suffering as a reality which Jesus faced—but by which he was not defeated.20 The Passion of Jesus features very strongly in the Synoptics as a reality through which Jesus courageously lived from the beginning to the end of his ministry.

In saying that we must acknowledge also that all of the Gospels were written with the resurrection experience of Christ in view and therefore that they comment on suffering as real, yet defeated. The reality of suffering is strongly acknowledged in the temptations of Jesus, and in his healing of people with physical and spiritual ailments as well as people who supposedly had been possessed by evil spirits. Jesus’ victory over suffering is clearly expressed in several stories of his raising dead people to life and—in an ultimate sense—in his own resurrection.

All these explicitly demonstrate that the extremity of suffering in no way defeats the possibility of God. It fundamentally means, as exemplified in the life of Jesus, an intimate relationship with God which enables the Christian to endure suffering without losing God in the experience. This strength to endure, the whole of New Testament is unanimous in asserting, comes from the Christian’s experience of the risen Christ. Through that experience a Christian responds to suffering with agape.

Having shown the perspectives on suffering which the Christian tradition offers, I must make a special comment on what we may take as being the central message of the Jesus of the synoptic gospels and see whether that could establish a point of convergence with the Buddhist notion of no-self.

It seems quite clear that the central message of Jesus is concerned not so much with suffering but with searching for the Kingdom of God. To that extent he spoke about its centrality over and against riches, petty material concerns—personal or otherwise—binding rituals and religious regulations. He spoke against empty piety and any worth attached to greed and individualistic aspirations. His point was the seeking of the Kingdom that he said is within oneself. In recommending that noblest path he did not say that it would be easy. He highlighted the necessity to suffer, to carry the cross, if one is to follow him.

Combining Jesus’ emphasis on the necessity to find the Kingdom within with the discourses in John’s gospel in which Jesus invites his followers to participate or unite with God in exactly the same way in which he participates in the Father, I want to suggest the following: Jesus’ message is fundamentally to realise the ‘More’ in oneself which is the noblest pursuit in life. In the mystical language of St. John (and also St. Paul) it is the highest achievement of every person which is being made possible in Christ. While St. John speaks about this possibility in terms of being one with the Father, St. Paul speaks 20

See Ibid., p. 46.

Page 11

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

about the spirit’s union with God’s Spirit and the possibilities the spirit has in this relationship to overcome the turmoil and the suffering of both soma and sarx, body and ‘flesh.’ Therefore, in all scriptural passages there is the implicit and explicit message to-Become-More by living. Along with the eminent Buddhist scholar Rhys Davids, I like to strongly argue that the message to-Become-More was also the matrix from which Buddha’s original teaching preceded, 21 and converge the two apparent points of divergence.

It is clear that at the time of Buddha the Hindu tradition had evolved from the Vedas through the Brahmanas to the Upanishads in which a progressive revelation of a More in the human person was affirmed. That pursuit of the More in the human person was seen as the Way leading to Brahman, the Ultimate. In the attempt to demonstrate what kind of a life may result from this pursuit, Buddhism sprang to birth as an expansion of the Brahmanic teaching. So I find it very difficult to accept the view that the total negation of the self was what the Buddha himself taught. What is obvious, however, is that Buddhism places a strong emphasis on the dynamic process of this becoming that affirms the Hindu static notion of the ultimate union with the Divine. As a result of Buddhism’s substituting the dynamic for the static its emphasis shifted from the prominence of the self to Dhamma. So to this day we have the practice of walking according to the Dhamma as the ultimate pursuit of every Buddhist.

Now, to bring my lecture to a close I must briefly outline the enlightening perspectives which this discussion on suffering has brought to the fore. I want to present them not as concluding remarks, but as observations to further pursue the question of suffering.

•

The teaching of Buddhism regarding no-self/soul is not compatible with the loss of self (and identity) in contemporary society. Buddhism denies only the deluded understanding of self which alone is the cause of suffering.

•

The apparent negation of the ultimate self in the Buddhist tradition must be critically assessed and properly understood. In this respect, the Christian tradition has been the corrective of the Buddhist notion of self. A properly understood Buddhist notion of the self must be the corrective of what the Christian tradition has made of the ultimate self.

•

God is not to be blamed for suffering. Suffering is not punishment or retribution for sin.

•

Suffering is real and is universal and intrinsic to all conditioned phenomena— they are impermanent and without substance. Knowing this gives suffering transformative power. Therein lies the quest for the ‘More’—the potentiality of humanity. It entails extinguishing the desire/lust to cling (to the five aggregates and their enchantment).

•

The message of the ‘Becoming More’ is captured in Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God and the Buddha’s teaching of the Dhamma. The pursuit and the

21

See Outlines of Buddhism, London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., [1938], New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, 1978, pp. 8-11ff.

Page 12

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

realisation of the Kingdom and the Dhamma alone are noble and sublime. These represent the Way — the way leading to the cessation of suffering, nibbana, salvation.

•

The future of humanity and the world may depend on Christianity’s exploring these sublime truths in dialogue with ‘other’ religious traditions. They are the untraversed frontiers in Christian theology and inter-faith religious thought.

In all these frontier endeavours it is possible that we shall become Way-knowers, Way-witters, and Way-masters of the spiritual quest for self. Therein alone suffering will be overcome and the task of pastoral theology will be fulfilled.

Page 13

Buddhist and Christian Perspectives on Human Suffering

October 2002

Trinity Papers: This paper represents the twenty-third in a series published from time to time by Trinity College which focus upon broad issues facing the community in such areas as education, ethics, history, politics, and science.

It is the extended and slightly revised version of the Noel Carter Lecture for 2002 delivered by Rev Dr Ruwan Palapathwala on 30 October 2002.

Further Copies: Copies of this and other Trinity Papers are available upon request from: Tutorial Office Trinity College Royal Parade Parkville VIC 3052 Australia Telephone: 03 9348 7100 Facsimile: 03 9348 7610 Email: enquiries@trinity.unimelb.edu.au Trinity Papers can also be found on the website at: www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/publications/papers/ About the Author: Rev Dr Palapathwala’s initial study was in Sri Lanka, before undertaking doctoral work on Paul Tillich and Buddhism at the Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Ruwan has particular interests in the Theology of Paul Tillich, Theravada Buddhism, Asian religious thought, inter-faith dialogue and adult education. He has taught Systematic Theology at the Bible College of New Zealand, and Theravada Buddhism and Asian Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.

Copyright © Ruwan Palapathwala 2003

Page 14