Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:28:07.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self and Suffering: Deconstruction and Reflexive Definition in Buddhism and Christianity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Philip A. Mellor
Philip A. Mellor
Affiliation:
Liverpool Institute of High Education, Liverpool
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a study of the religious significance of food to medieval woman, Caroline Walker Bynum argues that the ascetic practices embraced by these women are signs of a commitment to explore the religious potentialities of the body rather than being indications of a hostile attitude to the flesh. She comments that belief in the ‘salvific potential of suffering flesh (both our's and God's)’ differentiates Christianity from other world religions, since it is a ‘characteristically Christian idea that the bodily suffering of one person can be substituted for the suffering of another through prayer, purgatory, vicarious communion etc….’ In the discussion which follows I shall attempt to draw out this differentiating characteristic in a comparative study of Christian and Buddhist concepts of, and attitudes to, suffering. I shall suggest that the divergent orientations which structure the religious treatment of this issue are related not only to radically opposing conceptions of the religious ‘path’, but also to different understandings of ‘self’. Although the categories ‘self’ and ‘suffering’ are intimately related in each context, it is my contention that in the Christian context the religious meaning of life becomes apparent to the individual in so far as the content of self is defined progressively in the reflexive encounter with the ‘Other’ (God), an encounter which can be facilitated through suffering. In a Buddhist context, on the other hand, it is precisely such a reflexivity (between self and ‘others’ if not the ‘Other’) which is understood to create and reproduce both self and suffering, and from which the Buddhist desires liberation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 1991 , pp. 49 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Bynum, C. W., Holy Feast and Holy Fast, The Religious Significance of Food to Medieval Women (London: University of California Press, 1987), p. 418Google Scholar n. In the course of my discussion I shall consider the medieval practices which are the focus of Bynam's study as indicative of a peculiarly Christian understanding of the relationship between self, suffering and the body. However, it is not my intention to suggest that this is the only Christian position on these subjects. The conflict between Platonic and Aristotelian influences on Christianity, in relation to the soul/body dichotomy, is only one among many such divergences attention could be drawn to.

2 von Balthasar, H. U., ‘Meditation (I): Differences between Eastern and Christian Meditation’, The Von Balthasar Reader, ed. Kehl, Medard, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), pp. 334–5.Google Scholar

3 Ling, T., The Buddha, Buddhist Civilisation in India and Ceylon, (London: Temple Smith, 1973), p. 94Google Scholar: ‘Briefly, the human situation is seen as one in which, because of belief in self (atta or atman), men are vulnerable to the process of ageing, decay and dying and hence to sorrow. The word translated as sorrow (dukkha) in fact carries a much deeper and stronger connotation than the English word, and implies a sense of the utter unsatisfactoriness, weariness and pain of mortal existence.’

4 Murti, T. R. V., The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, A Study of the Madhyamika System (Unwin Paper-backs, London, 1980), p. 260.Google Scholar

5 Ling, , op. cit., p. 62.Google Scholar

6 Carrithers, M., ‘An Alternative Social History of the Self’, The Category of the Person, eds. Carrithers, M., Collins, S., Lukes, S., (Cambridge, C.U.P., 1985), p. 245.Google Scholar

7 An apparent exception to this, the sacrifice of the body in gCod practice which I shall consider towards the end of this discussion, does not effectively undermine my argument: the Christian emphasis on self-sacrifice is far removed from the indifference to body which gCod practice is intended to signify.

8 Ling, , op. cit., p. 110.Google Scholar

9 Murti, , op. cit., p. 261.Google Scholar

10 Collins, , Selfless Persons, Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism (Cambridge: C.U.P., 1982), pp. 191–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Ibid, p. 192, cf. Robinson, R., The Buddhist Religion (California, 1970), p. 29.Google Scholar

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Giddens, A., The Constitution of Society, Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Polity Press, 1984), pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

15 Weber, M., The Religion of India, The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, translated by Gerth, H. H. and Martindale, D., (New York: Free Press 1958).Google Scholar

16 Balthasar, von, op. cit. p. 335.Google Scholar

17 Ibid. p. 336.

18 McDade, J., ‘Beauty's Ghost in the Body’, The Way Supplement, Spirituality and the Artist, Essays in Honour of Gerard Manley Hopkins lxvi (1989), 18–19.Google Scholar

19 ‘The constitution of the “I” comes about only via the “discourse of the Other” – that is, through the acquisition of language – but the “I” has to be related to the body as the sphere of action. The term “I” is in linguistic terms a “shifter”: the contextuality of social “positioning” determines who is an “I” in any situation of talk…An agent who has mastered the use of “I”, as Mead says, has also mastered the use of “me” – but only via the concomitant mastery of a syntactically differentiated language. For I have to know that I am an “I” when I speak to “you”, but that you are an “I” when you speak to “me”, and that I am a “you” when you speak to me – and so on’, Giddens, , op. cit. p. 43.Google Scholar

20 Von Balthasar, ‘Meditation (II): Attempt at an Integration of Eastern and Western Meditation’, Kehl, , op. cit. p. 338. Hence,Google Scholar

21 Ibid. p. 339.

22 Ibid. p. 342.

23 Ibid.

24 McDade, , op. cit. 24.Google Scholar

25 Bynum, , op. cit. (1987).Google Scholar

26 Bynum, C. W., ‘The Female Body and Religious Practice in the Later Middle Ages’, Fragments for a History of the Human Body, Pt. 1, Feher, Michel, Naddaff, Ramona, Tazi, Nachia (eds.), (New York: Zone, 1989), p. 167.Google Scholar

27 Bynum, , op. cit. (1987), p. 249.Google Scholar

28 Bynum, , op, cit. (1989), p. 163.Google Scholar

29 Ibid. p. 166.

30 Ibid. p. 163.

31 Ibid. p. 170.

32 Bynum, , op. cit. (1987), p. 246.Google Scholar

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid. p. 250.

35 Ibid. p. 175.

36 Ibid. p. 294.

37 Ibid. p. 250.

38 Bynum, , Jesus as Mother, Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (London: University of California Press, 1982).Google Scholar

39 Paul, , Women in Buddhism, Images of the Feminine in the Mahayana Tradition (London: University of California Press, 1985), p. 61.Google Scholar

40 Samuel, , ‘The By in Buddhist and Hindu Tantra: Some Notes’, Religion, xix (1989), 199.Google Scholar

41 Ibid. p. 206.

42 Paul, , op. cit. p. 60.Google Scholar

43 Stott, , ‘Offering the Body: the Practice of gCod in Tibetan Buddhism’, Religion, xix (1989), 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Ibid. p. 222.

45 Ibid. p. 223.

46 Ibid. p. 223.

47 Ibid. p. 224.

48 Ibid.

49 Bynum, , op cit. (1982).Google Scholar However, Bynum also argues that this new attention to self did not entail the ‘loss of community’. In fact, she argues that the increased interest in individuation and particularity which encouraged the attention to self also encouraged a new interest in different types of groups, social forms, structures and types.