Christianity and Buddhism developed separately from each
without any possibilities of one influencing or affecting the other. Tillich
had the chance to not only converse with Zen Buddhism scholars in the U.S. but
also the chance to visit Japan for two months in a “intellectual exchange”
(Boss, 262). There are some fundamental differences, as one could guess,
between Christianity and Buddhism. Aside from the obvious being and nonbeing,
these differences rested on the principle of participation and the principle of
identity for Tillich. “One participates, as an individual human being, in the
Kingdom of God. One is identical with everything that is in Nirvana” (Tillich,
68). A relationship between self and God is not really possible in Buddhism due
to everything and everyone being
identical while everyone and
everything could not participate in the ultimate in Buddhism as “I am thou”
(Boss, 257). Boss italicized on purpose to highlight the different focus
between the two religions and made for a clear contrast. It is important to
note that the “I” does not cancel out the “thou” in Buddhism. “Any exclusively
undifferentiated non-duality in which everything is reduced to a sheer sameness
is branded a false sameness” (Tillich, 142). Tillich admitted having trouble
understanding “how the individual is simultaneously preserved and not preserved”
(Tillich, 148). This contrast between the Western and Eastern religions still
essentially focuses on the same question of existence. One focuses on the
individual and through the individual one finds existence. The other focuses on
everything else but the individual and through nonbeing one will exist.
Boss, Marc. Tillich in dialogue with Japanese Buddhism.
Edited by Re Manning, Russell. The Cambridge Companion to Paul Tillich.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Tillich, Paul. Christianity and the Encounter of the World
Religions. New York City: Columbia University Press, 1963.
This is really interesting here, and very pertinent to your research into Tillich and a contemporary "global" religion. That is, if that is still your topic. I like how your stress the differences that are fundamental, those that cannot be changed, and how they provide the biggest religious differences instead of cultural or ethnic ones.
ReplyDeleteIt still is. I'm not sure whether culture shaped these religions or vice versa. I suppose to some degree religion is culture. The fundamental philosophy is different so Tillich's goal of systematizing religion does not seem possible.
DeleteIt's interesting to see the contrast in the roles of the individual. One is central, while the other 'is' only because of everything else. Would it be right to say the conception of the individual according to Buddhism is more contingent? Kind of a blip in the map of existence? Whereas the Christian is more likely to think of the world being dependent on oneself? If so this would mean a very different conception of existence. Or just different aspects of that same existence? Are you trying, or does Tillich try, to reconcile these approaches?
ReplyDeleteI suppose I'm just asking for a clarification of the statement, "This contrast between the Western and Eastern religions still essentially focuses on the same question of existence." Is the question of existence the question of the relationship between Being and the individual? Or Being and beings? That's a big question, but it may be something to consider going forward.
My argument is that both are talking about the same subject even though the interpretations are fundamentally different. I suppose since the concepts are fundamentally different, one could say that they aren't really talking about the same subject.
DeleteFor Tillich, it's a participation in Being (God) by the individual. God is not a being among beings, even if one thinks of him as the ultimate being because that reduces God to an object. God as an object does not exist, God is existence. The "relationship" is the participation. For Shinto Buddhists, the "relationship" is identity. Not being is being as being an individual is trying to be something one is not. I think.. To be honest, I'm pretty westernized and have limited knowledge of Buddhism. It's difficult for me to truly understand "how the individual is simultaneously preserved and not preserved" in Buddhism also. I will research some more and get back to you.
These are Tillich's views--but how would he explain Christian mysticism--the idea that God dwells within and is manifest within?
ReplyDeleteI think Tillich would agree that part of the equation is God is manifested within. God is being, and the participation in being means being an authentic self. The courage to discovering and maintaining self-identity is part of "being". I don't know anything about Christian mysticism, so from the little bit I just read of Bernard McGinn's writings on Wikipedia it seems that Christian mysticism still views God as a being, and focuses on personal religious experiences that transforms the individual rather than the community life. Tillich would disagree with the concept of a miraculous transformation due to an act of God because God does not exist. He also thinks being an individual is to know oneself through the self and the community. In other words, to know both sides of the coin. A self who bends the status quo to accommodate one's own religious beliefs is extreme and neurotic. Also, the emphasis on experience seems to mean the de-emphasis on rational thought, which is another instance of being extreme and neurotic, as both the conscious and unconscious are parts of the human personality. Is this a correct view of Christian mysticism?
Delete