TOTAL KENOSIS, TRUE SHUNYATA, and THE PLEROTIC SELF of THOMAS MERTON and ABE MASAO

JOE LENCIONI “...we are invited to forget ourselves on purpose, cast our awful solemnity to the winds and join in the general dance.”

­Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION...... 1

CHAPTER 1: THOMAS MERTON AND THE SELF ...... 8

MERTON’S INFLUENCES ...... 8

IMPORTANCE OF THE SELF ...... 11

MERTON’S SELF ...... 13 False Self ...... 13 Self­identity ...... 14 Self­will...... 16 Arising of the False Self ...... 17 True Self...... 19 Body and Soul...... 22 Poverty ...... 23 Finding the True Self...... 25

CHAPTER 2: ABE MASAO AND THE SELF...... 28

ABE’S INFLUENCES...... 28

IMPORTANCE OF THE SELF ...... 30

ABE’S SELF ...... 32 Nihilism Beyond Religion ...... 32 The Self...... 35 Self­Centeredness...... 36 True Self...... 37 Kenosis...... 37 Shunyata ...... 40

CHAPTER 3: MERTON AND ABE IN DIALOGUE ...... 44

FUNCTION OF THE SELF...... 44

TOTAL KENOSIS AND TRUE SHUNYATA...... 48

PLEROTIC SELF...... 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 52 INTRODUCTION

Poet, artist, writer, Trappist monk, and mystic, Thomas Merton was born in 1915 in France and died in Bangkok, Thailand in 1968 of accidental electrocution at the age of

53. Although he was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, Merton left a large body of writing about such topics as contemplation, holiness, Zen, and mysticism. He communicated with eastern thinkers and in 1968 visited Asia despite being a contemplative monk in a Trappist monastery. Clearly, Merton was a prolific writer who broke free of convention in his daily life. This is what first interested me in him; Merton seemed to be a rare kind of person who uniquely combined Buddhist thought and practice with Catholicism.

Merton had a unique perspective on life that, while remaining rooted in

Catholicism, incorporated ideas native to eastern traditions. 1 Various Catholic thinkers in the past had similarly expressed their faith in an almost Zen­like way, but Thomas

Merton did so during a “period of rapid economic, cultural, and religious transition,” and has been called a modern prophetic religious writer.2 Through his turn toward the East,

Merton’s inquisitive mind developed an even greater cultural and spiritual sensibility.

Another fascinating modern group of thinkers is the Kyoto School of Philosophy, comprised of, among other Buddhist philosophers such as Abe Masao (b. 1915), three central figures: Nishida Kitarō (1870­1945), Tanabe Hajime (1885­1962), and Nishitani

Keiji (1900­1990). 3 Catholic theologian, James W. Heisig, who is Professor and

Permanent Research Fellow at Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture in Nyoga,

1 Chalmers MacCormick, “Zen Catholicism of Thomas Merton,” 802. 2 Paul Bernadicou, “The Eastward Turn of Thomas Merton,” 352. 3 James W. Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness, 3­5.

1 Japan, refers to the Kyoto school as “Japan’s first sustained and original contribution to western philosophical thought” from “a distinctively eastern perspective.” 4 Of the school’s thinkers, Abe Masao has been called a leading figure in the Buddhist­Christian dialogue who is “attempting to work out of both camps.” 5 Therefore, Kyoto Philosophy was, in some respects, a bridge from eastern thinking to western philosophy.

Additionally, according to the web site for the Thomas Merton Center, Merton had corresponded with Keiji Nishitani, D.T. Suzuki, Abe Masao, whom he quotes in his

Asian Journal, and other Zen scholars. 6 Perhaps Merton recognized something in the

Kyoto Philosophy that called to him in his quest for bringing the East to the West.

Comparing the two is important because they both have pushed the limits of their respective traditions while representing the depth of their respective traditions. Therefore, this is a comparison of segments of Christianity and Buddhism that are useful for comparing with the rest of their respective traditions. Ultimately, this helps one learn about and relate to others, breaking down the barriers of “otherness” caused by fear and hatred. Furthermore, it elucidates a basis for recognizing commonalities in praxis that promotes not just a tolerance but an embracing of other traditions and cultures as exemplified in the ideal practitioners of these traditions. Unfortunately, despite their apparent similarity in function—bridging the East and the West—Thomas Merton and the Kyoto thinkers rarely communicated with each other. Furthermore, Merton has not frequently cited the Kyoto thinkers in his writing and few scholars have compared

4 Ibid., 3. 5 Stephen Morris, “Buddhism and Christianity: The Common Ground,” 89. 6 The Thomas Merton Center is the official repository of Merton’s manuscripts, letters, journals, tapes, drawings, photographs, and memorabilia located at Bellarmine University in Kentucky. Thomas Merton, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 17; “Thomas Merton Center” 2003.

2 Merton and the Kyoto school. Nevertheless, there are enough similarities to provide a basis for comparison.

The questions that are being asked about Merton in connection with so­called eastern topics usually deal with Buddhism, Zen, or the Far East in general. This easily leads to oversimplifications and generalizations because it is difficult to accurately portray the details of such vast traditions. This is usually not an issue for most. However, when involved in philosophical discourse, oversimplification creates unnecessary ambiguity and confusion.

Consider first the entirety of Christianity which exhibits a great diversity of teachings ranging from Catholicism to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Even individual denominations within Christianity can have diverse interpretations and practices. For example, current­day American Catholic parishes do not always practice what Rome proclaims, such as San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer parish in which most of the parishioners are homosexual. Traditionally, “official Catholic teaching has consistently judged all homosexual acts as at once unnatural and gravely sinful,” forcing gays who choose to practice Catholicism either to hide their sexuality or to find a more accepting church. 7 Furthermore, all Christian denominations have varying stances on nearly any issue that faces the church. The number of denominations is testimony to the diversity of interpretation within Christianity.

Also consider the entirety of Buddhism which, for example, exhibits the division between the Mahayana and Theravada (Hinayana) traditions. Here, one tradition places more emphasis on conversion and social action while the other tradition focuses more on

7 Charles R. Morris, American Catholic, 352; Richard P. McBrien, Catholicism: New Edition, 995.

3 contemplation. 8 Yet still, this is how Mahayana has traditionally portrayed their distinction and there is a growing body of research that criticizes this distinction as over simplistic. However, even within the Mahayana tradition there are further differences such as the dramatic difference between a belief in salvation through other­power as in

Pure Land Buddhism and a belief in salvation through self­power as in Zen Buddhism. 9

Because Christianity and Buddhism are very diverse, comparing anything such as the ideas of Thomas Merton to either tradition as a whole is very difficult. As stated above, this issue can easily be overlooked. Partially to avoid the overgeneralization of a tradition, I will investigate the concept of self as it is manifest in Merton’s writing in comparison to the same concept in Abe Masao’s writing. According to H.C. Steyn, the self was “undoubtedly the subject on which [Merton] wrote the most.” 10 Merton’s notion of the self was influenced by Zen and “by the end of his life his theories on the self could be expressed in both Zen and Christian terms.” 11 Likewise, Abe Masao has written extensively on the concept of the self such as in Zen and Comparative Studies and

Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue.

When one relates to another, both benefit because people are easily brought closer by their similarities. In a time when misunderstandings about other cultures can lead to fear and misplaced anger, relating to others is increasingly important. However, by speaking with people one ascertains that it is easy for many Christians in America to know little about both either the practices or the more substantial internals of other faiths.

8 I use the word conversion not to imply a negative connotation, but rather out of a lack for a more concise way of capturing the practices of the Mahayana tradition. Also note that this is not meant to imply that which evangelism or witnessing may imply in Christian traditions. 9 Salvation here is not meant to imply salvation in a Christian context of heaven and God, but rather it should be read more generally. 10 Steyn, 8. 11 Ibid.

4 These people often have impressions of these cultures and faiths most likely based on the things they hear and see on television and the Internet that do not necessarily reflect the complete truth. Abe Masao agrees, stating that contrary to the advancement of technology and international communication, “we know very little about the inner meaning of spiritual and religious traditions not our own.” 12 Furthermore, it is unfortunate that people often fear and hate that which they do not understand. This is evident in comments I have heard recently concerning Islam such as, “All Muslims are terrorists,” or “All Muslims are trained to kill Christians.” If, instead, the people who believe these comments understood that Islam is a religion built on fundamentals of peace and law and that maybe only a small portion of radicals hold true to these ideas, they might be able to embrace

Muslims instead of hating them. Likewise, grave misunderstandings can surface concerning other religions such as Buddhism. Understanding Buddhism is important because learning about something relieves the fear spawned from the ignorance involved in statements such as those above. Therefore, understanding unfamiliar concepts and cultures can lead one from ignoring and pushing away to one embracing that which had been feared and hated.

Understanding something helps one to embrace it, and in fully understanding something one must relate it back to one’s own life. Thomas Merton asserts that true communication goes beyond conceptual knowledge. He affirms that communication must be, “‘communion’ beyond the level of words, a communion in authentic experience.” 13

The importance of experience over concepts is illustrated by the fact that growing up

Christian and taking a class on Christianity are two very different things. For a person

12 Masao Abe, Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, 3. 13 Thomas Merton, The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton, 315.

5 who is brought up as a Christian, Christianity is an integral part of his or her life, whereas a person who takes a class in Christianity may only assume knowledge of some Christian concepts. However, if one who has grown up as a Buddhist takes a class that closely examines the similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, one will more easily relate a Christian’s experience to one’s own experience within Buddhism. It is more likely, then, for one to dwell on ideas of other traditions that are new to oneself until they become part of oneself as authentic experience. So, finding similarities and drawing parallels between Buddhism and Christianity helps Buddhists and Christians to understand and embrace people of Christianity and Buddhism, respectively.

Therefore I will compare the self within each particular system for two reasons.

First, the self has been extensively studied by both individuals. Secondly, the self can be approached, conceptually, as the central resting point of nearly every facet of Buddhism and Christianity from creation to salvation. The self is an important concept for both

Buddhism and Christianity and therefore is ideal for comparison. 14

Before exploring the similarities and differences of the self within Merton’s and

Abe’s writings, defining what the self is or is not is necessary. For both thinkers, the self is the base or starting point for any individual’s experience, both spiritually and non­ spiritually. The way in which that base operates then has a substantial impact on the individual’s experience. In other words, if a person’s self is properly aligned with God, that person will have a more meaningful and fulfilling existential experience, whereas if a

14 There is a great diversity of thought on the self throughout Buddhism and Christianity. For example, in Buddhism, the notion of “true self” is essentially a Kyoto­Zen construct, while the notion of “anatman” is much more widely accepted as a tenet of Buddhism.

6 person’s self is improperly aligned and based on falsity, then he or she will lead a less existentially fulfilling life. 15 The self penetrates every aspect of one’s life.

However, it seems that the two views of the self have differing functions within their respective systems. While Merton’s view of the self may resemble Abe’s view, its function within the context of Merton’s Catholicism is not analogous to its function within the context of Abe’s Kyoto School of Philosophy. The differences between

Merton and Abe on the notion of the self will be addressed in the conclusion.

This paper will show how Merton’s view of the self is compatible and consistent with the Abe’s view of the self by first analyzing the two systems separately, describing their influences, their focal points, and their overall functions. This will be followed by an introductory comparison of the systems, and will continue by focusing on the idea of the self within each system, comparing and contrasting the two philosophical theories.

This will be accomplished by interpreting Merton’s concepts using the language and ideas that are characteristic of Abe Masao.

My thesis will examine the question, in which ways does Thomas Merton’s view of the self correspond to Abe Masao’s and how do they differ, against the broader context of Buddhist­Christian dialogue. It will prove that they are similar views with their basis in the notions of kenosis and Shunyata, but they are expressed differently and their functions differ within their own wider religious contexts: Christianity and Buddhism. It will also argue that for both Merton and Abe the self in essence is a no­self in the sense that the self must, paradoxically, be transcended to realize its own true nature. Following this, a new definition of plerosis based on the thought of Thomas Merton and Abe Masao will help to further philosophically unite Christianity and Buddhism.

15 Although the term “God” appears in the Kyoto school, it is not commonly used in Buddhist texts.

7 CHAPTER 1: THOMAS MERTON AND THE SELF

After briefly looking at the current situation of comparing Thomas Merton to

Buddhism and Abe Masao, we must define what the self looks like in Merton’s writings.

This chapter will examine his influences, why the self is important to Merton, and then explore the focal points of his notion of the self.

MERTON’S INFLUENCES

Although it is difficult to ascertain exactly what factors influence anyone’s development, one important factor that influences the development of those who are literate is things one has read. In examining Merton’s writings, a handful of individuals and their writings stand out. Merton’s influences include Saint Bernard of Clairvaux,

Saint Thomas Aquinas, Blessed John Ruysbroeck, Saint Teresa of Avila, and Saint John of the Cross, most of who are medieval Catholic mystics. Later in his life, as his spirituality and religious views matured, he was more influenced by medieval mystic

Meister Eckhart and by Buddhist thinker D.T. Suzuki, whom he corresponded with before their meeting in 1964. Merton was also influenced to some degree by existentialism and the existentialist philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. Additionally, according to Paul Bernadicou, S.J., Merton’s affirmation of the truth in other faiths in such as Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism “is reminiscent of two people he very much admired,” Mahatma Gandhi and Dorothy Day. 16

16 Bernadicou affirms that Merton makes this affirmation in his book titled Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander. Quote is from Paul Bernadicou, “The Eastward Turn of Thomas Merton,” 357.

8 Because Kierkegaard’s terms are useful for explaining Merton’s thought on the self, his background and some of his ideas will be summarized here. Also, because this paper focuses on an aspect of Thomas Merton’s writing in relation to a segment of

Buddhist philosophy, the most important of Merton’s influences here are Meister Eckhart because his theology has been interpreted Buddhistically and D.T. Suzuki because of his role within modern­day Buddhism.

Born in 1813 and died in 1855, Søren Kierkegaard was the Christian Danish philosopher attributed with the birth of existentialism who often dealt with questions concerning faith and religion. In his work titled Either/Or, he describes three modes of existence: the aesthetical mode of existence, the ethical mode of existence, and the religious mode of existence. For Kierkegaard the three modes of existence are progressive: the aesthetical mode of existence is the first and lowest, and the religious mode of existence is the third and highest. The aesthetical mode of existence is exemplified by one who does not make any important decisions, but rather merely floats through a life determined by the notions of pleasant and unpleasant. Kierkegaard says that the aesthete has no real personality and will eventually find him or herself in despair.

He or she will need to make a leap to the ethical mode, in which one’s decisions bring oneself into existence. One in the ethical mode of existence can then make a leap of faith into the religious mode of existence, which is characterized in Christianity as letting go of rationality to accept the paradox in Christ’s simultaneous divinity and humanity.

Father of the Rhineland school of mysticism, one of the most influential and profound (some would say dangerous) Christian mystics, and possibly the Christian mystic that seems closest to Buddhist thinking, Meister Johann Eckhart of Hocheim,

9 Germany was born about 1260 and died in 1327. 17 Shortly after his death, many of his writings were condemned, pronounced heretical, or suspected by the Catholic Church. 18

However, during his life, Eckhart was a preacher and a member of the Dominican order whose writings gathered elements from great predecessors such as Dionysius the

Areopagite, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas. 19 His immediate effect can be seen in his younger contemporaries, Suso, Tauler, and Ruysbroeck, while his lasting effect is apparent in more recent figures such as Thomas Merton.2 0 Consequently, his central ideas have remained to be a major influence in mystical thinking of both Christian and

Buddhist traditions. The core of Eckhart’s thought, argues David E. Linge, Professor of

Religious Studies at University of Tennessee, “is the possibility of the individual

Christian experiencing union with God, unmediated by likeness or concept, and the importance of poverty as the preparatory means for mystical experience.” 21

Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, who was born in 1870 in Kanazawa, Japan, and died in

1966, was the founder of the Eastern Buddhist Society, author of many books on

Buddhism, and an instrumental figure in spreading Zen to the West. Merton and Suzuki corresponded from 1959 to 1965 and met in New York in the summer of 1964. It is evident in their letters and Merton’s journals that as their friendship grew they shared a respect for each other and a desire for understanding each other’s tradition. Merton writes to Suzuki:

I am much happier with 'emptiness' when I don't have to talk about it. You have the knack of saying things about it that do not completely obscure it.

17 Rufus M. Jones, Studies in Mystical, 218, 241. Please note that Eckhart’s year of birth and death as well has his birthplace are disputed. 18 Ibid., 241. 19 Sidney Spencer, Mysticism in World, 238. 20 Ibid. 21 David E. Linge, “Mysticism, Poverty and Reason in the Thought of Meister Eckhart,” 470.

10 But I do not. As soon as I say something then, that is 'not it' right away. Obviously the conclusion is to say nothing, and that for a great deal of the time is what I manage to do. Yet one must speak of it. Obviously, one must speak and not speak. I am glad you are far away or you would settle the question with thirty blows of the hossu. But at any rate I thought you would be happy to know that I struggle with the—not problem, but koan. It is not really for me a serious intellectual problem at all, but a problem of 'realization'—something that has to break through. Every once in a while it breaks through a little. One of these days it will burst out.2 2

And again in Merton’s journals after meeting Suzuki, he writes that their meeting, after ten years of interestedly reading his books, was especially important to him because it allowed him to experience “a deep understanding” between himself and Suzuki. 23 It is clear that, over the years, Suzuki positively influenced Merton and provided some insight into understanding Zen and Buddhism.

IMPORTANCE OF THE SELF

Thomas Merton describes the self as the essence that gives meaning to salvation, which is one of the most important issues posed to Christians. Salvation should be of ultimate concern to every Christian (and those of other religions as well) at some point in his or her religious life. If one defines salvation as the basic principle of deliverance from eternal bondage, then, from a religious point of view, salvation affects every person because every person, in some way, either experiences salvation or does not. For

Christians this involves faith in Jesus Christ and for Buddhists this involves liberation from samsara. Furthermore, there is no middle ground when it comes to salvation.

Therefore, informing those who have not experienced and will not otherwise experience salvation is important.

22 Robert E. Daggy, Ed., Encounter: Thomas Merton &D.T. Suzuki, 52. 23 Ibid., 85.

11 However, the concept of salvation is just a concept, which, by its nature, is intangible. This makes understanding salvation in experiential terms difficult, because the things most people know are the things they can experience with their five senses. So, how can one talk about the rather abstract concept of salvation in concrete terms that normal people can adequately grasp? Attaching the concept of salvation to something that every person already has and can easily talk about and understand is the most practical method to bring it closer to a concrete thing that anybody can easily grasp. Since attaching something that people cannot physically sense to something that people can physically sense is difficult, if not impossible, Merton uses the self, to some degree, as a vehicle to talk about salvation.

To some extent, Merton agrees with Søren Kierkegaard who contends that one does not truly exist until his or her inner infinity announces itself, and once one exists, one must release the self. 24 Essentially, Merton and Kierkegaard share the belief that the self is of primary importance because in it lays one’s salvation. For Kierkegaard, the birth of the self is on the path to salvation, which culminates with a self­sacrificial leap of faith. However, Thomas Merton expresses this salvation as Meister Eckhart and Paul have: salvation is the death of the self so that we may have the will of Christ. Salvation occurs when a fundamental shift within the person occurs. Furthermore, Merton affirms that, “The reason why we hate one another and fear one another is that we secretly or openly hate and fear our own selves.” 25 Salvation (of self) relieves self­hatred and Merton

24 These ideas are expressed in Kierkegaard’s Either/Or. However, to prove this connection between Merton and Kierkegaard would be the topic of another paper, so for now we will just use Kierkegaardian terms to help express the importance of the self to Merton and to augment our discussion of the self. 25 Thomas Merton, The Living Bread, xii­xiii.

12 was interested in helping to relieve people of some of their hatred and fear in hopes of bringing them closer to unity under the loving God.

MERTON’S SELF

Merton defines the self in two parts: false self and true self. The dichotomy he draws is useful for visualizing the abstract concept of the self. Furthermore, the connotations of the words “false” and “true” color his dissection of the self and give it added weight within the individual’s psyche. What follows here is an examination of

Thomas Merton’s descriptions of the false self and the true self.

False Self

The lower self, external self, and the inferior self are all different names Merton gives to what he commonly calls the false self. He has called it the illusory self, the outer self, and selfhood. It is the “passionate, disordered, and confused self—the rambling and disheveled ‘ego’—but much more the tyrannical ‘super­ego,’” the “I,” the limited and exclusive self, selfishness, and self­will. 26 Essentially, the false self is the constructed and not­real self we attach both our desires, conscious and subconscious, and our created identities to. Kierkegaard would say that one either does not truly exist and is likely living in the aesthetical mode of existence or has come into the ethical mode of existence and has not yet relinquished the self. The false self is who and what we think we are and in essence is evil in the sense that it holds us from fulfilling our intended existences.

26 Quotation is from Thomas Merton, The New Man, 43.

13 To better understand the The false self false self, imagine it in two parts: self­identity self­will • the body • control self­identity and self­will (see • self­image • determinations • one’s of autonomy 1.1). The self­identity of the false characteristics, • independence qualities, and from God titles • worldly desires self is the things that we think we are and the qualities and Figure 1.1. The false self. characteristics we think we have and are attached to. This self­identity is empowered by its counterpart: self­will. The self­will is our striving for control of our lives and our determinations of autonomy and independence from God.

Self-identity

The identity we create for ourselves and are attached to is the false self. This is the identity that says when we wake up every morning, “I am a doctor,” “I am a lawyer,”

“I am a good person,” or “I am a bad person.” Merely thinking this is not the problem; rather, the false self is one’s attachments to such identifications. For Adam after the fall, the self­identity said, “I am naked,” or, “I am god.” Merton calls this “the external mask which seems to be real and which lives by a shadowy autonomy for the brief moment of earthly existence.” 27 Kierkegaard agrees with Merton’s sentiment and affirms that if one’s inner infinity does not announce itself and the person does not move from the aesthetical mode of existence to the ethical mode of existence, then the person may have just as well never existed. Although it is better to exist in the ethical mode than to not­ exist in the aesthetical mode, one is still living estranged from God in what much of

27 Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 295.

14 Christianity traditionally calls sin. For our purposes here, Kierkegaard’s ethical mode of existence is analogous to what Thomas Merton calls the false self.

Because people base such a great portion of their self­identities on self­image, the body can be an important factor in one’s self­identity. It is possible that a person’s self­ identity can become completely entangled with this notion of physicality. In other words, it is easy to mistake and become attached to the body as the whole self. This problem is especially harmful in America which is flooded by the media’s virtually unattainable ideals of the perfectly thin, perfectly beautiful, and perfectly happy. These things are not bad in and of themselves; rather, they are good things to some degree as long as they are attained more naturally without harming oneself. However, concerning the ideas of self­ image and self­identity, these things can greatly obfuscate freedom from the false self when they are portrayed as the norm. Instead of striving for an internal purity, people become fixated on these mirages of so­called perfection, most often never realizing their distraction. While the body is most definitely part of a person’s self­identity and can be a significant portion of one’s false self, the whole self is not the same thing as the body.

While one does not physically exist the other does, while one was not created by God the other was, and while one is evil the other is not. In Merton’s words, “The body is neither evil nor unreal. It has a reality that is given it by God, and this reality is therefore holy.” 28

For Merton, the body is not analogous to the self, opening him to possible ascetic interpretation. However, instead of ascetically denying the body, one should paradoxically affirm the body and let go of it because the problem lies not in the body itself, but rather in one’s attachment to it.

28 Ibid., 26.

15 Self-will

The will we create for ourselves is the false self. This is the blind will that screams at us, “I am in control,” and, “I don’t need God, I am doing just fine by myself.”

Again, this is the self­will that Merton spoke of in his autobiography:

Providence, that is the love of God, is very wise in turning away from the self­will of men, and in having nothing to do with them, and leaving them to their own devices, as long as they are intent on governing themselves, to show them to what depths of futility and sorrow their own helplessness is capable of dragging them. 29

Wanting or being attached to total control over your life is a dangerous manifestation of the false self. Note that there is a difference between wanting control of your life through your own power and having control of your life by paradoxically relinquishing your will. The former can only lead to spiritual alienation while the latter is a result of spiritual union. The major difference here is between trying and doing. Trying to do something implies placing a goal ahead of oneself. However, this goal is only an illusion and barrier to its acquisition because one is always looking ahead of oneself. In actuality, the goal is within. By reaching for one’s goal apart from oneself one actually pushes it away, in reality making it much more difficult to reach. Once one stops trying to do something and just does it without trying, one can easily accomplish anything. It is unification with one’s actions, whereas self­will is separation from one’s actions in a subject­object relationship. 30 Therefore determinations of autonomy from God and dependence on God both stand in the way of liberating the false self because they are acts of will. In fact, because they originate in the self­will, they are directly opposed to something fundamental to Merton’s view of salvation: utter reliance on God.

29 Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain, 136. 30 Being unified with one’s actions, however, is different than control. Control is an action of will, whereas being unified with one’s actions is an action of non­will.

16 It is this self­will that Merton calls the tyrannical super­ego, the self­will that creates God in our own image. This is the self­will that pulls us into worshipping ourselves or a vengeful God who is a merely projection of ourselves instead of the good and loving God. Merton speaks of his realization of this idea:

And always I was to be punished for my sins by my sins themselves, and to realize, at least obscurely, that I was being so punished and burn in the flames of my own hell, and rot in the hell of my own corrupt will until I was forced at last, by my own intense misery, to give up my own will. 31

Merton realized that he had not really been worshipping God, but rather himself and the creations and projections of his self­will. Most importantly, he found that the self­will is what compelled him to separation from God and had to let it go with the false self. The self­will is the acting force separating us from God.

Likewise, self­will drives one’s attachments to worldly desires. 32 Here one cannot distinguish between good and bad worldly desires as one might think one should. In other words, the false self neither classifies the desire to help as “good” nor the desire to harm as “bad.” Merton simply says both are worldly desires; therefore, they should be acknowledged and released with the self­will. One should not desire anything because even though the motivation may seem good, it cannot be perfect if it arises from within the self.

Arising of the False Self

The false self did not exist until the fall of Adam and Eve. Merton describes the situation before the fall using the Greek word “parrhesia,” that is, “free speech.” Merton

31 Ibid. 32 This is also a common sentiment in Buddhism

17 affirms that parrhesia “symbolizes the perfect communication of man’s intelligence with

God by knowledge (gnosis) and contemplation (theoria).” Before the fall was the only parrhesian time for Adam and Eve because it was the only time they were in direct communication with God. Also, God is portrayed anthropomorphically in the first part of

Genesis because Adam and Eve were in union with God. After the fall, God is no longer seen anthropomorphically because parrhesia and union with God was lost for Adam and

Eve. Merton also says that one of the aspects of parrhesia was the unity of the body and soul in Adam and Eve so that the body acted as the soul desired. Since the soul was unified with God, Adam and Eve essentially had the will of God and acted without their own wills. 33 The false self, therefore, did not yet exist for them because it necessarily divides us from God and separates our will from God’s will. This unity with God was lost and the false self arose out of its ashes as a direct result of Adam and Eve’s sin. 34

It can be said that Christ also had parrhesia, or unity with God. Furthermore, what Christ and Adam and Eve before the fall share aside from parrhesia is their freedom from sin. Sinlessness, therefore, is not only directly related to parrhesia, but parrhesia arises because of one’s sinlessness and not vice versa. In other words, because Adam and

Eve before the fall and Christ were united with God, they were allowed this parrhesia; their sinlessness was not a result of their parrhesia. Because sin alienates one from God, one cannot experience parrhesia in a life of sin. People today usually do not experience parrhesia with God the father because everyone throughout history with the exception of

Christ shares the bondage of sin, namely original sin. So, from birth we are all driven to separate ourselves from God by sinning.

33 However, that is not to say that they did not have free will and were not creatures distinct from God. Their free will, for instance, was exercised in the fall. 34 Thomas Merton, The New Man, 71­98; quotation from 75.

18 After the fall of Adam and Eve, sin was introduced to humanity and parrhesia was revoked: Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden. An alternate approach to looking at this is from the perspective of the false self: once Adam and Eve sinned, the false self was introduced to humanity, causing alienation from God and paradise.

Although there are more examples of parrhesia throughout the Old Testament such as in

Job, these are examples of people who have let go of the false self and stopped worshipping a vengeful God who is only a projection of themselves and instead began worshipping a good and loving God. In other words, these are people who did not begin their lives with parrhesia like Christ and Adam and Eve did. 35

Therefore, the false self is a product of sin and arises primarily with original sin.

And although as sinners we do not have parrhesia with God the father, we do have parrhesia with Christ through prayer. 36 We can freely approach God through Christ in boldness to ask, among other things, that we may have the non­strength to release the false self and to be brought closer to the presence of God in unity and parrhesia.

True Self

On the other hand, there is what Thomas Merton calls the upper self, the superior self, or the inner self: the true self. He also refers to it as the deep self, the real self, and original nature. The true self is our inmost self, the new man, our other self, and the mysterious and unknown self. Essentially, the true self is the actual present self as it is expressed out of union with God. Kierkegaard would equate the true self with the highest way of life, that is, the religious mode of existence. For Kierkegaard, living in the

35 Ibid., 95­96. 36 This distinction between parrhesia with God the father and parrhesia with Christ is intended to echo the notion that one cannot attain one’s own salvation, but in Christ everyone has salvation.

19 religious mode of existence means that one has taken a leap of faith to leave behind his or her rationality to accept what Kierkegaard considers the completely irrational truths of

Christianity. This leap of faith, for Merton, means leaving the false self behind in an act of grace to become united with God. Raymond Bailey, author of Thomas Merton on

Mysticism, describes the person as a vessel. He says:

When the vessel has been scrubbed, the soul returns as it were to a pristine nothingness, ready to receive true being. As a polished crystal is able to reflect light, so the polished soul has the capacity to reflect the grace of God.3 7

Kierkegaard’s leap constitutes a scrubbing of the vessel in the sense that since the person, or vessel, is polluted by the ethical mode of existence, one is cleansed of this pollution when the ethical mode of existence is transcended. Then one can rely completely on another power to determine one’s existence.

Essentially, the true self is a positive spiritual condition and the false self is a negative spiritual condition. In one’s current situation, however, thinking of the false self as a negative spiritual condition may be difficult because the attitudes and behaviors that the false self implies seem to be good things, namely, control, determination, and independence. This is especially difficult in a culture where these things are not only strongly emphasized, but they are the basis for everything one sees as positive. And although there are many good people who do many virtuous things having never let go of the false self, it is still better to let it go. Although these virtuous people are doing many wonderful things, they often have motivations or agendas that arise out of the false self because in the false self one’s motives cannot be totally pure. Merton affirms that the true self, on the other hand, relieves one of motivations and agendas, making every act an act

37 Raymond Bailey, Thomas Merton on Mysticism, 85.

20 of worship. More fundamentally, as Bailey affirms, in the true self one sees the world and

God as they are in and of themselves. 38

The true self is perpetual simultaneous self­negation and self­affirmation in God.

It is self­negation in the sense that we must completely give up that which we hold so dearly: the false self. This must happen not by our own self­will but by the grace of God, for we must, in this act of self­negation, give up the self­will. Merton asserts, “[God] created man with a soul that was made not to bring itself to perfection in its own order, but to be perfected by Him in an order infinitely beyond the reach of human powers.” 39

Furthermore, the true self is self­affirmation in the sense that we become more complete as a result of our unification with God in the true self. Merton affirms that when one leaves the false self behind, “Man is not cut in half, he is drawn together and finds himself more of one piece, more integrated than ever before.” 40 In other words, in the true self we are actively fulfilling God’s purpose for our lives from moment to moment. In

Merton’s words:

Our ordinary life, cluttered and obstructed as it is by our own bad habits of thought and action as well as by the bad habits of the society we live in, is little more than a semi­conscious, torpid kind of existence when it is compared with the real life of our deep selves­­the life that we are all supposed to be leading. 41

The true self is the freedom from ourselves that God intends us to have.

38 Ibid., 84. 39 Thomas Merton, The Seven Storey Mountain, 185. 40 Thomas Merton, The New Man, 64. 41 Ibid.

21 Body and Soul

Just as the false self cannot be confused with the body, the true self cannot be confused with the soul. In fact, the true self is concerned with neither just the body nor just the soul, but rather the whole person. Merton writes, “It is equally false to treat the soul as if it were the ‘whole self’ and the body as if it were the ‘whole self.’” 42 The whole person, or whole self, is the body and soul mysteriously joined as one. The false self and the true self can, therefore, be thought of as two different modes of existence in which the whole self operates.

One could argue that to negate the false self, one should ascetically deny the body to weaken it so that the soul may have the opportunity to perform its action of unity with

God. However, the body does not hold down the soul in the same sense that the false self holds down the true self; instead, the false self metaphorically stands in between the body and soul, hindering their communication with each other. Since the body and soul are not in a struggle against one another, and since the denial of the body requires an act of will, denying the body is unnecessary and counterproductive in regards to the false self and the true self. For, when the true self is realized, the body will be perfectly subjected to the soul in the same way that the person will be perfectly subjected to God.

Likewise, since the true self is not just self­negation but rather simultaneous self­ negation and self­affirmation, and the body is part of the whole self, the true self does not negate the body but it simultaneously negates and affirms the body as an integral part of the self. In this sense, the body and soul are denied in terms of attachment to sense pleasures and worldly desires and simultaneously affirmed as being actively involved as a

42 Thomas Merton, New Seeds of Contemplation, 27.

22 united vessel for God. In other words, instead of denying either the body or the soul, they both must be affirmed, accepted, and let go of.

Poverty

The true self is analogous to Meister Eckhart’s notion of spiritual poverty.

Spiritual poverty refers to “the poor in spirit” beatitude in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount which has been open to diverse interpretation due to its seemingly counter­intuitive nature.4 3 Meister Eckhart’s sermon titled “The Poor in Spirit” delivers his interpretation of the first beatitude. In it he describes two types of poverty, outward and inward, stating that while outward poverty is virtuous, it is not the poverty referred to in the Sermon on the Mount. Eckhart writes that interior poverty consists of a threefold nothing: willing nothing, knowing nothing, Poverty and having nothing. He categorizes these three Outward Poverty Inward Poverty poor in money, goods, nothings as the deepest and other material Willing nothing: deepest possessions poverty, the barest poverty, Knowing nothing: barest and the strictest poverty, Having nothing: strictest respectively (see 1.2).4 4

Concerning Figure 1.2. Meister Eckhart’s poverty. Eckhart’s deepest poverty, willing nothing, he mentions those who do not follow their own will but instead try following the will of God. Eckhart says that while this is virtuous, they are not poor in spirit for they are still willing God’s will to be done through

43 The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Edition, 1865. 44 Franz Pfeiffer, Ed., Meister Eckhart, 217, 218­220.

23 them and therefore are not willing nothing. Eckhart writes, “If he is genuinely poor a man is as free from his created will as he was when he was not.” 45 The barest poverty, “being poor of all particular knowledge,” means that one should be free from, among other things, the knowledge of God and what God is doing within oneself. There is something at the core of the soul “from which both knowledge and love flow,” which, “knows nothing about working in itself; but, it just is itself, enjoying itself God­fashion.” 46 The most stringent poverty, having nothing, can be interpreted in the context of self­negation which Stephen Morris argues is “unquestionably Eckhart’s single major theme.” 47 In the context of this paper, having nothing means the absence of the dualistic subject­object logic so that one will not have anything in the sense that there will be no “I” to have some thing (i.e. material objects, emotions, God, etc.).4 8 As Bernard McGinn puts it, “One must strive to become as free from one’s created will as one was before creation—an ‘empty existence’ (ledic sin) in which God as creator no longer is of concern.” 49

Thomas Merton’s true self and Meister Eckhart’s spiritual poverty are, essentially the same thing. The only major difference is the ways in which they are expressed: cataphatically or apophatically. Merton’s true self is expressed cataphatically, that is, using positive terms. For example, Merton always says that one can find the true self or

45 Ibid., 218. 46 C. F. Kelley, 219. 47 Stephen Morris, “Buddhism and Christianity: The Common Ground,” 106. 48S ee the index of Kelley’s Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge under the entry “poverty of the spirit” for a brilliant example of Eckhart’s spiritual poverty being referred to as emptiness without the use of the constructs of language. 49 Bernard McGinn, 136. However, McGinn is slightly off the mark in saying that one should “strive” for spiritual poverty because the act of striving creates a dualism in which the one who is striving becomes the subject and the goal of spiritual poverty becomes the object. This also brings the notion of will into the picture, for one must make a conscious effort to strive. Furthermore, this contradicts the idea of the grace of God as the chief means for salvation. For, if one were to be able to attain spiritual poverty of one’s own striving will alone, God would be removed from the picture and thus putting Eckhart into a self­power category. Eckhart’s sermon, “Detachment Has Four Steps,” speaks of detachment happening to a person, not through any action of a person, and C. F. Kelley points out that Eckhart clearly views the Holy Spirit as the “Transformer.”

24 have the true self, which is the positive language more characteristic of the majority of

Christianity. On the other hand, Eckhart’s spiritual poverty is expressed apophatically, that is, using negative terms. Eckhart refers to having no self, which is the negative language more characteristic of the majority of Buddhism. However, with the terms and language they use aside, Merton and Eckhart are speaking about the same thing: union with the divine.

Finding the True Self

There is a Buddhist saying, “If you meet Buddha on the road, kill him.” Likewise, if you meet the true self along the road, kill it. From what I understand of the Buddhist saying, this means that one should not get caught up in the constructs of language and thinking about these things by attaching meaning to objects, but instead one should experience the thing­in­itself. If you meet what you think and know is Buddha, kill it because it will only serve as either an obstacle or a crutch and you will be better off without it. The concept you can have of the Buddha is greatly weaker than the reality of the Buddha. Likewise, if you come across that which you think and know is the true self, kill it because it only opposes liberation from the false self. The concept of the true self is much less important than the reality and experience of the true self. Additionally, the

Buddha on the road is a symbol for seeing the Buddha as an external object, separate from you. However, the real Buddha and the true self are your true nature.

Furthermore, as H.C. Steyn argues, Merton places an emphasis on the primacy of religious experience over concepts. Steyn affirms that Merton saw that Zen, instead of

25 explaining things like much of Christianity, aims at experiencing things on a level above words and concepts. 50 He writes:

Buddhist meditation, but above all that of Zen, seeks not to explain, but to pay attention, to become aware, to be mindful, in other words to develop a certain kind of consciousness that is above and beyond description by verbal formulas—or by emotional excitement.5 1

Perhaps Merton believed that Christianity could learn from Zen in this respect. In other words, instead of filling our minds with knowledge about God and religious concepts, we need to empty our minds with the direct experience of the divine.

Merton’s self fits in with the ideas of great Christian mystics such as Meister

Eckhart. Moreover, while Eckhart’s ideas are expressed more Buddhistically and have been labeled as unorthodox or even heresy, they are not meant to be expressions of

Buddhist ideas within the framework of Christianity. Instead, they are to transcend categories and concepts and are aimed at direct religious experience. Likewise, Merton’s notion of the true self functions in the same way and therefore must be approached similarly as a means to experience the true self.

However, letting go of the false self is difficult because seeing around its mask of seemingly positive outcomes is not easy. As I stated above, the false self is striving for and attachment to control over one’s life and independence. Although one might wish, actually make a concerted effort, and even believe that one is wholly dependent on God, the false self is a blindfold that tricks one into believing this. Like Plato’s allegory of the cave, when one gets a peak at the light of the true self, it is so bright that at first it is painful and can be mistaken as a bad thing. Similarly, leaving behind one’s rationality in

50 H.C. Steyn, “The Influence of Buddhism on Thomas Merton,” 4­5. 51 Thomas Merton, Zen and the Birds of Appetite, 38.

26 Kierkegaard’s leap of faith is difficult because one cannot be completely sure that one will be right, and the price of being wrong is insanity. Just as Kierkegaard’s leap of faith is frightening, so too is leaving behind the false self. Immediately retreating into the false self where one feels safe and has so­called control over his or her life is therefore very easy. One must, however, resist the temptation to replace the blindfold by rejoicing in the freedom we have in God.

27 CHAPTER 2: ABE MASAO AND THE SELF

Now that we have examined Thomas Merton’s view of the self in depth, we will similarly examine Abe Masao’s view of the self. This chapter will look at his influences, why the self is important to Abe, and explore the focal points of his self.

ABE’S INFLUENCES

Because Abe Masao belongs to the Kyoto School of Philosophy and has also been deeply involved in interfaith dialogue, his influences can be divided into three categories: western philosophical influences, religious thought influences, and Buddhist influences.

Donald W. Mitchell, in Masao Abe: a Zen life of dialogue, lists Abe’s western philosophical influences as Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche,

Kierkegaard, Heidegger, and Whitehead. Abe’s religious thought influences include Paul

Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr, and his Buddhist influences include Dogen, Shinran,

Nishida Kitarō, Nishitani Keiji, Shin’ichi Hisamatsu, and D.T. Suzuki. 52

Because this paper focuses on how an aspect of Abe Masao’s writing relates to

Thomas Merton’s thought, the most important of Abe’s influences here are D.T. Suzuki,

Nishida Kitarō, and Nishitani Keiji because of their connections to the Kyoto School of

Philosophy. However, since we have highlighted Suzuki in the previous chapter, we will only say that Abe’s position on Buddhism is, according to Stephen Morris, the same as

Suzuki’s. 53 Here we will focus on just Nishida Kitarō and Nishitani Keiji.

52 Donald W. Mitchell, Ed., Masao Abe: a Zen life of dialogue, xvi. 53 Morris, 105.

28 Nishida Kitarō, the founder of the Kyoto School of Philosophy, was born in 1870, the third year of the Meiji period, and died in 1945. Because eastern and western cultures came face­to­face in Japan during the Meiji era, Nishida was presented with a newly unique opportunity to contemplate eastern philosophical issues in the fresh light that western philosophy shined on them. Nishida’s original and creative philosophy, incorporating ideas of both Zen and western philosophy, was aimed at bringing the East closer to the West. In fact, Nishida’s philosophy reached so far westward that “Merton interpreted Nishida in the light of his own thorough training in Western philosophical and theological traditions.” 54 Perhaps Merton’s interest in Nishida stemmed from the focal points of Nishida’s philosophy: direct experience, “the discovery of the self, and fidelity to life.” Later in his life, however, Nishida leaned more toward a political philosophy, saying that, “The world...has already become a single environment, and the whole of humanity is caught up in the crisis of how to handle the fact.” 55 Taken as a whole,

Nishida’s life work was the foundation for the Kyoto School of Philosophy and the inspiration for the original thinking of his disciples.

One of Nishida’s disciples, Nishitani Keiji was born in 1900 and died in 1990. He became the principal chair of religion at Kyoto University around 1943. After his banishment of holding any public position by the United States Occupation authorities in

July 1946, Nishitani refrained from drawing “practical social conscience into philosophical and religious ideas, preferring to think about the insight of the individual rather than the reform of the social order.” Because the nature of Nishitani’s philosophy was expressed more religiously and subjectively, he felt ideologically closer to the

54 Michiko Yusa, Zen & Philosophy, xvi­xvii. Quotation is from xx. 55 Quotations from James W. Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness, 40 and 93.

29 existentialists and the mystics, namely Kierkegaard and Eckhart, than the scholars and theologians who more objectively expressed their ideas. Nishitani, “the stylistic superior of Nishida,” brought Zen poetry, religion, literature, and philosophy organically together in his work to help lay the difficult foundations of breaking free of the Japanese language in a similar way as Pascal or Nietzsche had for western language. 56 Furthermore, unlike

Nishida, who had focused on building a philosophical system and who, toward the end of his career, began focusing on political philosophy, Nishitani focused on creating a standpoint “from which he could enlighten a broader range of topics,” and wrote more on

Buddhist themes towards the end of his career. 57

IMPORTANCE OF THE SELF

Abe stresses the self in his writing; however, his interest in the self is not singularly rooted in the idea of salvation like Merton’s is. Abe’s interest in the self can be divided into two components: salvation through kenosis and interfaith dialogue.

Abe Masao, coming from Zen, a tradition that emphasizes practice and experience over concepts and knowledge, approaches Christianity similarly. As Stephen Morris suggests, Christians are not only more likely to discuss what they believe instead of what they do to enrich their spiritual lives, they more easily discuss their beliefs. This is exemplified by theologians who discuss abstract concepts instead of practicalities of faith. He identifies this as a problem with Christians’ expression of Christianity, saying

56 The Japanese language is not only more difficult to master than western languages, it is also more formal, meaning that it has been historically much more difficult for people to break free of its confines. As a result, Nishida and Nishitani received a fair amount of criticism for their unorthodox approaches to and implementations of the Japanese language. 57 Ibid., 185­190.

30 that one’s spiritual life is like one’s body: if you do not exercise, you will be unhealthy.

Likewise, if you do not exercise your spiritual life, it will be unhealthy.

Because Abe views religion “more as a practice than a set of beliefs,” he approaches Christianity not questioning what one is expected to believe but rather what one is supposed to do.5 8 Therefore, in approaching the scriptures Abe is drawn toward the idea of the kenosis, or the self­emptying, of Christ and Christ’s acknowledgement that people must empty themselves. Jesus expresses this self­emptying by saying, “he that finds his life shall lose it; and he who loses his life for my sake shall find it.” 59 Abe would like for both Christianity and Buddhism to adjust from their focus on the philosophizing and scholasticism characteristic of theology to a focus on spirituality or mystical experience and its relation to theology. 60 This shifting of focus would help regular people understand more of the theological fine points of Christianity and Buddhism. In short, it would help people to focus on living out God’s will in their lives moment to moment instead of focusing on what set of ideas they believe in, resulting in a deeper, stronger, and fuller understanding of God based on their own experience. Living out God’s will and a deep and full understanding of God are important to one’s salvation because they result from kenosis.

Interfaith dialogue is likewise important to Abe because there is an intellectual gulf between Buddhism and Christianity that cannot be crossed using current interpretations of the two religions. Abe argues that Buddhism and Christianity both have to begin a process of self­purification, reaching deeper to find a basis for true communication. He shows that a deep understanding of the self from within each

58 Stephen Morris, 105. 59 Matthew 10:39. 60 Donald W. Mitchell, Spirituality and Emptiness, x.

31 tradition can serve as the foundation for true communication and bridge this gulf between

Buddhism and Christianity.

ABE’S SELF

The self that Abe expresses is crafted as a response to the criticisms of religion coming from scientism and the nihilism of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche

(1844­1900), and serves as the foundation from which Buddhism and Christianity can deepen themselves and relate. Therefore, our discussion of Abe’s self will be divided into two sections. The first will explore Nietzsche’s nihilism and the second will more specifically explore the self.

Nihilism Beyond Religion

Because Abe defines the self against the backdrop of Nietzsche’s nihilism, one cannot understand the self as Abe presents it without understanding nihilism as Nietzsche presents it. Nietzsche divides human history into three stages based on what is sacrificed to God:

Once on a time men sacrificed human beings to their God, and perhaps just those they loved the best...Then, during the moral epoch of mankind, they sacrificed to their God the strongest instincts they possessed, their “nature”; this festal joy shines in the cruel glances of ascetics and “anti­ natural” fanatics. Finally, what still remained to be sacrificed? ... Was it not necessary to sacrifice God himself...? To sacrifice God for nothingness—this paradoxical mystery of the ultimate cruelty has been reserved for the rising generation; we all know something thereof already. 61

61 Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 73­74.

32 Nihilism is the third and final stage in which Nietzsche says that people will sacrifice

God for nothingness and is summed up by the frequently quoted and often misunderstood phrase of his, “God is dead.” 62 This phrase does not literally mean God is physically dead, but rather God is no longer and cannot be an important factor in peoples’ lives even if they do not recognize it. This does not undermine nihilism by saying that nihilism just means that God is no longer important to people and everything else is natural and makes sense. Rather, it means that because God is no longer important to people, and is in a sense dead, everything else (things, people, life, etc.) is a random mistake and therefore meaningless. Nihilism even further rejects physical existence.

Abe describes two Nihilism types of nihilism: nihilism before religion and Nihilism before religion Nihilism beyond religion • realization of the • realization of the nihilism beyond religion meaningless of life meaningless of life before the religious through religion and (see 2.1). Nihilism before experience after the religious • does not challenge the experience religion “is a realization of core of religion • challenges the core of • is overcome by religion religion • is not traditionally the meaninglessness of life overcome by religion before definitive religious Figure 2.1. Dichotomy within nihilism. experience, and it therefore may be overcome by religion when one comes to have a genuine religious experience.” Conversely, nihilism beyond religion invokes the meaningless of life after the religious experience, negates religion from within, and

“challenges the core of traditional religion.” 63 Nihilism before religion arises out of philosophizing and asking questions that religion can answer. In a matter of speaking,

62 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, 181. 63 The Emptying God, 8.

33 religion can arise from within this type of nihilism, therefore negating this nihilism. One begins with nihilism and can end up with religion. On the other hand, nihilism beyond religion arises from within religion, giving new answers to the Nihilism before religion questions asked of religion. One Nihilism Religion starts with religion and can end up Nihilism beyond religion with nihilism. This type of Religion Nihilism nihilism therefore negates religion

(see 2.2). Nietzsche’s nihilism is Figure 2.2. Nihilism in relation to religion. nihilism beyond religion.

Because this nihilism arises as a result of religion, answering the questions posed by religion, it negates religion from within. Abe distinguishes between saying “God is not” and saying “God is dead.” God was never in existence for one who says that God is not, whereas for one who says that God is dead God was once alive but has ceased to exist. Nietzsche says that people have killed God essentially because God is omniscient.

People are shameful that God sees all of their “dirtiest corners,” and, “cannot endure it that such a witness should live.” 64 Therefore, people will sacrifice God for nothingness.

Although Nietzsche’s nihilism approaches religion from the standpoint of

Christianity, nihilism threatens any religion, including the schools of Buddhism that do not refer to God or a divine principle. Abe says that because Nietzsche’s nihilism challenges the idea that religion itself is self­evident, all religions have to confront his nihilism and “examine whether or not [it] is really ‘nihilism beyond religion,’ and assume

64 Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra, 297.

34 the burden of demonstrating, practically and theoretically, the raison d’être of religion.” 65

Here Abe begins his proposition of how Buddhism and Christianity can both overcome nihilism and deepen both religions.

The Self

Since Abe Masao is primarily a philosopher and secondarily a Buddhist, and because his philosophy is a bridge between Christianity and Buddhism, he borrows concepts from both religions to craft his philosophy. From Christianity, his exegesis of

Philippians 2:5­8, quoted below, that talks about Paul’s concept of kenosis, or self­ emptying, is most eloquent, and from Buddhism, his interpretation of Shunyata, or emptiness, deepens the philosophical discourse of Buddhism. However, since Abe approaches Christianity from a Buddhist standpoint, his interpretations of Christian themes tend to be expressed more Buddhistically and tend to mesh more with Buddhist doctrines than traditional Christian interpretations of the same Christian themes. And although this lends itself to casting Abe as an outsider interpreting Christianity, he shares a deep appreciation for both Christianity and Buddhism. His interpretations of Christian themes echo and are similar to Meister Eckhart’s because they both speak out of the deepness of their individual and different experiences. Although Abe’s philosophy is a

Buddhist philosophy it is also a Christian philosophy because he seeks not to destroy or disprove Christianity, but instead to deepen Christianity and Buddhism and bring them closer to a more fulfilling understanding of themselves and each other.

65 The Emptying God, 9.

35 Self-Centeredness

The false self, argues Abe, is the root source of human suffering which he sees manifested in four forms of self­centeredness: individual, national, anthropocentric, and religious self­centeredness. These four forms of self­centeredness form a hierarchy with individual self­centeredness as the lowest form and religious self­centeredness as the highest form. 66

Individual self­centeredness is the ego that manifests the basic subject­object duality one creates when aware of one’s self­existence apart from others. Abe affirms that along with the separation, attachment, and estrangement to others that comes with the notion of “I”, there is always another deeper separation from oneself, self­attachment, and self­estrangement. National self­centeredness is assuming the group self of a sovereign nation­state that does not practice self­negation as the absolute self­identity.

This is most boldly manifested in the self­affirmation of nations controlling and conquering smaller nations. Anthropocentric self­centeredness is assuming the standpoint of humanity as one’s substantial self­identity. Finally, religious self­centeredness is assuming the standpoint of the ultimate principal of religion as one’s substantial self­ identity. Abe argues that the self­contradiction innate to religion and salvation is the emphasis on freeing one from one’s self­centeredness on the religiously self­centered basis of its own ultimate principle. 67

Abe says, “though [one has] self­identity in a relative sense [one has] no self­ identity in any absolute and substantial sense.” 68 In other words, one actually exists in relation to others, but the base of one’s existence is not one’s substantial and absolute

66 Masao Abe, Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, 64­72. 67 Ibid., 64­71. 68 Ibid., 65, 66; quotation is from 66.

36 unique self. The concept of “I” mutually requires the concept of “other” to exist just as the concept of “son” mutually requires the concept of “father” to exist: they are co­ dependent. However, these concepts have no substantial existence beneath their relational existence. Likewise, nations, humanity, and religion all have a self­identity in a relative sense but have no self­identity in any absolute and substantial sense. 69

These four forms of self­centeredness stand as four separate walls in opposition to the true self. When one overcomes the individual self­centeredness, one is presented with the next in line: national self­centeredness. After national self­centeredness comes anthropocentric self­centeredness and after anthropocentric self­centeredness comes religious self­centeredness. Abe argues that the only way to be free from self­ centeredness is through no­self.

True Self

Generally speaking, no­self is the cataphatic remedy to self­centeredness.

Apophatically, no­self is true self. Abe Masao talks about the true self in both Christian and Buddhist terms, using Paul’s notion of kenosis and the Buddhist notion of Shunyata.

Therefore, we will divide our discussion of the true self into two sections. The first will explore Abe Masao’s interpretation of Paul’s notion of kenosis, and the second will look at Abe’s interpretation of the Buddhist notion of Shunyata.

Kenosis Kenosis, Paul’s term for self­emptying, literally means “an emptying” and is derived from the ancient Greek kenos meaning “empty.” For example, in what Abe

69 Ibid., 66­68.

37 considers “one of the most impressive and touching passages in the Bible,” Paul writes to the Philippians:

Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross.7 0

This passage is important to Abe for two reasons. First, it says that Christ chose to give up his divine rank and become a man, thus emptying himself. Christ’s humbling was carried out even unto death. Secondly, the humility exemplified by Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection reveals “the unfathomable depth of God’s love.” 71

This kenosis of the Son of God, Abe argues, must be a total kenosis for him to be

Christ. In other words, one should not hold a temporal understanding of Christ’s nature, that is, Christ was not “originally the Son of God and then emptied himself and became identical with humans,” as in the traditional understanding of the Gospel of John where the preexisting Logos became flesh. 72 Rather, one should hold a total kenotic understanding of Christ in which it is Christ’s very nature to be continually self­emptying and that Christ’s kenosis is not merely a transformation in appearance, but rather it is a transformation in substance. It is because of his self­emptying nature that he is true person and true God: Christ, the Messiah (see 2.3). Consequently, Abe reformulates the doctrine of Christ’s kenosis as follows:

The Son of God is not the Son of God (for he is essentially and fundamentally self­emptying): precisely because he is not the Son of God

70 Philippians 2:5­8. 71 The Emptying God, 9­10. 72 Ibid., 10.

38 he is truly the Son of God (for he originally and always works as Christ, the Messiah, in his salvational function of self­emptying). 73

The temporal understanding of the nature of Christ

The Son of God, Logos Jesus of Nazareth Resurrected Christ

Time

The total kenotic understanding of the nature of Christ

The Son of God, Logos

Resurrected Christ, Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah Time

Figure 2.3. The temporal and total kenotic understandings of the nature of Christ. Since, as Paul says in Philippians, we are to follow in Christ’s kenosis, and since, as Abe Masao has pointed out, Christ’s is a total kenosis, so too must one’s own kenosis be a total kenosis, that is, a complete transformation. Paul also articulates, “even so reckon you also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus,” and,

“We are...always bearing about in the body of the dying of Jesus, that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our body.” 74 Jesus, too, stresses, “he that finds his life shall lose it; and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.” 75 Abe argues that these passages call one to totally deny and completely put to death the ego­self or the “old person” to live in Christ as the “new person.” Consequently, Abe says, in relation to the human self, “Self is not self (for the old self must be crucified with Christ); precisely because it is not, self is truly self (for the new self resurrects with Christ).” 76

73 Ibid., 12. 74 Romans 6:11 and 2 Corinthians 4:10. 75 Matthew 10:3­9. 76 The Emptying God, 12.

39 Abe Masao equates these two formulations into one single principle, stating that this is how Christians should approach their belief in Christ. In other words, for one to have a true belief in Christ, one must accept both paradoxical formulations: Christ is not

Christ, therefore Christ is truly Christ; and self is not self, therefore self is truly self. For when one accepts these formulations and live the truth of the resurrection of Christ, one can experience kenosis in Christ in the absolute present Now­moment, denying the ego­ self completely for the new person in Christ. Only then can one truly claim that, “it is no longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.” 77

This kenosis is not, however, a one­time event, but rather it must be practiced every moment and in every action. To illustrate this, think of a prisoner and a former prisoner. After completing one’s sentence and has freedom, one can return to criminal behavior and be imprisoned again. Likewise, after one has experienced kenosis, one can return to spiritually unhealthy behavior and be imprisoned by the false self again.

Shunyata Abe says that in contrast with traditional Christianity, which considers the conceptualizable God as ultimate reality, Buddhism holds that ultimate reality is the unconceptualizable Shunyata which literally means “emptiness.” And although, Shunyata is emptiness, it cannot carry along with it the often negative connotations that come with the English word “emptiness” because any connotation is contrary to its function of emptying. 78 In Christianity one is often encouraged to conceptualize God, which not only attaches connotations to the word “God,” it also forces one to create a false and illusionary version of God in one’s mind. While there are many varying examples

77 Galatians 2:20. 78 Masao Abe, Zen and Comparative Studies, 42.

40 throughout the Bible of God as a person or entity (a conceptualization) with whom humans communicate, conceptualization of Shunyata in Buddhism is often discouraged and considered to be impossible. Abe’s notion of Shunyata corresponds with much of

Buddhism and he affirms that Shunyata is unobjectifiable in the sense that it cannot be attained by reason or will, and it is so “thoroughly self­negative” that it completely empties everything including itself. 79 One should not understand Shunyata as a static state of emptiness, but rather as the pure dynamic movement of emptying.

Abe says that in order for one to truly understand Shunyata, one must keep two considerations in mind. First, one should not approach Shunyata as a goal of Buddhism because by making it a goal, one conceptualizes it as a thing outside of oneself in a subject­object relationship. Shunyata exists not outside of oneself and oneself exists not outside of Shunyata, instead, one must approach it, “as the ground or point of departure from which Buddhist life and activity can properly begin,” and realize it in the absolute and present Now­moment. Secondly, “Shunyata should not be understood in its noun form [“emptiness”] but in its verbal form [“self­emptying”], for it is a dynamic and creative function of emptying everything and making alive everything.” 80 One should not understand Shunyata as “emptiness” primarily because “emptiness” is a static idea that connotes an object or goal that can be obtained, whereas “self­emptying” is a lively, active, and dynamic idea that connotes an action or a nature from which all actions spontaneously occur.

Shunyata, furthermore, should be translated as the active “self­emptying” because true Shunyata, like kenosis, is an active principle in life and not just a principle that one

79 The Emptying God, 27. 80 Ibid., 33. Note that Abe uses the spelling “Sunyata” instead of “Shunyata.” For clearness and consistency sake, these will appear throughout this paper as “Shunyata.”

41 should aspire to. True Shunyata, like total kenosis, is not a one­time event: one should practice it day to day in every moment and in every action. Abe asserts, “True Shunyata is not Shunyata thought by us, but Shunyata lived by us.” 81 For instance, one should not think that one has true Shunyata, but rather, one should simply live true Shunyata from moment­to­moment in daily life. Similarly, upon enlightenment, Zen koan practitioners transcend duality. They and their actions become the koan and the koan becomes their actions and themselves. One cannot distinguish between the practitioner and the practice.

Likewise, the person is true Shunyata and true Shunyata is the person.

Because true Shunyata is absolute emptiness, by its nature it must also be emptied. Abe argues that Shunyata is “the realization of the non­substantiality of everything,” and that it “must be emptied by rejecting any attachment to emptiness. True

[Shunyata] is not a static state of everything’s non­substantiality, but rather a dynamic function of emptying everything, including itself.” 82 In other words, one cannot have a concept of true Shunyata. Similarly, one cannot think of “nothing” because in the very act of thinking of nothing, one is thinking of something. One’s concept of nothing, whether it is blackness, space, or another abstract conceptualization, is something. Nothing, by its very nature, paradoxically both is nothing and is not nothing at the same time. To truly think of nothing, one must release one’s concept of nothing and allow one’s existence to metaphysically move into the so­called non­concept of nothing. Likewise, to truly think of Shunyata, one must let go of one’s dualistic concepts of Shunyata and allow one’s existence to move into true Shunyata. This metaphysical movement is simultaneously an inward and outward movement. It is inward because, as Abe says, Shunyata is the ground

81 Ibid., 28. 82 Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, 7; Zen and Comparative Studies, 49.

42 or point of departure of existence, therefore it is found within oneself. The movement action is outward because, as Abe says, one’s awakening expands one’s awareness in every direction. Furthermore, one who regards oneself as having attained Shunyata and others as not having attained Shunyata still lives in dualism and not in true Shunyata.

True Shunyata negates all dualism, and therefore, by its very essence, paradoxically is both Shunyata and not Shunyata just as nirvana (enlightenment) paradoxically is samsara

(ignorance).

Abe equates true Shunyata with the true self. He affirms that satori, or awakening,

“in Zen is nothing but the self­awakening of the true Self.” 83 To Abe, this means that one is not living a fulfilled existence if one is not living in true Shunyata. Abe affirms that many people mistakenly look for the true self outside of themselves. 84 However, one must awake to the reality of Shunyata within one’s self as the ground or point of departure for existence.

Shunyata and kenosis share similar conceptually paradoxical natures. On one hand, Shunyata maintains that emptiness is not mere emptiness and is therefore emptiness; while on the other hand, kenosis maintains that the Son of God is not the Son of God and is therefore the Son of God. In other words, Shunyata is paradoxical because it is complete emptiness in the sense that it even must empty itself. Likewise, kenosis is paradoxical in the example of the Son of God because by emptying himself of his divine status, he became divine because the nature of Christ is a self­emptying nature.

83 Ibid., 71. 84Ib id., 64­65.

43 CHAPTER 3: MERTON AND ABE IN DIALOGUE

So far we have provided sufficient background information and defined both

Merton’s and Abe’s views of the self. This chapter will compare and contrast these two views showing where they are similar and where they are not and further expand on their thought through the plerotic self.

Although Thomas Merton is Christian and Abe Masao is Buddhist, because of their interest in both Buddhism and Christianity they have some similar influences, notably Saint Augustine of Hippo (354­430) and D.T. Suzuki. Incidentally, ignoring either Augustine or Suzuki is difficult when exploring the religions with which they are associated. For instance, Augustine has greatly influenced both Catholic and Protestant thought and his writings are the basis for many Christian intellectual concepts, including baptism and original sin. Suzuki, on the other hand, is a much more recent figure than

Augustine. However, he has been called the leading figure in spreading Zen in the West, citing him as an important figure strongly affecting and influencing the West’s perception of Buddhism.

FUNCTION OF THE SELF

Although Merton’s idea of the false self and true self is seemingly similar to

Abe’s concept of total kenosis and dynamic Shunyata, they have different motivations for drawing their conclusions, and therefore express their ideas differently and for different purposes. Merton is primarily a mystic who aims at invoking a religious experience in the reader and therefore tends to speak more vaguely, forcing the reader to transcend the

44 normal mode of intellectual conceptualization. Conversely, Abe is primarily a philosopher who aims at clarifying his philosophy to promote meaningful interreligious dialogue. In other words, if Merton and Abe were to have a discussion, Merton would agree completely with the substance of what Abe says, and Abe would agree with the substance of what Merton says, but also expand on it, eliminating ambiguity and confusion, to deepen Merton’s expression of his mysticism and to promote interreligious understanding. 85

Abe maintains in his unique Zen flavor of philosophy that, although he is dissatisfied with the current state of Buddhism and Christianity, there is a common spiritual basis at the depth of both religions that will be revealed not through an exchange, but rather through a process of self­purification. 86 This process of self­ purification, Abe believes, will draw the philosophy and theology of the two religions closer together. This will not produce a single religion that is a synthesis of the two or a new religion that will supercede the two, but rather a philosophical system with its own unique concepts that can be used to fully understand both religions. Ideally this philosophy could be expanded to help one fully understand other religions. His philosophy suggests that uniting the notion of kenosis in Christianity and the notion of

Shunyata in Buddhism is a step in the direction of finding this common ground.

Although Thomas Merton was a Catholic and a Trappist monk, he did not express himself as most Catholics and Trappists traditionally have. Dogma and doctrine tend to define what Christianity is and what it is not—they tell one what one should and should

85 Note that in this situation, Abe’s technique subtly undermines Merton’s because Abe is engaged in philosophizing which is contrary to Merton’s approach of speaking more vaguely to encourage the actual transcendence of concepts within the reader. 86 Stephen Morris, 90.

45 not believe. However, Merton was more concerned with direct religious experience, leaving him open to more ideas than a typical traditional Christian of his time may have been. In a letter to D.T. Suzuki, Merton writes:

Some conclusions: Literature, contemplative solitude, Latin America, Asia, Zen, Islam, etc., all these things come together in my life. It would be madness for me to attempt to create a monastic life for myself by excluding all these. I would be less a monk. Others may have their way of doing it but I have mine. 87

Merton’s expression of his religion and spirituality has been appropriately labeled Zen

Catholicism. 88 Accordingly, because Merton’s system does not reflect traditional

Christianity, one cannot approach it in a similar manner as one can approach traditional

Christianity. However, as Stephen Morris argues, although Meister Eckhart has been regarded as an unorthodox heretic, he is currently not regarded as outside the bounds of

Christianity; rather, he is representative of the depth of Christianity. 89 In a similar vein, although Merton’s thought cannot be approached according to a traditional Christian lens, he still is not outside of the Christian tradition.

Also because Merton is not primarily concerned with dogma and doctrine, the self in Merton’s system is based on and aimed at personal religious experience instead of being aimed at theological correctness. It therefore overcomes the obstacle that is the duality of conceptualization. Likewise, transcending duality has historically been fundamental to the teaching of Shunyata in Buddhism, and overcoming the duality of conceptualization is implicit in the word “Shunyata.” In other words, the self in Merton’s system and Shunyata similarly push one towards transcending the duality of conceptualization and move towards direct religious experience. The atheist may tend to

87 Robert E. Daggy, Ed., Encounter: Thomas Merton &D.T. Suzuki, 90. 88 Chalmers MacCormick, “The Zen Catholicism of Thomas Merton.” 89 Stephen Morris, 92.

46 think about God while the mystic may tend to not think about God. Therefore, something that lies beyond thinking is important in the life of the mystic: the direct experience of

God. Experiencing God is like playing baseball. When you swing at the ball, you do not think about how the ball is flying and you do not mathematically calculate your swing, but rather you find that just swinging at the ball is more effective. Even more so, one can study baseball and learn about all of its rules and its history, but learning about baseball cannot be compared to actually playing the game. Likewise, the direct experience of God is a much more important and effective transformative power than conceptualizing God and learning about God. Atheists are not persuaded by the ancient philosophical proofs for God of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, Saint Thomas Aquinas, or René Descartes because one’s reasoning and thought processes do not produce the direct religious experience one may lack.

Likewise, the first overt function of the self in Abe’s system is aimed at religious experience and is designed to overcome the obstacle that is the duality of conceptualization. However, Abe’s self has a second overt function that results from his activity in the field of interreligious dialogue. Abe’s self is aimed at deepening both

Buddhism and Christianity toward a common spiritual basis. Interestingly, Abe unites the

Christian and Buddhist concepts of kenosis and Shunyata under his philosophy.

Moreover, the major difference in the two views of the self is their dependence and non­dependence on history. Merton’s thought requires the personal and historical necessity of Christ’s kenosis whereas Abe’s thought stresses the ahistorical and non­ personal aspect of true Shunyata. Merton’s view of the self, however, is not necessarily exclusive for those who believe in the historical fact of Christ because his idea of the true

47 self does not hinge on one having faith in the historical fact of Christ. Rather, the grace of the Holy Spirit mystically working in peoples’ lives to bring about transformation is possible because of Christ’s humanity and kenosis. For Merton, God’s grace, therefore, is not restricted to those who believe in Christ but rather is only restricted to those who actively ignore and distance themselves from it.

TOTAL KENOSIS AND TRUE SHUNYATA

Both Merton and Abe argue that in order for one to live an existentially meaningful life and attain eternal peace, one must experience a spiritual awakening.

Merton expresses this spiritual awakening as a letting go of the false self that gives rise to the true self, while Abe expresses it as emptying one’s self­ego through the dynamic action of true Shunyata. Both point toward similar passages in the Bible that talk about the notion of kenosis. Essentially, Merton’s false self that must be let go is analogous to

Abe’s ego­self that must be negated, and Merton’s true self is analogous to Abe’s

Shunyata. Likewise, both emphasize that this spiritual awakening must be a total conversion experience. Abe puts it most eloquently by stressing that, in Christianity, one’s kenosis must be a total kenosis and, in Buddhism, one must attain true Shunyata.

Just as Abe asserts that, at their depths, Christianity and Buddhism share a common spiritual ground, at their depths, kenosis and Shunyata are identical; however, they are approached and expressed differently from within Christianity and Buddhism respectively. Abe affirms their similarity in saying that the intersection between immanence and transcendence, “is symbolized in Christianity by Jesus Christ who is the true human and the true God, and in Buddhism by Shunyata, in which emptiness and

48 fullness are dynamically identical.” 90 However, kenosis and Shunyata are and cannot be identical, just as Christianity and Buddhism are and cannot be identical. Rather, kenosis and Shunyata are unique parallels originating from the same point. The uniqueness of one describes the uniqueness of the other, deepening one’s understanding of it.

However, the primary problem with the concepts of total kenosis and true

Shunyata is the fact that they are intrinsically Christian and Buddhist concepts, which is a barrier to the interreligious understanding that Merton experienced and Abe has worked for in his philosophy. Total interreligious understanding is achieved when concepts from another religion can be understood in terms that relate to and make sense from within the context of one’s own religion. Therefore, if concepts from two different religions are completely compatible with one another, one can more easily have interreligious understanding. However, interpreting concepts to be completely compatible with one another often does not accurately represent their respective religions and often is a misinterpretation. Therefore, terms that are not defined from within any single religion are important to advance interreligious understanding.

PLEROTIC SELF

Plerosis literally means “a fulfilling” and is derived from the ancient Greek pleros meaning “full.” Here plerosis means self­fulfilling much in the same way that kenosis is used to mean self­emptying. Therefore, if the kenotic self is the self­emptying self, the plerotic self is the self­fulfilling self. Paradoxically, kenosis is plerosis, or in other words, the action of self­emptying is paradoxically the action of self­fulfilling. Although our

90 The Emptying God, 175.

49 definition of Shunyata has been derived from Buddhism, our definition of kenosis has been derived from Christianity, and the word plerosis itself comes from ancient Greek and Christianity, our definition of plerosis is not derived from the context of Christianity.

Rather, our definition of plerosis is based on both the theology of Thomas Merton and the philosophy of Abe Masao. Therefore, the plerotic self is the counterpart to and cataphatic interpretation of the ultimate effect of total kenosis and true Shunyata.

The plerotic self is, by its nature, the dynamic and continuous active ultimate existential fulfillment in one’s life. In other words, it is the ontological reality for both

Buddhism and Christianity. This assumes that, contrary to nihilism, one’s existence has a purpose. In other words, according to Abe’s philosophy of total kenosis and true

Shunyata, the purpose of the self is to be self­negating, and thus self­fulfilling. The kenotic self is the active self­emptying self and the plerotic self is the active self­fulfilling self, therefore kenosis is plerosis and plerosis is kenosis. Additionally, true Shunyata is active, total emptiness and total plerosis is active, complete fulfillness, therefore, true

Shunyata is plerosis and plerosis is true Shunyata. However, this is not to say that

Shunyata and kenosis are the same. Rather, the notion of plerosis not only preserves the distinctiveness of the two concepts, our definition of plerosis describes this distinctiveness. Plerosis can be looked at as the cataphatic distillation of kenosis and

Shunyata. Therefore, we are left with a three­part definition of plerosis:

Kenosis is self­emptying, Shunyata is total emptiness, and plerosis is self­ fulfilling.

Kenosis = plerosis and Shunyata = plerosis because plerosis is the ultimate effect and counterpart of kenosis and Shunyata.

However, although kenosis = plerosis and Shunyata = plerosis, kenosis ≠ Shunyata.

50 Because the plerotic self is both the total kenotic self and true Shunyata, one who has been awakened to the plerotic self similarly behaves just as one who has attained total kenosis or true Shunyata. In fact, one who has not been awakened to the plerotic self cannot know what it looks like and therefore cannot know what to look for, making it an undetectable mode of existence. Therefore, the plerotic self is not within the reach of anyone. Rather, it is already within everyone just as Shunyata and Christ’s kenotic nature are but has merely not been fully realized. 91

91 This is possibly similar to the Tathagatagarbha doctrine or the notion of Buddha­nature.

51 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe, Masao. Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue. Edited by Steven Heine. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1995.

———. Zen and Comparative Studies. Edited by Steven Heine. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1997.

Bailey, Raymond. Thomas Merton on Mysticism. Garden City, New York: Image Books, 1987.

Bernadicou, Paul. “The Eastward Turn of Thomas Merton,” Science et Esprit, (1982): 351­359.

Daggy, Robert E. Encounter: Thomas Merton & D.T. Suzuki. Larkspur Press, 1988.

The Emptying God. Edited by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Christopher Ives. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1990.

The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Edition. Edited by Wayne A Meeks, et al. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989.

Heisig, James W. Philosophers of Nothingness. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2001.

Jones, Rufus M. Studies in Mystical Religion. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1936.

Kelley, C. F. Meister Eckhart on Divine Knowledge. New Haven: Yale, 1977.

Kierkegaard, Søren. A Kierkegaard Anthology. Edited by Robert Bretall. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1946.

Linge, David E. “Mysticism, Poverty and Reason in the Thought of Meister Eckhart,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 46.04 (1979).

MacCormick, Chalmers. "Zen Catholicism of Thomas Merton." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 9, no. 4 (1972): 802­818.

Masao Abe: a Zen life of dialogue. Edited by Donald W. Mitchell. Boston: Tuttle Publishing, 1998.

McBrien, Richard P. Catholicism: New Edition. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.

McGinn, Bernard. The Mystical Thought of Meister Eckhart. New York: Crossroad, 2001.

52 Merton, Thomas. The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton. Edited by Naomi Burton, Brother Patrick Hart and James Laughlin et al. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1968.

———. Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander. New York: Doubleday, 1968.

———. The Living Bread. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy, 1956.

———. Mystics and Zen masters. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1967.

———. The New Man. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1961.

———. New Seeds of Contemplation. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1961.

———. The Seven Storey Mountain: an autobiography of faith. San Diego: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1948.

———. Zen and the Birds of Appetite. New York: New Directions Publishing Corporation, 1968.

Meister Eckhart. Edited by Franz Pfeiffer. Translated by C. de B. Evans, Vol. 1. London: Watkins, 1947.

Mitchell, Donald W. Spirituality and Emptiness. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press, 1991.

Morris, Charles R. American Catholic: the saints and sinners who built America’s most powerful church. New York: Times Books, 1997.

Morris, Stephen. “Buddhism and Christianity: The Common Ground. A Study of the Radical Theologies of Meister Eckhart and Abe Masao.” Eastern Buddhist Vol. 25 No. 2 (2002): 89­118.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Translated by Helen Zimmern. Edinburgh: T.N. Foulis, 1909.

———. The Gay Science. New York: Random House, 1974.

———. This Spake Zarathustra. Translated by Thomas Common. New York: The Modern Library, 1905.

———. The Will to Power. Edited by Oscar Levy. Translated by Anthony M. Ludovici. Edinburgh: T. N. Foulis, 1909.

Nishida, Kitarō. Last Writings: nothingness and the religious worldview. Honolulu: University of Hawii Press, 1987.

53 Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

Spencer, Sidney. Mysticism in World Religion. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Steyn, H.C. "The influence of Buddhism on Thomas Merton." Journal for the Study of Religion 3, (1990): 3­13.

"Thomas Merton Center." [cited 2003]. Available from http://www.merton.org.

Thurston, Bonnie Bowman. "The conquered self : emptiness and god in a Buddhist­ Christian dialogue." Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 12, (1985): 343­353.

———. "Zen influence on Thomas Merton's view of the self." Japanese Religions 14, no. 3 (1986): 28­47.

Yusa, Michiko. Zen & Philosophy: an intellectual biography of Nishida Kitarō. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2002.

54