Bangor University DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY The meaning of suffering An analysis of potential relationships between Buddhist thought and Kierkegaardian philosophy Andrews, Joshua Award date: 2018 Awarding institution: Bangor University Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 26. Sep. 2021 The Meaning of Suffering: An analysis of potential relationships between Buddhist thought and Kierkegaardian philosophy By Joshua James Andrews Submitted in the fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Bangor University School of Philosophy and Religion 1 Dedication In memory of Nanny Daphers The aesthete who left the party a little too soon. 2 Abstract Throughout the last three decades there has been considerable academic interest in the comparisons between Existential philosophy and Buddhism. For instance, numerous publications propose significant parallels between a range of Buddhist philosophies and the ideas of Nietzsche and Sartre, with comparisons often made between Buddhist philosophies such as anattā (not self) or the śūnyatā (emptiness) and Sartre’s notion of “nothingness”, or Nietzsche’s notion of “nihilism”. Whilst Nietzsche and Sartre have remained at the forefront of research into the relationship between existentialism and Buddhism, there appears to be a growing interest in possible associations between Buddhism and the ideas of existential philosopher, Søren Kierkegaard. In complete contrast to the majority of research into the relationship between Buddhist thought and existentialism, analysis of the relationship between Buddhism and Kierkegaard is explored only fleetingly, usually as a subsidiary topic within studies of Kierkegaard’s philosophy. This is to say, often Buddhism is employed by scholars of Kierkegaard to help explore themes of his philosophy in greater depth or to show his relevance to religious discourses outside Christian traditions. Whilst much of the dialogue between Buddhism and Kierkegaard in current scholarship seems to be cut-short—appearing briefly in short articles or mere paragraphs within works that are focussed on other matters entirely—the frequent pairing of these philosophical traditions collectively reveals substantial similarities between them. For instance, there appears to be rich overlap between the Buddhist notion of dukkha and Kierkegaard’s notion of suffering, one that reveals suffering to be a fundamental aspect of human life, with the capacity to transform a person’s perception of the material world. In each case, suffering appears to have the power to motivate a person, and to encourage 3 them to overcome selfish and materialistic desires, and in the process, discover true joy or satisfaction. Whilst current research on the relationship of Kierkegaard’s philosophy and Buddhist ideas have exposed a promising area for further study, it is also insufficient in its attempts to analyse the topic, and all too often arrives at erroneous conclusions. The complexity of Buddhist ideas often goes unnoticed, leading to reductive, mistaken definitions. Furthermore, owing to the fact that research in this area is often presented within discourses that, in the main, seek to emphasise and elaborate the ideas of Kierkegaard, there has been little consistency in the specific Buddhist traditions and concepts that are examined, and in some cases, an unhelpful tendency to conflate Buddhist traditions as if they were all one and the same with no appreciation for their differences. The intention of this thesis is to re-evaluate the existing dialogue between Buddhist thought and the philosophy of Kierkegaard. To do so, I identify and analyse key points of similarity and difference between the two. These include the relationships between Kierkegaard’s angest and the Buddhist concept of dukkha and Kierkegaard’s approach to human suffering and the Buddhist conception of samudaya. My thesis provides an invaluable counterbalance to existing scholarship in the field by placing greater emphasis on key Buddhist teachings in relation to Kierkegaard’s ideas. This ensures that the important parallels between these two great philosophies and approaches to life can be analysed more accurately and in greater depth. Likewise, it enables a clearer appreciation of the various points of contention that prevail between the two. This thesis will challenge significant preconceptions that continue to be voiced by scholars of Kierkegaard, who fail to appreciate the finer nuances of Buddhist 4 doctrine, whilst at the same time, open up fresh, new dialogues between the works of Kierkegaard and Buddhist philosophy. 5 Contents Dedications 2 Abstract 3 Contents 6 Abbreviations 8 Acknowledgements 9 Chapter One: Introduction 10 1.1 Opening Remarks_________________________________________________10 1.2 Literature Review ___ 16 1.3 Comparative Methodology______ 25 1.4 Contextualising the Pāḷi Texts 32 1.5 Overview of Thesis _______________________________________________35 Chapter Two: The Difference Between Angest and Suffering Within Kierkegaard’s Narrative 40 2.1 Overview of Chapter Two 40 2.2 The Meaning of Angest 44 2.3 The Concept of Angest in Kierkegaard’s Literature 51 2.4 Kierkegaard’s Twofold model of Suffering 66 2.5 Summary of Chapter Two 81 Chapter Three: A Re-Evaluation of the Relationship Between Angest and Dukkha 88 3.1 Overview of Chapter Three 88 3.2 The Significance of Dukkha 90 3.3 The Meaning of Dukkha 93 3.4 The Three Forms of Dukkha 98 3.5 The Relationship Between Angest and Dukkha 115 3.6 The First Manifestation of Anxiety 119 3.7 The Second Manifestation of Anxiety 120 6 3.8 The Third Manifestation of Anxiety 129 3.9 Free Will and Responsibility 142 3.10 The difference between Angest and Dukkha 158 3.11 Summary of Chapter Three 159 Chapter Four: The Origins and Liberation from Suffering 161 4.1 Overview of Chapter Four 161 4.2 Taṇhā and Kierkegaard’s Model of Suffering 161 4.3 The Aesthetic 180 4.4 The Ethical 202 4.5 The Third Noble Truth and Kierkegaard’s Model of Liberation 219 4.6 An-up ādisesa-nibbāna and Kierkegaard’s Final Liberation 240 4.7 Summary of Chapter Four 249 Chapter Five: The Role of Jesus and The Buddha 250 5.1 Overview of Chapter Five 250 5.2 Kierkegaard’s Christology 251 5.3 Pāli Buddhology _______ 257 5.4 The Humanity of Christ and the Buddha 273 5.5 Becoming an Individual 285 5.6 The Role of Faith 291 5.7 Summary of Chapter Five 297 Chapter Six: Conclusion 299 Bibliography 314 7 Abbreviations Aṅguttara Nikāya AN Dīgha Nikāya DN Majjhima Nikāya MN Saṃyutta Nikāya SN 8 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr Lucy Huskinson for being a far better head coach than Marvin Lewis and getting me through a pretty rough fourth quarter and encouraging me all the way through extra time. I really can’t express how grateful I am for everything you have done for me over the last decade, you have been a constant source of support and never fail to rebuild my confidence when I start to doubt myself. I would also like to thank Mummsy and Pops for keeping the bank of Mum and Dad open for far longer than they should have had to, your support both finically, and otherwise is greatly appreciated. To Danny for being a true ‘Hufflepuff’ and helping me organise my references, whilst also putting up with my constant mood swings. Finally, I want to thank the School of Philosophy and Religion’s Class of 2019 for reminding me why I started my PhD in the first place, your collective enthusiasm and humour has made the final twelve months of writing my thesis far more enjoyable. 9 Chapter One: Introduction Opening Remarks In his opening remarks to his 2008 edited volume Kierkegaard and Japanese Thought, philosopher James Giles suggests there remains a significant void in Kierkegaardian scholarship, with academics persistently ignoring the potential parallels that exist between Kierkegaard’s existentialism and the Asian philosophical traditions.1 Referring to the work of Roger Poole (1998), which details Kierkegaard’s reception throughout the Twentieth- century,2 Giles criticises the fact that scholars—such as Poole—have been keen to forge links between Kierkegaard and Western philosophy, but have largely ignored potential connections between Kierkegaard and Asian philosophy.3 This neglection sets Kierkegaard apart from the other great existential thinkers, such as Nietzsche4 and Sartre, whose works are routinely scrutinised through the prism of Asian thought, most commonly Buddhism. It is my contention scholars choose Nietzsche or Sartre over Kierkegaard in their comparative studies of existentialism and Buddhism due to an increasing secular bias in the West that favours the atheist approach of these philosophers. The works of Nietzsche and Sartre are characterised by their explicit rejection of the existence of God, and this has intrigued both scholars of Buddhism and comparative philosophers alike,5 who utilise this atheistic stance as a point of comparison with Buddhism.6 However, although Kierkegaard’s Christian 1 James Giles, ‘Introduction: Kierkegaard Among the Temples of Kamakura’, in Kierkegaard and Japanese Thought, James Giles (ed) (New York: Palgrave MacMillian, 2008), p.1. 2 Roger Poole, ‘The Unknown Kierkegaard: Twentieth Century Receptions’, in The Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard, Alastair Hannay & Gordon D.