Drive all Blames into One: Rhetorics of 'Self-Blame' and Refuge in Tibetan Buddhist Lojong, Nietzsche, and the Desert Fathers Author: Glenn Robert Willis Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:104051 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2014 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Theology DRIVE ALL BLAMES INTO ONE: RHETORICS OF ‘SELF-BLAME’ AND REFUGE IN TIBETAN BUDDHIST LOJONG, NIETZSCHE, AND THE DESERT FATHERS a dissertation by GLENN ROBERT WILLIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy DECEMBER 2014 © copyright by GLENN ROBERT WILLIS 2014 Abstract Drive All Blames into One: Rhetorics of ‘Self-Blame’ and Refuge in Tibetan Buddhist Lojong, Nietzsche, and the Desert Fathers Glenn Robert Willis Professor John Makransky, Dissertation Director The purpose of this work is to differentiate the autonomous ‘self-compassion’ of therapeutic modernist Buddhism from pre-therapeutic Mahāyāna Buddhist practices of refuge, so that refuge itself is not obscured as a fundamental Buddhist orientation that empowers the possibility of compassion for self and other in the first place. The work begins by situating issues of shame and self-aversion sociologically, in order to understand how and why self-aversion became a significant topic of concern during the final quarter of the twentieth century. This discussion allows for a further investigation of shame as it has been addressed first by psychologists, for whom shame is often understood as a form of isolating self-aversion, and then by philosophers such as Bernard Williams and Emmanuel Levinas, for whom shame attunes the person to the moral expectations of a community, and therefore to ethical commands that arise from beyond the individual self. Both psychologists and philosophers are ultimately concerned with problems and possibilities of relationship. These discussions prepare the reader to understand the importance of Buddhist refuge as a form of relationship that structures an integrative rather than destructive self-evaluation. The second chapter of the dissertation closely examines Friedrich Nietzsche’s work on shame. In a late note, Nietzsche wrote that “man has lost the faith in his own value when no infinitely valuable whole works through him”1; the second chapter argues that Nietzsche’s vision of a relatively autonomous will to power cannot fully incorporate this important Nietzschean insight, and helps to drive the kind of self- evaluation typical of modernist ‘personality culture,’ which is likely to become harsh. The third chapter first discusses contemporary therapeutic Buddhist responses to self-aversion, particularly practices of ‘self-compassion’ that claim to be rooted in early Pali canonical and commentarial sources, before developing a commentary on the medieval Tibetan lojong teaching Drive all blames into one. Drive all blames into one, though often discussed in contemporary commentaries as a form of self-blame, should be understood more thoroughly as a simultaneous process of refuge and critique—a process that drives further access to compassion not only for self, but for others as well. Chapter Four discusses mourning and self-reproach in the apophthegmata of the Desert Fathers, showing how ‘self-hatred’ in this context is in a form of irony: the self that is denigrated is not an ultimate reality, and the process of mourning depends upon both an access to love and a clear recognition of our many turns away from that love. In conclusion, I draw attention to the irony of modernist rejections of religious self-critique as supposedly harmful forms of mere shaming, even as the modernist emphasis on autonomy is what enables self-critique to become harsh and damaging. 1 Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, trans. Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale, ed. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Random House, 1967), p. 12. Acknowledgements The Tibetan Buddhist lojong teaching that accompanies the injunction to Drive all blames into one instructs the lojong practitioner to contemplate the great kindness of others. John Makransky’s theological and analytic perceptiveness, quiet humor, humanity, and generosity of spirit are manifested in his close consideration not only of my writing but of my own most basic questions as they have evolved over several years. I am profoundly grateful for his presence in my life these past six years. John McDargh has been a deeply warm and kind mentor to me. He has allowed me to experiment with my own pedagogical identity as a co-instructor in his classroom, and his graduate courses on religion and psychology helped me initially consider shame as a topic for further investigation. I will encourage students as he has encouraged me. Jeff Bloechl, who has an infinitely calm demeanor, must be something of a gambler, because he was willing to serve for the past several years as an examiner and a reader for me, without my ever having taken a course with him. He sat with me in his office for a number of hours giving me nuances of perspective that allowed me to gain initial access to the texts of Levinas, Sartre, Nietzsche, and Deleuze. I do not pretend to have fully mastered those nuances, but Jeff’s unselfish help enabled me to explore philosophy as an important conversation partner in my own theological work. Catherine Cornille, as the Chair of the Boston College Department of Theology, has given me repeated opportunities to gain experience as an academic editor, conference organizer, conference presenter, and instructor. Catherine places others in i position to succeed. Maybe even more importantly, Catherine’s incisiveness and generous good humor during my years of work with her has influenced me in ways that I only began to understand when I started teaching others. Her bright laugh and forceful defense of confessional theology will be with me for my entire life to come. A number of people read initial drafts of the chapters below, or gave me crucial perspectives to consider through extensive conversation. Rev. Ron Marshall, Rev. Wes McIntyre, Barnes Peterson, John Thatamanil, Rev Gordon Peerman, Andy Olendzki, Mu Soeng, Charles Hallisey, Rev. Robert Ross, Dee Willis, Nancy Welliver, and Professor Tom Pruzinsky all gave me feedback, or served as conversation partners, in ways that extended the horizons and very much improved the arguments of the pages below. Tom Pruzinsky deserves special mention for his extraordinarily generous tutorial suggestions in the psychology of emotion. Charlie Hallisey’s passion, irony, and pedagogical genius all come from a quiet love for others, and he has influenced many of these pages. I am particularly indebted to Professor Karen Enriquez and to Kevin Johnson, who, over several years, have both allowed me to present very rough drafts of writing- in-progress in regular meetings with them. These sessions have often been times for mutual care, and I am deeply grateful for their humor, kindness, and encouragement. At Boston College, I have been privileged to be a part of a graduate student community that includes my wonderful and insightful peers Emma O’Donnell, Jillian Maxey, Bethany Slater, Michael Van Zandt Collins, Tim Carey, Won-Jae Hur, Stephanie Petersen, Christopher Conway, and Erik Ranstrom. Stephanie has often been a sensitive confidante in moments when I have been uncertain about my vocational path; Emma is ii always willing to laugh at my jokes, and she also has an actual sense of style; Jillian Maxey’s unabashed honesty is refreshing, necessary, and arises from deep compassion; Bethany Slater must not repeat my mistakes; Tim Carey is the wisest among us and doesn’t take things too seriously; Won-Jae Hur’s deep pastoral intelligence is a gift to everyone around him; Michael Van Zandt Collins genuinely teaches me something every time I talk with him, and will continue to do so; Chris Conway is a man whose immense affective and intellectual range has been cultivated over innumerable prior lifetimes; and Erik Ranstrom regularly allows me to express my sense of passion and vulnerability over pizza dinners at the Grafton Street Papa Gino’s in Worcester, Massachusetts. He has also helped me move twice. Several of my most important teachers have passed away. This work would have been very different or non-existent without the lives of Jim Clowes, my courageous undergraduate advisor at the University of Washington, who died at the age of 47; Harmon Wray, a prisoner advocate, who passed away at the age of 60, just as I was leaving Nashville to come to Boston; and Kathy Elizabeth Woods, my first Buddhist teacher, who passed away to my great sadness in August of this year at the age of 64. If I have another decade, or few decades, to make an offering to others in any way similar to the gifts they have given me, I will be satisfied. Nothing would have been written without the care of my wife, Margaret Mary, who is the most perceptive, hilarious, and wonderful human being I have ever met. Among so many wonderful teachers, colleagues, and friends, it goes without saying that any blame for the imperfections of this work should be driven into one. iii Table of Contents Introduction 1 Chapter One: Varieties of Shame 1.1 Chapter Introduction 9 1.2 Sociological Sources of Self-Aversion 13 1.3 Shame in Contemporary Psychology 23 1.4 Shame Among the Philosophers I: Bernard Williams