The Concept of Self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and Its Implication for Interfaith Relations

The Concept of Self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and Its Implication for Interfaith Relations

Kiseong Shin

Foreword by S. Wesley Ariarajah

The Concept of Self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and Its Implication for Interfaith Relations

Copyright © 2017 Kiseong Shin. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical publications or reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Write: Permissions, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3, Eugene, OR 97401.

Pickwick Publications

An Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers

199 W. 8th Ave., Suite 3

Eugene, OR 97401

www.wipfandstock.com

paperback isbn: 978-1-5326-0095-1

hardcover isbn: 978-1-5326-0097-5

ebook isbn: 978-1-5326-0096-8

Cataloging-in-Publication data:

Names: Shin, Kiseong, author | Ariarajah, S. Wesley, foreword.

Title: The concept of self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity and its implication for interfaith relations / Kiseong Shin ; foreword by S. Wesley Ariarajah.

Description: Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2017 | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: ISBN: 978-1-5326-0095-1 (paperback) | ISBN: 978-1-5326-0097-5 (hardcover) | ISBN: 978-1-5326-0096-8 (ebook).

Subjects: Self—Religious aspects | Ātman | Anātman | Hinduism | Buddhism | Christianity.

Classification: BL624 S52 2017 (print) | BL624 (ebook)

Manufactured in the U.S.A. 09/17/15

Table of Contents

Title Page

Foreword

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1: Atman in Hinduism

Chapter 2: Anatta in Buddhism

Chapter 3: Soul in Christianity

Chapter 4: Conclusion

Bibliography

For Miok, Haneul, and Arrum

Foreword

Rudyard Kipling, in the initial lines of his poem, The Ballad of East and West, wrote the frequently quoted words, East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet. Kipling had his own ideas as to when such unlikely meeting might happen, but the forces of globalization, population movements, and ever increasing life in multifaith and multicultural communities have already begun to challenge these words, written over a century ago. The two have not only met but have also begun to impact and influence one another in remarkable ways. However, it would appear that the sentiment never the twain shall meet continues to exert its influence in the area of religious studies and Christian theology.

The conviction that Hinduism and Buddhism are incompatible with the Christian faith and that there are irreconcilable differences between them was deeply felt by most of the early missionaries who ventured into Asian countries. Buddhist disinterest in the concept of God and its apparent belief that there is no permanent soul or self in human beings made it difficult for the missionaries to even begin a conversation with the Buddhists. Similarly, the centrality of images of gods and goddesses in Hindu worship and the Monistic emphasis in its predominant philosophic tradition, which denied a human self as distinct from Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, also placed high barriers that prevented any meaningful dialogue between Hindus and Christians of that period. It is this reality that led to displacement of other religions with Christianity as the primary missionary model in Asia, which vitiated and continues to vitiate interfaith relationships.

Much has changed over the past several decades. There is more informed understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism today and much work has already been done within Buddhist–Christian and Hindu–Christian dialogue circles to delve deeply into the philosophical explorations and religious experiences that lie behind the Hindus and Buddhist teachings. Yet, many still hold the view that the Buddhist, Hindu, and Christian anthropologies are the main sticking point in interfaith dialogue and cooperation.

It is in this context that the work of Dr. Kiseong Shin makes a significant contribution both to the world of scholarship and to those interested in Buddhist–Christian and Hindu–Christian relations, especially in Asia, but also in other parts of the world. Through an in-depth study of the concepts of the self in these three traditions, and by drawing out the implications of these concepts for life in society for each of them, Dr. Shin seeks to explore how these very concepts that were considered inimical to interfaith relations can become the bases for interpreting the respective traditions towards a new relationship to each other. This scholarly, yet accessible volume is an important contribution both to the Study of Religion and to Interfaith Relations.

S. Wesley Ariarajah

Professor Emeritus of Ecumenical Theology

Drew University School of Theology

Madison, NJ

May 2016

Preface

Can religious traditions provide the necessary impetus for peace and harmony in multi-faith societies? This has become an existential question in many countries, including South Korea. Recently, there have been number of incidents in South Korea that has increased the tension between Buddhists and Christians.

It is generally believed that religious traditions are very different systems of belief with very little doctrinal teachings in them that can promote relationships and harmony. Therefore they look to interfaith dialogue as the only practical way forward. Many, for instance, see Christianity and Buddhism as having teachings that cannot be bridged. The disinterest in God in Buddhism and its denial of the Self are seen as main obstacles to bringing it closer to Christianity with the intention of creating a community across the religious lines.

This book questions this common assumption and seeks to show that the very heart of these religious traditions and their teachings can, indeed, be interpreted to serve the cause of peace and harmony in multi-faith societies.

The concept of the self in three traditions—Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity—is chosen for deeper analysis. The study goes beyond the traditional assumptions and presuppositions to show that some of these assumptions are not necessarily definitive, and that the concepts of the self and no-self can, indeed, be interpreted for communal life in multi-faith societies.

The first three chapters analyze the concept of the self in these three religious traditions. Based on this, the concluding chapter concentrates on two issues. The first is the question of suffering. Here, the chapter argues that while there is an individualist understanding of suffering in Hinduism and Buddhism, the concept of the self as unity of Atman and Brahman in Hinduism and the concept of Sunyatta in Buddhism have dimensions that have deep sociological significance that are in need of explication. It also shows that both Buddhism and Hinduism have the opportunity to expand their concept of suffering to include social and structural suffering through their dialogue with Christianity.

The second relates to relationality, and argues that all three religions have profound relational dimensions that need to be developed for social peace and harmony, and that this should include the dimension of our relationship to the earth and the care of all creatures. On this, Christianity has much to learn from dialogue with Hinduism and Buddhism.

My thanks to Wipf and Stock Publishers and its editorial staff. I owe special thanks to Dr. Wesley Ariarajah, my academic and spiritual mentor, who has never failed to convince me that I can do this and more. Without his help, this adventure would not have even been started. I am particularly grateful for the support that I have received from Dr. Robert Corrington and Dr. Hyo-Dong Lee at Drew University. I am also deeply indebted to my professor, Dr. Sehyoung Lee, at Hyupsung University in Korea for his support and encouragement for a long time. Above all, my family, Miok, Haneul, and Arrum deserve my deepest gratitude.

Introduction

Henry N. Wieman has argued that if there is no peace between religions, there will be no peace in the world. ¹ It has also been said that peace among religions would be possible only if they work towards mutual respect and understanding, and build their relationships on new foundations. Therefore, in recent decades, many have spoken of the urgency of interfaith dialogue both at the local and global levels. But can dialogue go beyond building social interactions to dealing with some of the core teachings of religions and see them as providing the impetus for mutual relationships? This volume aims to serve as a catalyst to foster a trialogue between Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity, particularly in context of increasing tensions and religion-based conflicts in South Korea.

Robert Neville says that the God of Christian theology should be moved out of the narrow confines of theism and be made available for an encounter with nontheistic religious traditions.² Heinrich Dumoulin claims that for a genuine dialogue to emerge, Christianity must accept the otherness of other religious traditions. In his view, dialogue would help Christians to move away from the traditional preoccupation with conversion to the search for mutual understanding and mutual acceptance.³ S. Wesley Ariarajah contends that in a general sense, Asian philosophies tend to emphasize the unity and interdependence of all reality. Human life is seen as part of the cosmic process and the emphasis, again very generally speaking, is on harmony and self-awareness.⁴

This is the philosophical ethos in which I have grown. It should be noted, however, that increasingly it is not easy to define what is specifically Western and Eastern. Yet, one can see clear distinctions between the West and the East in their understanding of and approach to reality. This volume is grounded in the belief that through dialogue or trilogue with one another, Eastern religious traditions can learn from the Western traditions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and that the Western traditions, too, have much to learn from encounters with Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other religions including local, indigenous beliefs. This volume is a comparative anthropological study of three religions chosen from the East and the West with the aim of promoting mutual understanding and mutual enrichment.

The Significance of the Question of Self

The aim of this volume is to engage in a comparative study of the concept of self and its implication for salvation in Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity with the view to explore their potential to increase mutual understanding. Even though there are significant doctrinal differences within these three belief systems, they all agree that human beings are in a predicament from which they need to be liberated. Even though they explain the human condition and human destiny with different terms and teachings, such as Ignorance, or the Fall and Enlightenment, or Redemption, each of these religions seeks to help their adherents in a path to human liberation.

It is clear that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity have very different approaches to understanding reality and the human predicament. Indian religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, share the belief that human nature is inherently perfectible. The Christian tradition, however, has been reluctant to affirm this belief in view of the ontological understanding of sin, although some traditions of the church have spoken of the need to strive towards sanctification and perfection as the necessary follow up of the experience of salvation. Regarding the immortality of the human being, Hinduism and Christianity traditionally and generally agree that human beings, as atman or soul, possess intrinsic immortality. On the contrary, Buddhism teaches the doctrine of no-self (anatta). Further, in their quest to analyze the human predicament and a way out of it, they employ different concepts, such as ‘sin’ and ‘salvation’ in Christianity, ‘attachment’ (tanha) and ‘enlightenment’ (nirvana) in Buddhism, and ignorance (avidya) and liberation (moksa) in Hinduism. Accordingly, the understandings of the human self and its liberation or salvation are different from one another. In order to explore the meaning of salvation or enlightenment in these three traditions, one needs to understand their underlying assumptions about the nature of human beings. Who are the human beings that are in need of salvation or liberation?

My interest in Hinduism and India began with a trip to India to fulfill the cross-cultural trip requirement for the Master of Divinity degree at Drew Theological School. It was a significant experience for me, and it led me to reflect in depth about other religions and cultures. One of the most interesting aspects of the trip was that it gave me the opportunity to think about the essence or purpose of religions, including Christianity. I saw Christianity as a minority for the first time in my life. It is believed that Christianity had been brought to India two thousand years ago by the apostle St. Thomas. However, Indian Christians are still an insignificant minority of less than three percent of the Indian population. Therefore, the impact of Christianity in India has been quite different from that in countries where Christianity has numerical significance and power, for example, in Korea and the USA.

In India, I came across a deep interest among sections of Christians in dialogue with other religious traditions. As Michael Amaladoss argues in his book, Beyond Inculturation: Can the Many Be the One?, in India, one had to choose between being either an Indian socially and culturally or (being) a Christian.⁵ If a person chose to be a Christian, it made him or her feel culturally strange in his or her homeland. Despite this reality, I observed some instances of inculturated Christianity in India that has been deeply influenced by Hinduism. I was able to see many Hindu symbols and Indian traditional signs in Christian churches.

Some may argue that all the efforts at inculturation of Christianity in India are the result of the attempts to survive as a minority. But Amaladoss is convinced that attempts at Hinduization is even normal and to be expected, and that, as a matter of fact, there are Indian theologians who consider themselves Hindu Christians.⁶ In his view, interreligious dialogue in India has now become an absolute necessity because of the rise of Hindu fundamentalism. Amaladoss continues, The only option for us in such a situation is not embodiment, but dialogue, which is ready to receive as well as to give.⁷ This reality prompts me, for the reasons I give below, to bring Hinduism into my research.

Turning to Korea, Buddhism has been one of the major religions of the Korean people for centuries. Buddhism suffered at the hands of the Chosun Dynasty (1392–1897 CE) as a result of the political oppression by the ruling Confucian party. However, it has never lost its position as a major religion in Korean history since it emerged during the period of the Three Kingdoms (58 BCE—668 CE). My interest in Buddhism arises from recent religious conflicts between Buddhists and Christians in South Korea, which is not unlike the recent religious tensions between sections of Hindus and Christians in India. Even though there have been several occasions of political persecution of religion in Korean history, such as the oppression of Roman Catholicism and the Dong Hak Movement by the Confucian political parties in the Chosun Dynasty, there had been no major religious conflicts at the grassroots level in Korea. Painfully, the conservative, fundamentalist, and extremely exclusive Korean Christians have provided causes for the present conflict between Buddhism and Christianity. My interest in Buddhism began with this religious situation in Korea. No matter what the reasons are at the root of this conflict, Korea today is in need of interreligious dialogue or trialogue to confront it, and to attempt to contain the rise of interreligious tensions and conflicts.

It is often too easily believed that the concept of the self in these three religions has created a gulf that cannot be bridged. Many Christians believe that there is no common ground between Buddhism and Christianity. I believe that an examination of the concept of the self in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity would be fruitful in removing some of the easy assumptions about the incompatibility of these three religions as well as in promoting a new basis for dialogue among them. Nancey C. Murphy argues that, It is important to be aware of this fact since whatever we believe on this subject will influence how we think about a great number of other issues, for example: What happens to us after we die? Is an embryo a person?⁸ This comparative theological research on self in these three religions is an attempt to enhance mutual understanding among these three religions and to promote dialogue among them.

Discussions Thus Far

I adopt the following methodology in this volume for a comparative trialogue: First, I will engage in a critical analysis of the concept of self in the three religions based on their primary scriptures and scholarly works on them. Regarding Hinduism, due to its vast number of schools of thought, I intend to focus on the Advaita Vedanta, associated with the name of Sankara and his contemporary interpreters. True self in Advaita Vedanta is understood as Atman, which "is the eternal light of consciousness (cit) that illumines the mind but is not itself the mind; rather it is the inner witness of the workings of mind and body."⁹ That is, atman is considered to be immortal, and the inmost self of the human being as well as of the universe.

Advaita and the teachings of Sankara, as indicated in the Bibliography, are among the most studied by both Eastern and Western scholars, and there is no dearth of material on it. K. M. Munshi’s Sankara’s Teachings in His Own Words (1960) is an important resource in the study of the Advaita. Troy W. Organ has done an extensive study on the self in The Self in Indian Philosophy (1964), exploring the development and different understandings of the self in a number of schools of Indian philosophy and theology. Another important source is the study by Evan Thompson entitled, Self or No Self: Perspectives from Analytical, Phenomenological, and Indian Traditions (2011). Specifically on Sankara’s Advaita, in The Self and Its States: The States of Consciousness Doctrine in Advaita Vedanta (1990), Andrew O. Fort has gone into an indepth analysis of the concept of the self and its states in Advaita. While making use of these and other secondary sources, however, I use arguments in this volume based primarily on the interpretations and commentaries of Sankara himself on the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedanta Sutra, and major Upanishads such as Chandogya, Brhadaranyaka, Katha, Kena, etc.

Buddhism is a unique religion in that it totally denies the existence of an immortal soul. In Buddhism, too, there is vast amount of literature on the self. I have chosen to limit the scope of this volume by dealing primarily with the Theravada tradition, which has the clearest articulation of the concept of no-self, or Anatta. Much of the Christian-Buddhist debate on the question of self can be seen within the Buddhist-Christian dialogue led by Masao Abe, John B. Cobb, David Chapel, Sallie B. King, Paul Knitters, and others in the context of the Society for Buddhist-Christian Studies and the journal published under the same name. These, however, are based mostly on the Mahayana tradition. For Theravada Buddhism, the argument will be mainly based on the works of Lynn A. de Silva, a leading exponent of the Theravada school of thought and a pioneer of interfaith dialogue between Christians and Theravada Buddhists. His commentaries on some Theravada Buddhist scriptures, such as Samyutta-Nikaya, Majjhima Nikaya, and the Dhammapada, too, are valuable contributions to this research. The journal Dialogue, coedited by Lynn de Silva and Aloysius Pieris, carry many scholarly articles on Christian-Theravada conversations on the Self.

Christian anthropology did not develop a specific concept of the self. The concept of the soul, which has been a subject of discussion in the Greco-Roman context in which Christianity grew and in later philosophical thoughts on it does not correspond to the notion of the self in Hindu and Buddhist thoughts. In other words, in general, self, in the way it is understood within Hinduism and Buddhism has not been a subject of major theological discussion within Christianity. It is one of the most ambiguous ideas, and there have been neither a clear historical development on the concept, nor agreement on the meaning of the self or soul in the Christian theological traditions.

It would be more useful to probe terms such as nephesh and baśar in the Old Testament and psyche and soma in the New Testament to articulate the meaning of self in Christianity. Thus, instead of focusing on one specific school or theological figure, I will investigate these terms and will also deal with contemporary theologians such as Joel B. Green and Nancey C. Murphy for the understanding of self as a psychosomatic entity.