Existentialism and Buddhism - Term Paper Example

? Existentialism and Buddhism Existentialism and Buddhism Humanity seeks different approaches to understand life and create meaningsout of life. In effect, different theorists provide different theories on life with each theory having a different philosophical approach. These philosophies might have some semblance of an interrelation due to the content and their belief system. On the other hand, different people will ascribe to different ways of life due to the various philosophical approaches that they followed. Conversely, it is crucial to point out that these philosophical approaches might take a religious approach while most do not even have some aspects of religion. In addition, these philosophies have different aspects that make the philosophies similar to some extent although their foundations are different. For example, Buddhism and existentialism are two disparate approaches that advocate various ideas although some of their theories are similar with others varying greatly. In this regard, these two philosophies advocate for the creation of values while their inherent difference is that Buddhism believes in life having a meaning while existentialism believes in an individual creating their meaning in life. Despite these differences, this expose elucidates on the existential concepts that are part of Buddhism ideas, practices, and thoughts. The first part of the expose explains the philosophy of existentialism while the second part of the expose discusses the inherent concepts available in these two philosophies. Existentialism Yalom and Josselson (DATE) identified existentialism therapy as a journey through which a therapist walks their clients through challenges and life’s biggest problems. In this case, the therapist helps an individual walk through the process of freeing themselves from these problems in order for the individual to find a meaning in life. On the other hand, Yalom and Josselson (DATE) noted, “Existentialists regard people as meaning-making beings who are both subjects of experience and objects of self-reflection” (p. 311). In effect, existentialism believes that an individual is responsible for making life’s decisions on his or her own. Through self-reflection and different experiences that an individual undergoes, existentialists believe that the responsibility of making decisions regarding life lies within an individual. Consequently, self-reflecting helps an individual to break the challenges of defining the meaning of their life using four ‘ultimate concerns’ that cover the principle challenges in the life of an individual. These ‘ultimate concerns’ are freedom, isolation, meaning, and death (Yalom & Josselson, DATE). In existential sense, freedom hypothetically implies that individuals are the authors of their own lives and the world by design supports this hypothesis (Yalom & Josselson, DATE). In this case, it is incumbent upon an individual to make the right choices that will support the life that they wanted to live. Therefore, the existential approach to freedom recognizes the role of an individual’s responsibility in defining their lives. In effect, this makes responsibility have a relation with freedom. Importantly, it should be noted that the will, or a person’s motivation, should not be a foundation for explaining their actions. In this case, explaining motivation as the reason for an individual’s behavior denies the individual the right over his or her own responsibility (Yalom & Josselson, DATE). In the existential point of view, the ultimate concern of isolation “pertains to our aloneness in the universe, which though assuaged by connections to other human beings, yet remains” (Yalom & Josselson, DATE, p. 313). Therefore, it is crucial to point out that the isolation in this sense is the detachment of an individual from their world. In this case, this isolation is not isolation from others or an individual’s isolation from self. However, it is isolation founded on the knowledge that an individual came into this world on their own, and through death, they will leave the world since death is also solitary (Yalom & Josselson, DATE). On the other hand, the awareness of the ultimate concerns of death “is the most painful and difficult” (Yalom & Josselson, DATE, p. 313). In this case, it is evident that beyond striving to find a meaning in life and taking responsibilities over life’s choices, the ultimate thing in life is death. Nonetheless, it is crucial to confront death in order for an individual to live a life that is rich and full. The overall factor in existentialism is to ensure that an individual defined their purpose and meaning in life. In this case, individuals should find a meaning in their life since “we create our own world and have to answer for ourselves why we live and how we shall live” (Yalom & Josselson, DATE, p. 313). Hence, the ultimate concern of meaning defines the purpose of an individual and the philosophy of existentialism. In this regard, defining a meaning implies that life is self-authored and an individual has control over their life with controlling life being an issue of the responsibility of an individual. Buddhism and Existentialism Buddhism is one of the religions of the world that follows the teaching of “Buddha,” which means the enlightened one (Teece, 2004). In this regard, Buddhism does not believe in God, but Buddha taught that people are attached to their desires and it was incumbent upon an individual to free themselves from these desires in order for him or her to live a life that was rich and full and see things from reality. In this regard, Buddha taught individuals about the different ways of attaining nibbana, which is a state of satisfaction, while using their own efforts or other means that were taught to an individual (Teece, 2004). Based on the philosophy and teachings of Buddha, there are overlying similarities between the concepts of existentialism and Buddhism. First, it is evident that the two philosophies advocate for the creation of values in an individual’s life. In this regard, Buddha advised people to create a state of happiness in them by eliminating the three poisons of ignorance, hatred, and greed within them and instead show enlightenment, love, and compassion to others (Teece, 2004). Hence, the philosophy of Buddhism requires people to create the three values of enlightenment, compassion, and love for each other with each individual working hard to ensure that they achieved these three important values. In effect, creating these values ensures that an individual attains a state of happiness. On the other hand, it is evident that the philosophy of existentialism focuses on an individual’s creation of a purpose in life (Yalom & Josselson, DATE). In this case, giving an individual’s life a purpose is the creation of values that an individual is going to live by as guided by their quest to find a meaning in their life. The two philosophies identify the important role that an individual played in shaping their lives. For existentialism, Yalom and Josselson (DATE) noted, “We are responsible for the sense we make of our world and for all of our actions and our failures to act” (p.312). In this case, it is upon an individual to be responsible of their own actions since they determine the course of the life. This way, taking control of one’s life will determine whether an individual succeeded in achieving the values that they created or the individual failed to achieve these values. On the other hand, the philosophy of Buddhism identifies an individual as an important entity who is responsible for his or her own life and determining whether they achieved the required state of enlightenment (Teece, 2004). Hence, it should be pointed that Buddhism requires an individual to achieve this stage based on the approaches taught by Buddha or based on an individual’s self-taught approaches. Buddhism and existentialism are similar in the way that the two philosophies perceive the world. In this case, the two philosophies identify suffering as inevitable to any individual in the world. For existentialism, the ultimate concern of isolation observes the inherent tension between an individual’s wish to establish contact with other people and the knowledge of an individual regarding their aloneness, which is painful (Yalom and Josselson, DATE). Hence, isolation evidently makes an individual suffer from emotional pain, which is present in the world when an individual is alive. In addition, this philosophy indicates that an individual’s awareness that the ultimate thing in life is death is painful since human beings spend a lot of time finding meaning and purpose to life. On the other hand, Buddhism acknowledges that an individual must undergo suffering in the course of their life. In this case, the philosophy identifies the world as filled with hate, greed, and ignorance with these factors playing a crucial role in causing pain and suffering to an individual’s life. However, the philosophy offers the path to enlightenment as the essential and crucial approach in ensuring that a person avoided suffering while on earth (Teece, 2004). The most important similarity between these two philosophies regards the permanent self in an individual. In this case, these two philosophies do not recognize an existence of an everlasting self within the mind-body continuum. Case in point, Buddhism recognizes that an individual can achieve enlightenment through freeing themselves from ignorance, greed, and hatred through the process of nibbana (Teece, 2004). In this case, Buddhism advances the philosophy of the unavailability of a single state that an individual cannot transcend once they took it as their responsibility to transcend their current state. In this case, the body and mind cannot live in hate, greed, and ignorance once an individual took the responsibility of transcending these evils. On the other hand, existentialists believe that an individual can find their purpose in life and live by that purpose. In this case, this philosophy does not identify any single state that an individual cannot be able to overcome once they took it as their responsibility to overcome the state. Conclusion Based on the foregoing, it is evident that these two philosophies draw some similarities in their theoretical approaches. Nonetheless, differences abound regarding the theoretical approaches that these two philosophies advance. First, it is crucial to point out that Buddhism believes in life having an unconditional meaning. In this case, Buddha defined the meaning of life and identified life to have an absolute meaning. On the other hand, existentialists do not recognize life as having a meaning that was absolute in nature. However, existentialists believe that an individual should be responsible for their own life and in the process of being responsible, it is important for people to define their own meanings in life. On the other hand, practicing mindful-meditation forms the foundation for Buddhist philosophy. However, existentialists believe in engaging in activities that provided a meaning and purpose to life. Overall, despite the overlying differences, it is evident that there are underlying similarities between the Buddhist and externalists philosophies. In this case, the two philosophies emphasize on the importance of an individual being responsible for their life by creating their own values. References Teece, G. (2004). Buddhism. Beverly Hills, CA: Black Rabbit Books. Yalom, I. D., & Josselson, R. (DATE). Existential Psychotherapy. In [A. Editor & B. Editor] (Eds.), Title of book (310-316). Location: Publisher. Read More