Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness - Assignment Example

? BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY Key Points Summary 1100 words Abe and Ives chapters 3-8 and Rejoinder In the third chapter of the book ‘Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness’, Heinrich explores Masao Abe’s comparison of Christianity and Buddhism. Abe’s interest in the two religions relies on his belief that they possess a spiritual affinity1. Masao argues that one religion obtains strength upon encounter with its counterpart. Buddhism comes to an understanding of the self-emptying reality of God that Christianity advocates. On the other hand, Christianity better understands the ‘Sunyata’, a Buddhism principle. The point of clarity achieved is crucial in resisting Nihilism and scientism forms of religion2. Abe arrives at a point of clarity where the core of religion does not fall in doctrine but in contact with reality. The writer demystifies emptiness and nothingness as understood in traditional Christianity and western culture. According to Abe, Suchness becomes possible only in the realm of emptiness. Nothingness becomes a thing by itself3. Marjorie continues to expound the relationship between Buddhism and Christianity in the fourth chapter of the book. In his understanding, Marjorie expounds Abe’s view of God as everlasting self-emptying phenomena4. Just like Heinrich, in the third chapter, Marjorie demystifies the western approach that takes God as an ultimate self and thus contradicting Sunyata principle. To get our own profound understanding, the writer also emphasizes that there is a great need to study other religions5. The writer comes to a point of agreement with Abe on the principle of otherness. The writer affirms Abe’s work on Trinity and Sunyata. Sunyata can only achieve its emptying by embracing true otherness. Marjorie closes his argument by citing that dialogue should not aim at converting. It creates room for enrichment and a fuller understanding of the others, and consequently us. Marjorie cautions against debates on superiority of religions over others and trying to convert other people’s beliefs6. Hans Waldenfels continues with Abe's discussion on Kenosis of Christ in the fifth chapter of the book. Hans recalls a note by Keiji Nishitani on 'Anatman' whose translation amounts to non-self ego. This corresponds to Abe's Sunyata of God emptying himself, an expression of divine love. Hans hopes that the discussion between Buddhism and Christianity converges at a point where people of both opinions exercise self-denial and self-surrender for the sake of those who stumble along the way7. The writer feels dissatisfied with Abe's exposition of Sunyata and Kenosis. He feels some questions do not have satisfactory answers and refers to Nishitani. According to Hans, Nishitani's view conflicts the Kenosis by upholding the essence of personal and impersonal. Nishitani brings to life the high esteem held by western thinkers about persona. Kenosis, to Nishitani, is a matter of behavior and attitudes in contrast to conceptualization. Abe's concept of love is vague according to Hans's comparison with Nishitani's work. Nishitani clearly emphasizes on non-differentiating love as being the true nature of God rather than the process of self-emptying advocated by Abe's Kenosis. Hans also revisits the work of Karl Rahner who advocates the issue of God experience. Several conclusions suffice; Rahner's experiential basis of theology is the datum, basic existence of human life has two tensions. One tension relates to experience and communication while the other relates to theory and action. Human beings end up talking about things that can never form an object of knowledge. The attempt to harmonize beliefs of people from different backgrounds calls for mutual understanding, which calls for the sacrificing of single identity8. Christopher Ives explores Sunyata and the Realm of Ethics in the sixth chapter of the book. He affirms that Abes exposition on the forces challenging current day religion to be both insightful and valuable in redeeming the threatened Christian contemplative life. He argues that Abe's arguments bring ambiguity when he states that through self-emptying, Sunyata ceaselessly translates into vows and acts. The statement contradicts the Zen Buddhists who remain socially passive. It would mean lack of connectivity between Sunyata and action. Christopher argues that Abe's approach commits a category mistake by putting forth a religious criterion for ethical action. He further adds that Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata fail to explain sufficiently the essence of irreversibility of time9. Hans Kung opens by expressing the situation of religion. He argues that religion is under increasing oppression due to its inconsiderate opposition to modernization. Kung opposes Abe's idea that links modern Nihilism to religion. His view dictates that nihilism results from religious deficiency. He compares the work of Abe with that of Nietzsche. The latter was a critic of Nihilism. Kung does not share Abe's opinion on the interpretation of the Pauline verse in Philippians 2:5-8, or the bible. He advocates for a distinction between Gods son and God the father. He argues that new testament clearly show the subordination of the son under God who is greater10. Kung further pursues an argument that the verse in Philippians only mentions the incarnation of Jesus Christ and not of God. Chapter 8 is Masao Abe's reaction to Hans Kung. Abe clarifies his interpretation of the verse in Philippians as an attempt to understand the Christian texts from within a Christian approach. His focal emphasis is that the emptying of Christ had an origin in the Father. He emphasizes the Christian Belief that Christ is both true person and true God. He continues to argue that without the Father emptying Himself, the kenosis of Christ would not be possible11. Masao Abe's rejoinder seeks to demystify various aspects brought about by his critics. He rejects the usual Christian stand of son of God becoming human without God ceasing to be God. Abe also reacts to Marjorie who cites that Sunyata, emptied in Christianity expresses the central doctrine on trinity. He further clarifies on the usage of great zero in the context of trinity as a way of expressing dynamic character and freedom12. Abe further reacts to Christopher Ives by stating that Ives underestimates the religious value judgement. Though the religious value does not carry the meaning of value in a normal sense, its goals transcend ethical judgement13. Zen and Christianity The point of focus in the chapter is self-awareness and feeling. The writer explores the philosophies of K. Nishida and A.N Whitehead. Nishida considers the new paradigm of absolute nothingness as the scope of thinking superior to other paradigms. Whitehead provides a basis for organic philosophy. The point of convergence of the philosophers lies in the negation of the substance-attribute-scheme and egocentric ego14. The logic of absolute nothingness provides ground on which Nishida builds his philosophy of self-awareness. It is only through the negation that the paradigm rests on its own field of love as does agape and compassion. Whitehead's theory corresponds to absolute negativity by the virtue of the positive prehension obtaining correction through negative prehension. The two philosophies appear different at a glance until comparison against absolute nothingness as the datum15. To Nishida, an idea emanates from a working intuition. This corresponds to Whitehead's openness in which there is incorporation of eternal objects. The philosophies differ to a minimal extent with the consciousness in Nishida's philosophy occupying consciousness, in contrast to whitehead's theory where consciousness asserts experience without the experience premising the consciousness16. Read More