“Beyond Binaries”: A Comparative
Study of Buddhism and Western Existentialist Theory
Parth Chandrakant Yadav
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Yashavantrao Chavan Institute of Science
Stara, Maharashtra, India
Abstract:
In their haste to secure the
primacy and hegemony of western epistemology, the occidental scholarship has
blatantly negated the contributions of Eastern philosophies and theologies,
eitherby assimilating them into Christian metaphysical manifold or by reducing
them into various binaries which are central to western phenomenology. The
Buddhist philosophy faced the similar fate and was misinterpreted to be rooted
in binaries because of its apparent similarities with western
existentialism. This paper is an attempt to compare the two schools of
thought and delineate the similarities and differences between them.
Keywords:
Binaries; Buddhist Philosophy, Sartrean Existentialism; Western Epistemology
Introduction
The
advent of nineteenth century marks the expansion of European colonial
enterprise to the far eastern corners of the globe. The dichotomy of “the Self”
and “the other” discussed by Edward Said can be seen getting manifested in the
form of the white man’s perceived cultural superiority over the orient. As its
after-effect, the European imperialist regimes took it upon themselves to
“civilize” the “savage” orient, a typical colonial approach which Rudyard
Kipling ironically referred to as “the White Man’s Burden”. That is precisely
when they came to know about Buddhism and many other eastern philosophical
traditions, which were soon brought under the scrutiny of European scholars. In
their haste to secure the primacy and hegemony of western epistemology, the
occidental scholarship blatantly negated the contributions of Eastern
philosophies and theologies, either by assimilating them into Christian
metaphysical manifold or by reducing them into various binaries which are
central to western phenomenology. Many of the concepts and ideas rooted in
eastern thought transcended the very binaries that conceived and shaped western
phenomenology. These concepts were indeed incomprehensible to a western mindset
which tended to dichotomize whatever it could not perceive. This resulted in an
obvious misinterpretation of eastern philosophical thought which was presented
in a much distorted manner that suited the ethnocentric tendency of the
European society. Since the scope of this essay is limited to Buddhism as one
of the principle eastern thought, I would henceforth speak of it in particular.
Canonical
Buddhism and European Buddhism
Such
a superficial distinction exists chiefly because of the “problem of western
misinterpretation of eastern thought” which has already been discussed in the
introductory part. “Canonical Buddhism” (Kasulis 86) is that genuine Buddhism
which, in its original entirety, arose in Jambudvipa (ancient India)
around 6th century BCE, and as is reflected by the ancient Buddhist
scriptures and its various practices around the world. On the other hand,
“European Buddhism” (Kasulis 86) is that misinterpreted form of Buddhism which
was “authenticated” by many of the European scholars following the nineteenth
century “Nirvana Debates1” and the misapplied residue of
which followed into the twentieth century formulation of western existentialist
theory. European Buddhism was based on the very famous binary of “eternalism2
versus annihilationism3”, which functions as the mainstay of the
western soul theory and even, for that matter, Hindu philosophy. Nineteenth and
early twentieth European scholarship including Eugene Burnouf, Max Muller,
Arthur Schopenhauer, Richard Wagner, and Friedrich Nietzsche, owing to their
“predominant western dualist templates4”, wrongly equated the
Buddhist concepts like Nirvana and Sunyata with annihilationism
(Kasulis 76). Nietzsche’s theory of “nihilism5” serves as a supreme
example of the misapplication of the European Buddhism. The idea of “Nihilism”
severely takes from this annihilationist European perspective of Buddhism.
Nietzsche, in his ignorance, employs “Buddhism” as a key example while
explaining the concept of “passive nihilism”.
“its
most famous form, Buddhism; a passive nihilism, a sign of weakness.” (Nietzsche
23.18)
Nietzsche’s
ignorance as he proclaims Buddha to be the flagbearer of passive nihilism has
deep roots in the European supremacist tendency. This annihilationist European
perspective had a significant impact on how an average European perceived
Buddhism. Roger-Pol Droit has summarized the extent to which the westerners
discarded Buddhism, one of the greatest philosophical traditions in the world,
claiming it to be “a religion of nothingness”.
“The
Buddha became the symbol of nightmare. His basic teaching, they said, contained
something impossible: the human spirit could not really desire its own loss.
And yet Buddhism was real: its antiquity rivaled at least that of the Greeks,
and the number of its adherents was greater than what Christianity could claim.
It was difficult not to admire its moral teachings. Nevertheless, it was not
possible to consider it a theological system. In the beginning, the existence
of Buddhism, a quite late discovery, was like a bad dream for Europe. It was
seen as a paradoxical and horrible religion of nothingness.” (Droit 4)
Nietzsche’s
“nihilism” was used by Jean-Paul Sartre to form the core of his concepts which
he later combined to produce what we refer as the western existential theory.
Though Sartre never mentioned Buddha or his teachings anywhere in his works,
his philosophical oeuvre centers around Nietzsche’s idea of nihilism which is
clearly based on the foundation of the western misinterpretation of Buddhism.
Thus, it is important to bring forward the Canonical Buddhism which thrives
“Beyond Binaries” not only to counter its misinterpreted European version but
also to study the key similarities and differences between the Buddhist thought
and Western Existentialist Theory.
Anatman
(Anatta) and non-self
Anatmanis
a Buddhist doctrine which asserts that “there is no unchanging, permanent self,
soul, or essence in phenomena” (“Anatta”). Buddhism, with its no-soul theory,
transcends the predominant binary of eternalism and annihilationism, as it
completely rejects the possibility of an eternal selfhood or utter obliteration
(for there is no soul in the first place). One of the apparent reasons why
Buddhism was demarcated into these traditional binaries was the inability of
western ontology to even consider the possibility of self-negation given its
strong individualist leanings. Sartre, with his theory of existentialism, was
the first European scholar who at least considered the possibility of a
“non-self”. Thus, it is possible to compare Buddhism and Sartre as Heyman
states-
“(Buddhism
and Sartre) have comparable theories of consciousness” and (Buddhism’s)
rejection of the self is similar to Sartre’s rejection of the Ego as the center
of consciousness.” (Heyman 431,433)
Sartre’s
core concepts of “being for-itself” and “being in-itself” aid us in
understanding his model of consciousness as “non-self”. “Being for itself” is
the “subject” of the consciousness, while “being in-itself”, consisting of all
the non-conscious entities that simply exist in external reality, is its
“object” (Lee). According to Sartre, since “being for-itself” has a “freedom”
to negate the aspects of “being in-itself”, it is trapped in a forever “lack”
which arouses constant “desires” to be “complete” and “fulfilled” like “being
in-itself”. Thus, being for-itself, since it is lacking the “completeness” of
being in-itself, is non-self. Furthermore, its “desire” to become “being
in-itself” results into a perpetual “anguish”, i.e., suffering. Sartre’s
“non-self” is, in many ways, is similar to Buddhist Anatman, especially
in terms of its aspects of “desire” and “suffering” referred to as Trishnaand
Dukkha in Buddhist terminology. Second Noble Truth of Buddhism clearly
makes a reference to these concepts and establishes Trishnaas the source
of Dukkha.
“The
cause of suffering. The
action of the outside world on the senses excites a craving thirst. For something to satisfy them,
or delight in the objects presenting themselves, either of which is accompanied
by a lust of life” (Davids 48)
Dukkha
and Existential Anguish
Sartre’s
existentialist theory establishes existential anguish to be an end in itself
and commits to a view that the being for itself can never escape suffering
except when it is in “Bad Faith”. In Sartrean terms, bad faith is that
unauthentic way to lead life where being for itself gives up its freedom and
responsibility to accord to an illusory selfhood. According to Sartre, such a
person is simply living a life of illusion and is deep down aware that the
selfhood he is clinging to is a lie and not a “true self” and suffers anyway.
Buddhism has a similar concept called Upadana, where a sentient being,
because of the influence of five skandhas6, clings to a false atman (selfhood). Upadanais
the principal reason behind human suffering in Buddhism.
While
Sartrean existential theory is averse to any solution for existential anguish
(besides death) and deems living with it as an only way to lead an authentic
life, Buddhism provides a noble way to put an end to one’s suffering in the
form of the Eightfold Path7 (ariyaashtangamarga), which, if a
sentient being follows sincerely, can lead to Nirvana, the “freedom”
from suffering. To assess the nature of Nirvana, one first need to
understand the concepts of Svabhavaand Sunyata. Buddhist
philosopher Nagarjuna has addressed the conflict between Svabhavaand Sunyatain
his work Mulamadhyamakakarika.
Svabhavaand
Essence
Svabhava
in Buddhist thought and “essence” in Sartre are truly
interchangeable terms and necessarily mean “intrinsic or essential nature of
beings” (“Svabhava (Buddhism)”). What differentiates is how these
similar concepts are treated in their respective philosophies. Sartre’s
existential theory asserts that the for-itself is “lacking” of the “essence”,
but it has “freedom” to make decisions and these decisions constitute its
“essence”. Though Sartre’s existential theory holds the opinion that “existence
precedes essence”, it cannot completely get rid of the concept of “essence”.
The idea of “Essence”, thus in many ways, is at the center of western existential
theory.
Buddhism,
on the other hand, outrightly rejects the validity of such an “essence” or Svabhava.
For such an “essence” or Svabhavato exist, there must be an entity
that is autonomous, independent, and unchangeable. Buddhist doctrine of “Dependent
Origination” states that there is nothing that exist in an enclosed autonomous
bubble, instead everything is interdependent and connected with each other
through causal links. If one looks into the Buddhist theory of impermanence (anitya),
it completely dismisses the possibility of a permanent essence or Svabhava.
Thus, “the true nature of existence” is dynamic, continuously changing, and
“radically Becoming” (Kasulis, p.86). This assertion in Buddhism is inclusive
of the nature of external reality which is deemed to be “non-permanent”, “a
transitory illusion (Maya)” and mere “projection of fruition (Vipaka)
of karmic seeds (Sankharas)” (“Reality in Buddhism”). Sartrean
existential theory, as opposed to this, takes materialist position in its
understanding of external reality, and believes in a “concrete” reality or a
“complete” being in-itself.
Sunyataand
Nothingness
As
I have already discussed, Buddhism staunchly believes that the true nature of
being is dynamic and constantly “becoming”. For anything to “become”, it has to
be “empty” and “open” in the first place. Buddhism entails that there is a
peculiar “emptiness” or “nothingness” inherent in being. Buddhists refer to
this “emptiness” as Sunyata which is further fortified by the doctrine
of “Dependent Origination”. The theory of “Dependent Origination” posits that
nothing in the universe is “independent” and “complete” in itself and thus it
is impossible for anything to be more complete than other things. All that
exists is equal in their being, and that being as Sunyataasserts is
Zero. Many European scholars who participated in the Nirvana debates in
nineteenth century, owing to their binary templates, associated the concept of Sunyata
either with eternalism or with annihilationism. Sunyatacannot be an
eternal, autonomous, complete “selfhood” since it is essentially empty of Svabhavaor
essence, neither can it be an utter nihilation because a sentient being, when
devoid of Upadanaor “attachment”, can experience the “fullness” of this
“emptiness” (Sunyata) in the form of “suchness” (Tathata). In these
regards, J. Jeffery Franklin, citing Nagarjuna’s arguments in Mulamadhyamakakarika,
asserts that –
“Sunyata,
far from being an absolute void, is, in effect, a fullness of the
interdependence with everything else in the universe that is made possible by
the very absence of any essence or void.” (Kasulis 88)
The
concept of Sunyatacan be “Present” at the same time it is “absent”. In
that sense, it necessarily transcends the binary of eternalism and
annihilationism.
On
the other hand, the “nothingness” which is implied in Sartre’s existential
theory is connected to the ability of being for-itself to “negate” the aspects
of the external reality and to desire its “completeness” to compensate for its
own “lack” or “emptiness”. As clear as it is, Sartre’s “nothingness” is of
nihilist nature and is thus rooted in western obsession for dichotomies.
Rebirth
in Buddhism
Buddhist
belief in rebirths and its rejection of reincarnation as a possibility is
deep-rooted in the concept of Anatman or Anatta. Since it refutes the existence
of an eternal selfhood, the belief in transmigration of an eternal soul into a
number of forms is strictly not entertained. Rebirth, on the other hand, as
understood in Buddhism, is a transmigration of karmic energies and not souls.
These karmic energies are secured in a continuity held together by the causal links
(as implied in Dependent Origination). To explain the concept of rebirth in
absence of soul, Buddhist scholar Buddhaghosa “compares it to how a flame is
transferred from one candle to another” (“Rebirth (Buddhism)”). The flame of
the candle represents the karmic energies while the two candles represent two
distinct forms. The very concept of “rebirth without soul” transcends all the
binary templates.
Nirvana
and Freedom
Freedom,
as implied in Sartre’s existential theory, is “one’s ability to negate the
aspect of in-itself and all-in-all external reality” (Lee). Sartrean “freedom”
is motivated by a “lack” or “incompleteness” within and is ultimately based on
the principle of “negation”, that is “nihilation”, again rooted in binaries.
“Freedom” in Sartre provides no solution for the “existential anguish” and is
rather the reason why suffering exists in the first place.
Freedom,
in Buddhism, is referred to as Nirvana, and it is established as the
ultimate goal for a sentient being who wants to come out of the suffering that
is embedded in the cycle of rebirths in the Wheel of Samsara. Thus,
unlike existential theory, Buddhism provides an authentic way to put an end to
the suffering. It includes the strict observation of the Noble Eightfold Path,
which is inclusive of the meditative techniques (right mindfulness and right
samadhi) which expect “a passive examination of the flow of thoughts without Upadanaor
attachment” (Lee). As a result, one should come to terms with the three marks
of life8 and recognize Sunyata or “emptiness” within as Tathataor
“suchness”. Such a sentient being has gained the knowledge of the true nature
of existence or reality and is thus free from the attachment and suffering.
Nirvana,
or the “freedom” as implied in canonical Buddhism, is
based upon the concepts of Anatman, Sunyataand rebirth which transcend
“beyond binaries” as opposed to Sartrean “freedom” which rests upon the binary
template of eternalism versus annihilationism.
Conclusion
As
discussed in the paper, Canonical Buddhism and the true nature of its core
concepts transcends beyond the binaries and dichotomies emblematized by western
ontology. The western obsession with binaries, resulting out of their
individualist and ethnocentric approach, is reflected in the European
misinterpretation of Buddhism and, by and by, in the philosophy of western
existentialist theory.
End Notes
1.
The 19th
century debates in Europe which revolved around the (mis)interpretations of
Buddhist concept of Nirvana. Some scholars preferred an eternalist
interpretation, while most favored an annihilationist one.
2.
belief
in eternal selfhood
3.
belief
in complete obliteration of selfhood (after death)
4.
Prevalent
dichotomies like soul versus body, eternalism versus annihilationism etc.
5.
A
skeptical (often atheist) view of the meaninglessness of life propounded by
Friedrich Nietzsche
6.
Five
aggregates of clinging (Upadana) in Buddhism viz. form (rupa),
sensation (vedana), perception (samajna), mental activity (Sankhara) and
consciousness (Vijnana)
7.
It
consists of eight practices including right view, right resolve, right speech,
right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right Samadhi
(a meditative state of trance)
8.
That of
impermanence(anitya), impersonality(anatman) and suffering (dukkha)
Work Cited
1. “Anattā.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 17 Apr.
2021, <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81>.
2. Davids, Rhys, T.W. Buddhism: Being a Sketch of the
Life and Teachings of Gautama, the Buddha. 1877. 21st ed. London: Society for
Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1907. Print.
3. Droit, Roger Pol. The Cult of Nothingness: The
Philosophers and the Buddha. Trans. David Streight and Pamela Vohnson.
Chapel Hill, NC: U North Carolina P, 2003. Print.
4. Heyman, Derek K. “Dual and non-dual ontology in Sartre
and Mahayana Buddhism” Man and World 30 (1997): 431-433. Print.
5. Kasulis, Thomas P. “Buddhist Existentialism.” The
Eastern Buddhist, vol. 17, no. 2, 1984, pp. 134–141. JSTOR. Web. 22 Sept. 2022.
<www.jstor.org/stable/44361718>.
6. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Will to Power. Trans.
Walter Kaufman and R.J. Hollingdale. New York: Vintage Books, 1968. Print.
7. “Notions of Selflessness in Sartrean Existentialism
and Theravadin Buddhism” Bartleby. Web. 20 Aug. 2022.
<www.bartleby.com/essay/Notions-of-Selflessness-in-Sartrean-Existentialism
>.
8. “Reality in Buddhism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia
Foundation. Web. 17 Sept.. 2022. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_in_Buddhism>.
9. “Rebirth (Buddhism).” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation.
Web. 17 Sept. 2022.
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)>.
10. “Svabhava (Buddhism).” Svabhava (Buddhism) -
Theosophy Wiki. Web. 18 Sept. 2022. <theosophy.wiki/en/Svabhava_(Buddhism)>.