Suffering in the mystical traditions of Buddhism and Christianity
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies August 21, 2014 DOI: 10.4102/ hts.v70i1.2117 (opens in new tab) via DOAJ
Summary
AI-generated from the abstractThis article examines how Buddhism and Christianity understand suffering as part of mystical experience. It challenges the simplistic contrast between a detached, emotionless sage and a suffering saint. By analyzing the meanings each tradition assigns to suffering, the article contributes to discussions about the theological and spiritual dimensions of human suffering across religions. It also suggests, using a Kantian distinction, that mystical experience can set boundaries for interfaith dialogue without imposing absolute limits.
Study at a glance
| Characteristics | Theoretical or philosophical paper Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Key finding | Argues that the mystical approaches to suffering in Buddhism and Christianity challenge oversimplified understandings of the dichotomy between the sage and the saint, and that mystical experience can offer boundaries without imposing limits on interfaith dialogue. |
Abstract
This article seeks to explore the mystical approaches to suffering characteristic of both Buddhism and Christianity. Through the analysis of the meanings, the two traditions in question ascribe to suffering as a ‘component’ of mystical experience; it challenges the somewhat oversimplified understanding of the dichotomy ’sage-the-robot versus saint-the-sufferer’. Thus it contributes to the ongoing discussion on the theological–spiritual dimensions of the human predicament, as interpreted by various religious traditions. It also illustrates (though only implicitly) in what sense – to use the Kantian distinction – the mystical experience offers boundaries (Schranken) without imposing limits (Grenzen) to interfaith encounter and dialogue. Man [sic] is ready and willing to shoulder any suffering, as soon and as long as he can see a meaning in it. (Frankl 1967:56)