Comparison of Kierkegaard and Zen Buddhist Philosophy
Religious Studies Capstone Project
On Being Human: Philosophical Conceptions of the Self
Professor Thomas Lewis
Nathaniel Manning
Brown University
May 5th, 2008
Capstone Project
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in the Program in Religious Studies
Brown University
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND
MAY 2008
Comparison of Kierkegaard and Zen Buddhist Philosophy
Conceptions of the self have been shaped by religious philosophy across
numerous cultures. The philosophies of the west and east are born from entirely different
cultural settings, religious foundations, and worldviews. They arose mostly independent
of one another from societies and empires that were, for the majority of history, a world
apart. Therefore, the seminal philosophers and revolutionary axioms of the self are
usually only compared to their contemporaries from the same philosophical foundation;
hence, western religious philosophy is compared to other western religious philosophy,
and eastern philosophy is compared to other eastern philosophy, and rarely are they
compared to each other. This paper, however, will attempt to recognize some of the
similarities and differences between these disparate religious worlds by comparing the
philosophies of Kierkegaard in The Sickness Unto Death with the translation and
interpretation of The Heart Sutra by Vietnamese Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh. This
comparison aims to show that while the framework and specificities of each religion are
strikingly different, the philosophy, the description of self and time, and then the details
of how to “best live” have many overlaps. At the same time, those very same religious
frameworks shape very different worldviews, which in turn do affect the philosophies
and create apparent differences.
In Kierkegaard’s The Sickness unto Death he delves into the role of despair in our
lives. He claims that we all are living in a state of despair. He specifically targets and
condemns the philistine-bourgeois mentality of focusing on the day-to-day activities of
life and considering them of the utmost importance. He criticizes this mental paradigm of
thinking that we can be happy “only if…”, only if we can get the next job, or pay the next
bill, or have that one thing. This is a life of desires, and therefore, a life of suffering.
Kierkegaard portrays that we are blinded when we are living in this state of mind, that
these menial desires are distractions to our flourishing selves. Kierkegaard wants us to
come to terms with ourselves, and realize that we will not always get what we want. We
must accept this fact, not try to escape it; Kierkegaard condemns attachment and sensory
pleasures as despair.
In Thich Nhat Hanh’s Heart of Understanding he translates and explains the
philosophy of the Heart Sutra. His explanation of Buddhism has many similarities to
Kierkegaard’s philosophies. Thich Nhat Hanh explains the nature of the universe as
infinite and impermanent. This impermanence pervades over everything, and because
everything is impermanent we have no reason to be attached to anything, a material good,
a desire, a person, a thought, even a conception of the self. The self is ever changing, and
thus in each moment we are a new self. Kierkegaard also explains this concept in his
explanation of the self as a relation relating itself to itself. Because the self is a relation, it
is then ever changing. Imagine the self as the constantly updating relationship that is able
to look back upon itself as it continually changes. Hence, our past is simply a
construction of thoughts and ideas; the only thing that exists in truth is the self in this
moment. In every moment the self re-invents itself, and as Thich Nhat Hanh tells us: “We
should not complain about impermanence, because without impermanence nothing is
possible” (Heart of Understanding, p17). Thus, without constant change everything
would remain stagnant; the self is no different, and in every moment it is completely new
and different from its conceptions of the self in the past.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s account of Buddhism explains the self and reality through an
illumination of the relationship between the infinite and the finite. Buddhist philosophy
explains that time is an illusion, and that in every moment we are both finite and infinite,
we simply are unable to recognize it: “Buddhism would argue that at every moment you
must realize both the finite and the infinite. You achieve enlightenment in that moment.”
It is that ability to wake up and truly see that we are infinite and finite, that we are not our
thoughts or our memories, but are simply attached to them, in that moment we are
enlightened. We must recognize that there is no self, that there is only the moment, and in
that moment there is both everything and nothing, simultaneously. Enlightenment is
recognizing and letting go all of our attachments to worldly goods and concepts of the
self, and in simply being in the moment. Thus, in many Buddhist traditions, and
particularly in Zen, meditation is emphasized as the means to achieving enlightenment.
By quieting and focusing the mind, and then letting go of our attachments to each
thought, by not letting our mind wander, but instead, simply being, existing, in that
moment, we begin to work towards enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a moment or a
place, or achieved once dead, it is an awakening to the true nature of reality: “In Buddhist
meditation we do not struggle for the kind of enlightenment that will happen five or ten
years from now. We practice so that each moment of life becomes real life. And
therefore, when we meditate, we sit for sitting; we do not sit for something else.” 53.
Meditation is the act of existing in the moment, completely, or as Kierkegaard might call
it, to truly wake up from despair and see the truth of reality. Through existing in the
moment, completely and utterly, we realize the true nature of reality, and are then
enlightened. Zen Buddhism explains that our attachments to what we think we know
about life, about ourselves, about reality, is what is really preventing us from being able
to awaken and see the truth: “Understanding is like water flowing in a stream. Wisdom
and knowledge are solid and can block our understanding. In Buddhism knowledge is
regarded as an obstacle for understanding. If we take something to be the truth, we many
cling to it so much that even if the truth comes and knocks on our door, we won’t want to
let it in” (Heart of Understanding, p8). Thus, even our concept of knowledge is a hurdle,
we must be able to let go our attachment to our own perceived notions, and be able to see
the truth of reality with open and untainted eyes.
Kierkegaard also touches upon this balance between infinite and finite. He
explains human existence as a relationship relating to itself. In so being, it is both infinite
and finite, in that it is continually relating in every moment: “a human being is a
synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and
necessity, in short, a synthesis” (The Sickness unto Death, p1). He also addresses reality
as impermanence, a constantly changing self that only exists in the moment and is not
defined by the actions of the past. As humans, we have the infinite of existence, and at
the same time the finite of knowing we must die. For Kierkegaard, this knowledge of the
finite death is a root of the sickness unto death. We never truly embrace the fear and
despair of death that exists inside of us. Interestingly, Kierkegaard explains that this sense
of despair is not to be dreaded and is not as depressing as it seems. In fact, he states that
this very same despair is also the most important part of being human:
“No doubt this observation will strike many people as a paradox, an
overstatement, and also a somber and depressing point of view. But it is
none of these things. It is not somber, for, on the contrary, it tries to
shed light on what generally is left somewhat obscure; it is not
depressing but instead elevating, inasmuch as it views every human
being under the destiny of the highest claim upon him, to be spirit”
(The Sickness unto Death, P22)
Kierkegaard believes that our true potential exists in being spirit, or in being awakened to
our despair and seeing the true nature of reality and the self. And in that true potential of
being spirit we are selves, but also in being selves we are meant to embrace that true
potential of being spirit: “Eternity is obliged to do this, because to have a self, to be a
self, is the greatest concession, an infinite concession, given to a man, but it is also
eternity’s claim upon him” (The Sickness unto Death, p21). We are given the ability to
despair but in so given the ability to flourish; likewise, we are given the true gift of being
selves through spirit, but also must awaken to that spirit to be a flourishing self.
Awakening to our despair is our highest accomplishment; it is what we are meant to do.
Thich Nhat Hanh’s account of the Heart Sutra relates a similar feeling about
death. Because Buddhism describes a philosophy of impermanence we should not
become attached to any thought, thing, or self since it will inherently change. For this
same reason, there is not reason to be afraid of death. In Buddhism death is not described
as an end, but instead a transition from one place to another, the same as any transition
from one moment to another. Because death is not an end, but a transition, we are not
seen as decreasing beings, but instead only changing: “so let us not be afraid of
decreasing. It is like the moon, we see the moon increasing and decreasing, but it is
always the moon” (Heart of Understanding, P39). Whether or not we are old or young, in
one moment or in another, we are always the moon. In this case, Hanh is not saying that
we are always ourselves, but means that we are always essence or being. We are always
part of everything and nothing simultaneously. This is what it means to truly be. The
question is not “what does it mean to be human?” but, “what does it mean to be?” This is
an important distinction in the Buddhist framework; we are not innately human, we are
innately everything and also nothing.
Much like Kierkegaard’s conception of the self as a relation relating to itself in its
infiniteness and finiteness, Buddhism offers a description of the self as both nothing and
everything and existence as inter-being or interpenetration. Thich Nhat Hanh uses the
metaphor of our bodies to explain this concept of inter-being: “In our bodies we have
lungs, heart, kidneys, stomach, and blood. None of these can exist independently. They
can only co-exist with the others” (Heart of Understanding, P9). When Buddhist
philosophy refers to the emptiness of being, it is meant that the self is empty of a
separate, independent existence. It cannot just be by itself, it has to inter-be or co-exist
with everything else, and not just everything else that exists at this moment on earth, but
everything for all time and place. Time itself is a construction, and not a limiting factor.
We exist in all times and none, our conception of time is simply a conception. Hence, a
self is empty but also infinite; the two are one and the same and exist in their relationship
to each other, as Kierkegaard also explains.
In Buddhism a bodhisattva is someone who has achieved enlightenment, and then
continues to help and guide others as well. Bodhi means awake and sattva means a living
being, so bodhisattva means an awakened being. Enlightenment, therefore, is referred to
as an awakening to the true nature of reality: that we are both everything and nothing in
every moment. Kierkegaard also asks us to wake up from our despair, and realize the true
nature of our existence. He describes his work as “Christian upbuilding” or that he
intends his words to be like a doctor’s words and contribute to our spiritual health, to help
us to awaken. The title of the book is, The Sickness unto Death, referring precisely to the
despair and sickness that we all, unknowingly, are succumb. Kierkegaard attempts to
galvanize us to realize our despair and in so doing begin to be able to live life as it should
be. From the Buddhist point of view, Kierkegaard is very much a bodhisattva, attempting
to help lift up his brethren and help them to awaken to the true nature of reality.
Both authors attempt to awaken us to a higher sense of reality, one that moves
above the philistine-bourgeois mentality of desires. Both authors ask us to look at the
questions that we seemingly dance around, questions pertaining to death, existence, and
meaning. We are asked to truly look at the nature of death and realize its despair. Thich
Nhat Hanh explains that in doing so we also realize that death is not something to fear:
“We worry because we think that after we die we will not be a human
being anymore. We will go back to being a speck of dust. In other
words, we are decreasing. But that is not true. A speck of dust contains
the whole universe. If we were as big as the sun, we might look down
at the earth and see it as insignificant. As human beings, we are dust in
the same way. But the ideas of big and small are just concepts in our
minds. Everything contains everything else; that is the principle of
interpenetration” (Heart of Understanding, P39).
Buddhism is a different worldview from the west, one that explains reality by elucidating
that we are all connected, infinity is by its very definition, indefinable, and thus has no
bounds. Thus, if the self is both empty and infinite, and we exist on through the
connection and inter-being with all other things, we are then both our selves and
everything else at once. And if time is a conception and not a reality, then we are both
everything and nothing at all times and no time. It is from these concepts that the
worldview of rebirth or reincarnation is created, a conception that does not exist in
Kierkegaard’s western worldview.
Part II
While there are a number of striking similarities between Kierkegaard’s
philosophies and Thich Nhat Hanh’s Zen Buddhist philosophy, there are also important
differences. The frameworks of culture and religion shape each of these philosophies in
very different manners. There are two primary differences in religious worldview that
play major roles in each of these philosophers interpretation of reality. The first is that
Kierkegaard is a Christian philosopher and therefore believes fully in a reality that was
made by a creator God, very specifically the Christian creator God. Buddhism, on the
other hand, does not have a central creator figure, and thus there is a no praying to a
higher being or higher order that is responsible for existence. Second, Kierkegaard, as a
Christian, believes in an afterlife with a duality of Heaven and Hell. Meanwhile, Zen
Buddhism does not hold the concept of an afterlife with a good and evil duality; instead
their worldview depicts a circular process of reincarnation. These two differences
generate the primary contrasts between Kierkegaard’s philosophies and the philosophies
of Zen masters such as Thich Nhat Hanh.
The concept of a creator God changes the language with which Kierkegaard
speaks about death and existence. While there are notably many similarities in thought
between Kierkegaard and Zen Buddhist philosophy, this is also a fundamental differing
belief. Kierkegaard’s conception of death then implies a finality that does not exist in
Buddhism. This sense of finality imposes a certain imperative to awakening. In The
Sickness unto Death, Kierkegaard states that we must realize our deadness and achieve
this higher conception of reality here and now. It is imperative; there is no other time than
now: “there is much talk about wasting a life, but only that person’s life was wasted who
went on living so deceived by life’s joys or its sorrows that he never became decisively
and eternally conscious as spirit, as self, or, what amounts to the same thing, never
became aware and in the deepest sense never gained the impression that there is a God
and the ‘he, he himself, his self, exists before this God – an infinite benefaction that is
never gained except through despair” (The Sickness unto Death, p27). Thus, we must not
waste this life, and turn ourselves towards God to realize the true nature of despair, the
self, and reality. A life that is not awakened is then a wasted life.
The Buddhist belief in reincarnation shapes the importance of reaching
enlightenment in this lifetime, compared to Kierkegaard who views this life as the only
life. The Buddhist belief in reincarnation allows for a sense of acceptance and time that
does not have the same sense of urgency that Kierkegaard displays in The Sickness unto
Death. Because we each live countless lives it is not essential that all of us reach
enlightenment in this lifetime, the reality is that we have a seemingly infinite span of time
to do so. Hence, in Zen Buddhism there is no forceful pressure to give up worldly goods
or attachments, while it is encouraged and taught that these desires only lead to suffering,
there is no distaste or public pressure to do so. People are allowed to live lives full of
attachment and desire, and it is expected that little by little, over the course of a multitude
of lifetimes, they will realize that these attachments and desires are finite, and eventually
they will search for something more. These beliefs are reflected in the synergy between
the monastic community and society in Zen Buddhism. If one feels called to be a monk
and work towards enlightenment through a fully regimented routine of mediation, than
they are encouraged to do so by the Buddhist community. However, if one does not feel
that this is their calling and still wants to work within society to earn a wage and live
amongst the finite, material world that Kierkegaard labels as the evil philistine-bourgeois,
than that is also encouraged and accepted. Both are necessary for society, and eventually
each of us will move beyond our finite desires and look for something more. Thus,
Buddhism is very different from Kierkegaard in this respect because in their worldview
sin is not the opposite of faith.
Kierkegaard believes that it is through our constant turning towards,
acknowledging, and accepting of God at every moment that allows us to be awake, or
enlightened in Buddhist terms. Kierkegaard’s view of sin, however, differs from the
Buddhist concept. Kierkegaard explains sin not as the opposite of virtue but the opposite
of faith. Sin is not a non-virtuous action, but is the position of not submitting completely
to God: “No, the opposite of sin is faith, as it says in Romans 14:23: ‘whatever does not
proceed form faith is sin.’ And this is one of the most decisive definitional for all
Christianity – that the opposite of sin is not virtue but faith” (The Sickness unto Death,
p82). Therefore, in Kierkegaard’s view, one could act in a completely giving, virtuous,
non-prideful manner and still be completely in sin. Buddhism, however, does not frame
sin in this manner. If being full of faith for God is similar to the Buddhist concept of
moving towards enlightenment, than Buddhism would not agree that sin is the opposite of
faith. Buddhism does not put the same stress and imperative importance on being faithful
in its entirety or attempting to achieve enlightenment. In Buddhism, sin is a morality
issue. Buddhism portrays five precepts that guide morality: 1) to refrain from taking life,
2) to refrain from taking that which is not given, 3) to refrain from sensual misconduct, 4)
to refrain from lying, 5) to refrain from intoxicants that lead to loss of mindfulness. Here,
sin is specifically a mode of conduct and action, whereas Kierkegaard claims that the
greatest sin is to not be faithful to God.
Kierkegaard frames his devotion towards a central God figure. Kierkegaard
claims that faith is allowing the self to rest completely with God and accepting that which
cannot be rationalized—the infiniteness of God: “Faith is: that the self in being itself and
in willing to be itself rests transparently in God” (The Sickness unto Death, p82). The
phrasings of his words are Christian in nature and as such he uses the concepts of God
and faith. The framework in which he exists and believes calls for a devotion to a God,
and his words reflect this. At the same time, his philosophies, when not attached to
specific words or labels, are similar in nature to the Buddhism depicted by Zen master
Thich Nhat Hanh. This is not to say that Kierkegaard does not believe in the Christian
God or that he has Buddhist believes by any means, simply, that when looking past the
worldviews and frameworks in which both of these philosophers exist, their manner of
seeing existence and the self have many similarities. Furthermore, they both call for an
awakening of sorts, a view of the world as asleep or misunderstood. They both attempt to
help people reach their higher purpose through philosophy. While they might arrive at
slightly different conclusions based upon their specific worldviews, they do both view
existence and humanity as misunderstood and in need of awakening. This concept
pervades over the tone and vision of both of these philosophies and rises above the
differences in religion.
The western and eastern worlds have matured and developed predominately
separately from one another until very recent history. Thus, the philosophies and religions
that developed in each of these worlds are especially different. The western worldview is
governed by a conception of duality, heaven and hell, good and bad, and is overseen and
judged by an omnipotent creator God. Meanwhile, the eastern philosophical worldview is
exempt of a creator God, and does not divide the world or the afterlife into heaven and
hell. Instead, there is a conception of infiniteness and emptiness, nothing and everything,
all-time and no-time; we exist as inter-beings, connected to everyone and everything in
all times. Because of these striking differences and the fact that the historical settings of
each are completely diverse, western and eastern philosophies are rarely compared to one
another. However, when looking past the labels of God, Heaven, Enlightenment we can
begin to see that there are also remarkable similarities. Kierkegaard touches upon many
of the same conceptions as Thich Nhat Hanh. Both recognize that we exist in a world of
attachment and desire, Kierkegaard calls it despair while Thich Nhat Hanh labels it as
desire or attachment. Both realize that these desires lead to suffering, and that by
beginning to let go of our worldly concerns we can begin to realize the true nature of
reality. Furthermore, both identify the convergence of the finite and the infinite, and how
the self is shaped by this. Both acknowledge that the self is a constantly changing concept
that is able to relate to itself in every moment, thereby creating itself. However, both also
recognize that there is more to just being this self, and that to achieve spirit (or
enlightenment) we must orient ourselves towards God (or exist completely in the
moment) at every changing moment. Hence, while the differing worldviews of both
philosophies absolutely shape their conceptions of reality and the self, there are, in fact,
many similarities that are not always recognized between religious philosophical
traditions in Christianity and Buddhism that are usually perceived as absolutely
dissimilar.