The concept of suffering plays an important role in both Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, and yet each tradition has developed a distinctive viewpoint on its meaning and purpose.  In my paper I intend to look at how Buddhism and Catholicism differ on this issue and where they  may see things in a similar way.  I will first concentrate on the meaning of suffering and briefly  compare the positions held by these two great traditions, and then I will look at how they interpret the purpose of suffering and it’s relation to salvation.  Interestingly enough suffering is in some sense the cornerstone of both of these religions, in Buddhism the first noble truth deals with this concept, attributing suffering to our finite existence and our constant craving for those things we do not have.  While in Catholicism the passion of Christ, the great paschal mystery, is the means by which man can achieve salvation and thus repair the damage done by the fall of the first man.

          When the Buddha, after deep meditation, gained the insight necessary to see the four noble truths, he discovered the finite nature of the present world and man’s life in it.  His first sermon was delivered “in a deer park in Sarnath” [Smith, 99], and he proclaimed to those listening the insights he had gained during and after his spiritual journey.  The first truth dealt with dukkha (suffering), and how all of man’s experience is in actuality suffering, because it is connected with the concept of the self as a subsisting being or entity.  In his sermon he explained that, “Birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and . . . pain . . . and despair are suffering, association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering – in short suffering is the five (groups) of clinging’s objects” [Novak, 65].  From these five groups (called skandas) all pain and suffering has its origin, and so these five transitory states of existence, the “body, sensations, thoughts, feelings, and consciousness” [Smith, 102] are the cause of suffering.

          The second truth the Buddha perceived was tanha (desire or craving), it is the selfish element in man and makes it difficult for him to separate himself from the illusory existence of this world.  The Buddha in his sermon said that, “It is the craving that produces renewal of being, accompanied by enjoyment and lust – in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being” [Novak, 65].  All these things cause suffering in the world to continue and so from this truth the third noble truth naturally follows.  In fact it provides the solution to the problem of suffering, in that through detachment from the self one is able to break the cycle of rebirth and thus end suffering.  This truth is called the “cessation of suffering” [Novak,65], and in the Buddha’s first sermon he called it the, “remainderless fading and ceasing, . . . letting go and rejecting, of that same craving” [Novak,65].  This truth also leads logically to the final of the four holy truths, it is called the eightfold path and it is in a sense the moral code by which a man may achieve the alleviation of suffering, and freedom from the cycle of rebirth.

          The eightfold path gives the rules to be followed in order to end suffering (dukkha), it is made up of the following precepts; right views, right intent, right speech, right conduct, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration [see Smith, 105-112].  In following these precepts a person may break free from selfishness and thus realize the illusory nature of the self.  The Buddha saw that the individual was made up of five contingent states of existence (as mention above), and thus the transitory and finite nature of the self became evident to him, and from that epiphany he realized the goal of anatta (no-self).  For one to achieve what he achieved, one must have a correct view of the world and life, and he must also live with the proper intention concentrating on his enlightenment.  He must also speak and act correctly, and he must make his living in a morally acceptable way.  It is also necessary that one make the right effort, through an act of the will, to achieve enlightenment.  Finally he must be of the right mind set and must know the techniques of concentration in order to achieve his goal, as Huston Smith pointed out, “The Buddha saw ignorance, not sin, as the offender.  More precisely, insofar as sin is our fault, it is prompted by a more fundamental ignorance – most specifically, the ignorance of our true nature” [Smith, 109-110].  The four noble truths form the core of Buddhist doctrine, and this teaching came forth from the Buddha because of the enlightenment he received while in a deep state of meditation.

          In Catholicism suffering is seen as the result of the fall from grace of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden.  Original sin is ultimately seen as a form of ignorance and disobedience; ignorance of the true meaning of life and the failure of man to obey the will of God, which is written into the nature of the human person.  In Catholic theology suffering and death are caused by the ignorant disobedience of the original progenitors of the human race, and is passed on to their descendants through the procreation of a common human nature.  Thus original sin in Adam’s descendants is not an act, but is a state of existence; since the fall all of mankind has been born without the sanctifying grace (i.e., the Divine Spirit) in their being that God intended for them to have.  God did not intend for human beings to suffer and die; instead, he created them with the idea that they would live in eternal beatitude with him. 

          The whole purpose of the Christ event is for God to take upon himself  the disordered situation of fallen humanity and by his sufferings to revive the human race, giving it life through the Spirit.  Within the Catholic tradition the suffering of God become man is seen as the source of salvation.  Because Christ is both God and man in one person, his passion possesses an infinite value, as the new universal Catechism makes clear, “[Christ’s] Paschal Mystery is a real event that occurred once in our history, but it is unique:  all other historical events happen once, and then they pass away, swallowed up in the past” [CCC, #1085], but concerning this event the Catechism goes on to say that “[it] cannot remain only in the past, because by his death he destroyed death, and all that Christ is – all that he did and suffered for all men – participates in the divine eternity, and so transcends all times while being made present in them all” [CCC, #1085].  Through his Church and the sacraments Christ enables all mankind to participate in his Paschal Mystery.

          The Catholic Church is the continuation of the incarnation and is thus the manifestation of Christ through space and time.  This teaching permeates the writings of the Ancient Fathers, and St. Augustine in particular.  The bishop of Hippo expounded Catholic doctrine on the subject with great eloquence, in his writings against the Donatists and in his homilies on the book of Psalms.  In his exposition of Psalm 86, St. Augustine explains the connection that exists between Christ and the Church, in it he says that, “the Body of Christ cries all the day, its members departing and succeeding one another.  One Man it is that reaches to the end of the world:  the same members of Christ cry, and some members already rest in Him, some still cry, some when we shall be at rest will cry, and after them others will cry” [NPNF, vol. 8, 411] In his sermon on Psalm 124, he explicitly states that, “Many men are one Man, because it is unity; and Christ, as we have said, is One, and all Christians are members of Christ” [NPNF, vol 8, 599].

          St. Thomas Aquinas also pointed out this truth when he said that, “Just as a natural body is one whole, composed of many members, so the whole Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is one person with its Head, who is Christ” [Mersch, 470].  The sufferings of Christ are complete and perfect in the Head, but they continue in his body the Church.  Through the suffering of Christ, both Head and body, man’s redemption is secured and humanity is deified in Christ.  Christ suffers in, with and through his Church, and the two become one flesh and one Mystical Person.  This truth was revealed to St. Paul when he saw a vision of the Lord while traveling on the road to Damascus.  Christ appeared to him and said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”, but St. Paul had never met Christ, he was persecuting the Church and in doing that he was persecuting Christ.  St. Augustine saw this same truth and explained that, “If by Christ you mean both Head and body, the sufferings of Christ are only in Christ.  But if by Christ you mean only the Head, then the suffering’s of Christ are not in Christ alone.  For if the sufferings of Christ are in [the Head] alone, how can the apostle Paul, as a member of Christ, say this:  ‘That I may fill up in my flesh what is lacking of the sufferings of Christ?’” [LOTH, 1406].

          For the Buddha the four noble truth’s explained the cause of suffering, which he saw was centered in the illusory nature of the self and the constant craving after those things which can never satisfy.  Catholicism would agree with much of what the Buddha taught in this regard.  The Church teaches that personal sin is a disordered attachment to a created good, thus sin is a form of ignorance.  The ones who sins is ignorant of the true purpose and meaning of life, and this is similar to the Buddha’s views, though the metaphysical understanding of human nature is very different within the two religions.

          The area of greatest disagreement between the two religions concerns the nature of the human person.  Buddhism sees the human person as five states of changing existence, and none of these states are permanent.  The five “. . . skandas are body, sensations, thoughts, feelings, and consciousness,” and these five states of existence are “in short, the sum of what we generally consider life to be – the statement amounts to the assertion that the whole of human life (again, as usually lived) is suffering” [Smith, 102].  Catholic theology would not be able to agree with this idea, for it the human person is created in the image and likeness of God, and is thus a subsisting being with an immortal soul.  The Church teaches that the body and soul together form one entity or person, and that this person will never cease to exist.  It also believes that on the last day God will resurrect all who have died, so that man may live for eternity with his maker.  The Thomistic synthesis in Catholic thought explains the problem of change or alteration in being by the concepts of act and potency.  The human person is a being in act, but he also possesses certain potentialities which are only in potency.  The differences between Buddhism and Roman Catholicism in this area are similar to the differences of approach adopted by Heraclitus and Parmenides.  Heraclitus like the Buddha saw reality in its present state as pure becoming, thus nothing is or can be permanent.  Parmenides saw all of reality as being, and thus change itself is illusory and all is one.  Catholicism accepts both ideas in a synthesis which sees being as a stable reality, but which also affirms change through the doctrine of latent potency.  It is interesting to see that centuries after Heraclitus and Parmenides, the same ideas continue to be promoted and discussed. 

          It is evident from what has been said above that the concept of suffering is important, if not vital, to understanding these two great traditions.  They each approach the concept differently and interpret the meaning of suffering in a different way, but the concept is in many ways the cornerstone of their doctrinal systems.  In Buddhism suffering is to be eliminated through detachment from selfish concerns and by realizing the finite nature of the present world.  Once this is accomplished the person is able to see the illusory nature of his individuality, and thus achieves anatta.  In Roman Catholicism suffering, which is ultimately the product of original sin, itself becomes the means of achieving salvation in, with and through Christ.  Christ does not come to initially destroy suffering; instead, he comes to give it meaning and to make it holy, suffering will only end when Christ returns to usher in the Kingdom of God.  Thus Buddhism and Catholicism both center major elements of their theology and piety on suffering, but they give different interpretations to what suffering is and what is to be done to eliminate it.  Buddhism says that salvation is achieved by recognizing our true nature and thus ending suffering, while Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is achieved through suffering in union with Christ.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Works Cited:

Emile Mersch.  The Whole Christ.  (Milwaukee:  The Bruce Publishing Company, 1938).

Philip Novak.  The World’s Wisdom.  (San Francisco:  Harper Collins Publishers, 1994).

Philip Schaff (Editor).  The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.  (Peabody:  Hendrickson Publishers,  1994).  28 Volumes.

Huston Smith.  The World’s Religions.  (San Francisco:  Harper Collins Publishers, 1991).

Catechism of the Catholic Church.  (New York:  Catholic Book Publishing Company, 1994).

The Liturgy of the Hours.  The Office of Readings, According to the Roman Rite.  (Boston:  St. Paul Editions, 1983). 

Abbreviations used in citations for multi-volume works:

          CCC:  Catechism of the Catholic Church

          NPNF:  Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

          LOTH:  The Liturgy of the Hours

A Comparative Analysis of Buddhist and Catholic Religious Experience

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Philosophy 525:  The Nature of Religious Experience

Dr. Ron Epstein

12 May 1999

Copyright © 1999-2024 Steven Todd Kaster