This is a summary in my own words of a paper by a friend of mine (Bill McDonald), who is a Philosopher, and whose speciality is Kierkegaard and Buddhism. The title of his paper is “The dialectic of moods, emotions and spirit in Kierkegaard and Mādhyamika Buddhism”. I am adding in a lot of my own comments to help draw out the argument that Bill makes.
“In nineteenth century Europe there was an epidemic of boredom, whose aetiology is to be found in the social reorganization of time, the creation of mass entertainment, and the loss of earnest passion about God, salvation, and eternity. Boredom consisted in feeling that time is 'empty' or 'meaningless'.” (BM)
“The soul is the seat of feeling, for Kierkegaard, and although this includes the purely self-regarding feelings of mood, it also includes feelings directed towards others. It is this latter element which allows the soul to be saved. The soul’s salvation depends on its role in the realization of spirit [Aand].” (BM)
From Kierkegaard’s ‘Sickness Unto Death’: “A human being is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation that relates itself to itself or is the relation’s relating itself to itself in the relation; the self is not the relation but is the relation’s relating itself to itself. 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 human self is such a derived, established relation, a relation that relates itself to itself and in relating itself to itself relates itself to another.”
Compare: His Holiness the Dalai Lama XIV in ‘Ethics for the New Millenium’, “... spiritual practice ... involves, on the one hand, acting out of concern for others’ well-being. On the other hand, it entails transforming ourselves so that we become more readily disposed to do so. To speak of spiritual practice in any terms other than these is meaningless.”
Kierkegaard interpreted boredom (and all other negative moods) in spiritual terms - as an affliction of the soul. Failure to feel concern for anything outside oneself - boredom is failure to care for others.
As a temporary measure he advised patience, “to gain one’s soul [Sjæl]” - calmly meditating on eternity. But ultimately only a complete reorientation - the care and concern towards others - would cure all afflicted moods.
Care is also linked to suffering - it connects us to the suffering of others through empathy, sympathy and compassion, or to our own suffering in emotions such as guilt and erotic love.
“Erotic love can turn to jealousy and even hatred, when self-concern in the relationship outweighs concern for the other. Erotic love can also arouse feelings of eternity – either as intimations of undying love, or as one manifestation of the drive for immortality.” (BM) When erotic love is directed outwardly, to another or to eternity, then it is beneficial, but when it is directed to selfishness it is a a kind of illness that requires a cure.
Kierkegaard sought stability in our focus on eternity, or care for others. One remedy for this was deliberation on edifying talks and literature, “to cultivate ethical and religious virtues, such as humility, patience, gratitude, hope, courage, contentment, happiness, and joy.” (BM) These virtues were directed towards universal qualities, “gratitude for all things as gifts from God; expectation of the good for everyone; and joy in hardship”. (BM)
These stabilising practices were ultimately for the development of a moral character, felt with conviction. The building up of these virtues are a first stage on the path of Christian spirituality.
[Before we move to the next phase of Christian spirituality, you can see in this, why Christian place such emphasis on being ‘good’. Or what I would call being ‘goody-goody’, upright citizens, who hold the conventional wholesome moral fabric of society and individuals in very high esteem. Because it saves people from the illness of afflicted mental states, moods and emotions, and lays the foundation for the next step.
Now we get to the really interesting part for me, of the Christian spiritual path. This is for those who seek to go on to an advanced level. I find this fascinating, and horrifying. By the time I came up through the Catholic Christian schooling, emphasis on this next bit was considerably attenuated, so when I read it now, I know exactly what they are talking about, but never had it explained clearly.
To grasp this next process you need to understand a term: ‘inverse dialectics’.
Meaning:
“joy is attained through suffering, life through dying, and hope in God through despair of one’s own capabilities”
“that we must become poor in order for God’s richness to become manifest, that we must grow weak in order that eternity grow strong in our lives, and that we are to lose all in which we place our hopes in order that Hope reign, for only through loss do we gain the eternal promise.”
Reading this you can see many correlations with much that we recognise as critical to the ‘universal Path’ found in all schools. And yet it is how Christianity takes these insights and applies them in their own way that is most interesting.]
Kierkegaard: “in working [one] also ... work against oneself”.
This engenders a ‘passion of faith’ which is inherently paradoxical, against the reasonableness and sanity built up in the earlier phase.
For example, on the one hand you have a pragmatic moral and virtuous character, and yet then you are asked to believe in fantasies - the “incarnation of the divine in the person of Christ”. This dichotomy I have witnessed first hand in my neighbours, who on the one hand are extremely sceptical of all things otherworldly and hold to money-making as the highest goal, pride themselves on being rational, sane, scientific, while on the other hand are devoted Catholics who believe all the virgin birth and God coming into man stuff.
“Faith must be maintained against the offence to reason of its absurd object, and against the worldly values of prudence, cleverness, and self-regard.” (BM)
But the next bit is where we really get down and dirty. Inverse dialectic also directs us to grovel. We have to enter into abject humiliation and despair as a sinner beyond any capacity to save ourselves. This is critical, because if you can save yourself, then there is no need for God.
“Salvation is entirely dependent on God’s grace.” Thus we have to descend into utter and complete dissolution of self. We become debased and defiled - becoming “as nothing” before God by acknowledging our distance in sin from God. Only in moving to the ultimate in worthlessness can we achieve worth, and that only by God offering it. There is no guarantee He will.
There is a fine distinction here in that all the first phase is not to be seen as making oneself worthy for God’s grace, which is the heresy of the Masons, but “necessary to open the individual to the possibility of receiving grace”. It is crucial in Christian spirituality that ‘spiritual empowerment’ is avoided at all costs.
Guilt is the prime state, which creates in us not remorse which leads to clear-consciousness, but rather intensified into sin-consciousness “which is crucial to ‘becoming nothing before God’ and having faith in forgiveness and atonement. If there is nothing to forgive, one needs no faith in forgiveness.” (BM)
Here we have the crux - Christian spirituality is all about forgiveness. That’s the word around which the whole Christian edifice revolves, and the prism through which you can make sense of all that Christians do and believe. As spiritual path, one must descend to a point of absolute readiness and realisation that only God’s forgiveness is real.
On the path it is acknowledged that this all this grovelling in worthlessness can lead losing oneself in despair. The antidote to this is to focus on Christ. “To believe in Christ is to believe in the possibility of forgiveness and atonement. To believe in Christ is also to strive to imitate Christ in one’s own life, to embody self-sacrificing love [agape] in every action, to love the next person as oneself.” (BM)
So there you have it. That’s enough for the Christian approach to Emotions. Next I will compare to the Buddhist take on this which although similar is nonetheless ultimately incompatible.
