AAR 1999 Panel Report

By Gereon Kopf, Luther College

Presider: Bina Gupta (University of Missouri, Columbia)
Presenter: Jin Y. Park (Vassar College); "Notes on Interlocking Deconstruction and Buddhism"
Presenter: Robin Roth (Manchester College): "Derrida and Buddhism"

Respondents: Eric Jarrow (Vassar College) and J. N. Mohanty (Temple University)

          In her paper, Professor Jin Y. Park explores the contributions of the postmodern discourse to the comparative study between Buddhism and "western" thought. She first examines the difficulties of such a comparative study prior to the advent of postmodernism, especially deconstruction. Second, she interprets Derrida's deconstruction as a "turning point" in the history of the intellectual dialogue between Buddhism and "Western" thought. The third section of her paper addresses the similarities and differences between deconstruction and Buddhism.
          Focusing only on the conceptual (as opposed to the socio-political) aspects of Buddhist scholarship in the "West," Park argues that "[a]ttempts to interpret (the) Buddhist tradition from a European perspective without considering this difference (in metaphysical thinking) only resulted in purely negative evaluation of the religion." The misunderstandings of Buddhism by Buddhist scholarship in the "West" prior to the arrival of deconstructionism are grounded in a fundamental "incompatibility" between both intellectual traditions. This incompatibility is best exemplified in the Buddhist teaching of the "three Dharma seals," selflessness (anaatman), impermanence (anitya), and suffering (duhkha). It is also reflected in the Buddhist refusal to commit to or prioritize any ontological ground. In addition, the notion of interconnectedness qua pratiitya samutpaada in particular challenges the "Western" notion of identity and, concomitantly, the ontological and temporal priority attributed to the notion of "being" by the European intellectual tradition. Park concludes that "the incompatibility of the two traditions seem inevitable: the theory of no-self vs. Cartesian Ego cogito; impermanence vs. the world of Idea and Logos; the non-dual vision of interconnectedness of beings ... vs. the dualistic world of clear distinction based on the principle of identity."
          On this background, the arrival of Derrida's theory of deconstruction constitutes a turn in both "Western" philosophy and the comparative studies of "Western" and Buddhist thought. Derrida critiques five fundamental tendencies within "Western" thought: logocentrism: the belief in "the existence ... of a permanent truth"; egocentricism: the belief in a permanent self; phonocentricism: the priority of sound over the written word; phallocentricism: the dominance of the male over the female paradigm; ethnocentrism: the "superiority" of one cultural and intellectual tradition over others. Underlying Derrida's critique is his use of the notion of "difference/differance" as semiological difference between signifier and signified and as ontic-ontological difference between appearances and essence. Derrida thus subverts "the principle of identity on the one hand and the essentialization of the Being in the metaphysical tradition on the other." Derrida's deconstruction reflects the basic Buddhist doctrine insofar as it employs "a differential notion" to undermine the notions of self and identity and to address the ambiguity of opposites.
          Difficulties regarding a comparative study of deconstruction and Buddhism can be recognized in four areas. First, Buddhism is too generic a category to serve as a meaningful participant in such a comparative study. Second, Buddhism, in general, not only employs some kind of deconstruction but also an onto-theology, that is the very notion of which Derrida rejects. Third, from a Buddhist perspective, Derrida's deconstruction is still too logocentric and requires an inclusion of the "life-world" into its discourse. Fourth, The role of Buddhism as critical agent in contemporary society depends on its overall function in a particular society. Park concludes that an ongoing comparison and dialogue between Buddhism and deconstruction can strengthen both traditions.
          In his response, J. N. Mohanty pointed out that despite the obvious similarities between, for example, Naagaarjuna and Derrida, both fundamentally differ in their project. Naagaarjuna's project is to systematically refute logical arguments of significance at his time. Derrida's project, on the contrary, constitutes a linguistic analysis. Thus while Naagaarjuna and Derrida seem to agree on some issues, attention has to be paid to their different agendas and methodologies.