Felt and Reckoned: Twofold Dukkha in Early Buddhism

G.A. SOMARATNE 동국대학교 불교학술원 2018 International Journal of Buddhist Thought & Cultur Vol.28 No.1

The teaching of the Buddha presented in the Pāli discourses refers to a twofold suffering: felt suffering and reckoned suffering. Because the latter type of suffering identifies even the pleasant feelings and the neutral feelings to be suffering in the sense of their impermanent nature, it is the more profound and hence more difficult suffering type that requires the Buddha’s teaching itself to understand it. When taken in the sense of reckoned suffering, there is an all-pervasive character of suffering in the whole existence. This has led scholarly studies either voluntarily or involuntarily to concoct a view that the outlook of Buddha’s teaching of suffering is pessimistic. This article attempts to unravel reckoned suffering and its soteriological significance to point out that the Buddha’s teaching of suffering is purposeful, and has the aim of understanding suffering fully to end suffering fully. By analysing important doctrinal quotes from the early Buddhist discourses, this article points out that the Buddha teaches not only suffering but also its cessation, not only felt suffering but also reckoned suffering, and hence the attribution of a pessimistic character to the Buddha’s teaching of suffering cannot be justified.

고통(苦痛)의 서사(敍事)와 응답(應答)의 윤리(倫理) -박경리(朴景利) 『토지(土地)』를 중심(中心)으로-

김연숙(金淵淑) ( Kim¸ Yeon-sook ) 한국어문교육연구회 2020 어문연구(語文硏究) Vol.48 No.4

본고에서는 朴景利의 『土地』를 대상으로, 고통과 그 대응방식의 양상을 고찰하고자 했다. 고통은 인간의 공통 경험인 동시에 고유한 사적 경험이다. 본고는 『土地』에서 ‘非正常人’과 하층계급(subaltern) 여성의 고통서사를 중심으로 그 대응 방식을 살펴보고자 했다. 첫째, 광인, 천치 등 ‘非正常人’의 고통에 대해, 『土地』는 개인주의와 합리주의라는 근대적 기제가 작동하기 이전의 공동체적 대응을 드러냈다. 또한 이와 같은 일종의 무관심 속에서의 수용에서 한발 더 나아가 소통불가능한 그들의 고통을 응시하고 그 고통에 共鳴함으로써, 타자와 공존할 가능성을 보여주었다. 둘째, 하층계급 여성의 대표적인 고통서사로 성폭력 사례를 살펴본 결과, 『土地』는 1)고통주체의 존재를 인정하고 지지하거나, 2)타자의 고통 앞에서 무력한 나의 고통을 몸으로 발화하거나, 3)주체의 무능을 인정하고 윤리적 경청을 실천하는 대응방식을 보여주었다. 이를 통해 소통ㆍ공감이 불가능한 타자의 고통에 주의를 기울이는 것으로부터 인간 상호간의 윤리적 모색의 가능성이 생겨난다는 가치를 재확인할 수 있었다. 이것이야말로 문학의 존재 이유이자, 『土地』가 보여주는 응답의 윤리였다. This study examines suffering and the patterns of responding to it focused on the novel Toji(Land) by Park Kyong-ni. Suffering is a common human experience, but at the same time it is the most unique personal experience. It sought to examine the way of responding to suffering and its meaning, focusing on the narrative of the suffering of ‘abnormal persons’ and subaltern women in Toji. First, regarding the suffering of “abnormal people” such as madmen and idiots(stupid), Toji shows the communal response to such suffering before the modern mechanisms of individualism and rationalism begin to operate. If this is a kind of indifferent acceptance, Toji goes further from here. It was a way to reveal the possibility of coexisting with others by staring at their incommunicable suffering and resonating with that suffering. Second, the narrative of subaltern women’s most representative suffering was the case of sexual violence. Regarding this, Toji shows a response method of 1)acknowledging and supporting the existence of the suffering subject, 2)uttering “my” helpless suffering in front of the suffering of the other, or 3)acknowledging the subject's incompetence and practicing ethical listening. Through this, it was possible to reaffirm the value that the possibility of ethical search between humans arises from paying attention to the suffering of others who cannot communicate and empathize. This is the reason for the existence of literature and the ethics of response shown by Toji.

Homiletical Theodicy for Preaching on Suffering

Seo, Ji-Ma 한국실천신학회 2021 신학과 실천 Vol.- No.75

Humans live by experiencing various types of sufferings. For this reason, it is evident that one of the topics of great interest in congregations is the question of suffering. The study aims to classify and examine the various types of suffering in order to effectively preaching on suffering, and to present a homiletical theodicy by discerning, and synthesizing the arguments of each theodicy. The detailed contents of this study are mainly composed of three parts. First, this paper will classify and examine the various types of suffering first according to the causes, scope, and theological purpose. One of the important things for preachers who preach on suffering is to understand it properly. This study will provide assistance to preachers so that they may preach on suffering in an effective manner by providing categorization of suffering. Second, this paper will examine various theodicies regarding suffering. Philosophers and religious intellectuals have proposed different answers to the issue of suffering. In this study, the writer will briefly review the arguments of these different theodicies and discuss how to effectively preach the theological positions of each theodicy in the sermon. Third, this paper will present a homiletical theodicy and explain it in detail. In particular, the writer will present a homiletical theodicy based on the basic elements of the meta-narrative, and the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Homiletical theodicy based on this meta-narrative can provide the audience with Christian perspectives on suffering. This homiletical theodicy might also provide preachers with insight as to what should be considered when preaching on suffering.

고통에 대한 헤르만 바빙크의 견해

박재은 한국복음주의조직신학회 2023 조직신학연구 Vol.45 No.-

온 세상이 고통으로 신음하고 있다. 전쟁, 전염병, 살인, 자연재해, 대규모 인명사고 등 고통은 더 이상 먼 나라 이야기가 아니라 곧 우리 모두의 현재적 이야기이다. 신자들에게도 고통은 그리 낯설지 않은 이야기이다. 경건하고 신실한 신자들에게도 고통이 찾아온다. 그러므로 많은 사람은 하나님의 선하심에 대해 의심한다. 선하신 하나님이 살아 계신다면 왜신자들의 고통에 눈을 감으시고 침묵하고 계시는가? 이런 신정론 문제는 교회 역사 속에서 다양한 의견으로 분출되었다. 본고는 고통의 문제를 19-20세기 네덜란드를 살았던 개혁파 교의학자 헤르만 바빙크(Herman Bavinck, 1854-1921)의 빛 아래서 살핀다. 바빙크는 고통의 문제에 대해서 보다 더 본질적이고도 근원적인 접근을 했다. 물론투박한 접근일 수 있지만, 사안이 복잡하면 복잡할수록 ‘본질 그 자체로’ 얽히고설킨 문제를 풀어가는 것이 훨씬 더 효과적이기 때문에 바빙크의신정론 논조는 고통 가운데 살아갈 수밖에 없는 우리 모두에게 큰 신학적귀감이 된다. 이 지점을 드러내는 것이 본고의 목적이다. 본고의 진행 순서는 다음과 같다. 먼저 바빙크의 개혁교의학 과 계시 철학 에 나타난 네 가지의 큰 흐름, 즉 고통과 섭리, 고통과 죄, 고통과유익, 고통과 자연과학의 흐름 가운데서 고통에 대한 바빙크의 견해를 요목조목 살펴보도록 하겠다. 그 후 바빙크의 견해에 근거해 실천적 고찰 및 적용을 한 후 논의를 요약·정리하며 글을 마무리 짓도록 하겠다. 바빙크는 1차 세계 대전이라는 뼈아픈 고통을 겪었다. 전쟁의 치열한 틈바구니에서 고통에 대한 본질적인 신학적 진술을 했던 바빙크의 족적을 살피다 보면 현재적 고통 가운데 있는 우리 모두가 고통을 어떻게 바라봐야 할지에 대한 궁극적인 방향성 설정을 깨닫게 되리라 믿는다. The whole world is groaning in pain. Suffering from war, epidemics, murder, natural disasters, and large-scale casualties is no longer a story of a distant country, but a present story of all of us. Pain is not an unfamiliar story to believers either. Suffering comes even to pious and faithful believers. Many people, therefore, doubt the goodness of God. If a good God lives, why does he turn a blind eye to the suffering of believers and remain silent? There were various opinions on this issue of theodicy throughout church history. This paper examines the problem of suffering under the light of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), a Reformed theologian who lived in the Netherlands in the 19th and 20th centuries. Bavinck took a more essential and fundamental approach to the problem of pain. Of course, it may be a crude approach, but Bavinck’s theodicy serves as a great theological example because the more complex the issue, the more effective it is to solve the tangled problems ‘by nature itself.’ The purpose of this paper is to expose this point. The order of progress of this paper is as follows. First, the paper will look at Bavinck’s views on pain among the four major trends in Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics and Philosophy of Revelation: suffering and providence, suffering and sin, suffering and benefit, suffering and natural science. After that, the study will summarize and organize the discussion and conclude the article after practical consideration and application based on Bavinck’s view. Bavinck experienced the painful suffering of the World War I. The study asserts that if we look at Bavinck’s traces of making essential theological statements about suffering amidst the fierceness of war, we will realize the ultimate direction for how all of us who are currently suffering should view suffering.

하나님의 이중적 이미지: 무력한 하나님, 힘 있는 하나님 - 인간의 고난에 관한 목회 신학적 성찰 -

최민수 한국기독교상담심리학회 2010 한국기독교상담학회지 Vol.19 No.-

The existence of human suffering is an undeniable part of our lives. If God is good, why does he allow terrible things such as sickness, disaster,violence, terrorism, and death to happen to his people? If God loves us really, why does he allow his people’s suffering? However, we can understand God’s will and the meaning of suffering. Many people may have thought that either suffering can bring us a good benefit such as spiritual and personal growth, or suffering can move us in an ungodly direction. Certainly, suffering does not mean that God does not care or that God is powerless. Suffering shows us that we have human frailty. Such a revelation is intended to cause people to seek hope beyond suffering. For Christians,there are many purpose of suffering. First of all, God wants Christians to learn to rely on him and to trust him in times of suffering. The existence of the faithfulness of God that strengthens our faith and characters were able to bring our faith’s maturity. In fact, a godly response to suffering involves trusting that God is sovereign, loving and faithful. It involves responding to this with faithfulness that the Christian must not reject God when suffering occurs in his or her circumstances, Rather, we have to petition God in order to seek for help. This is an appropriate response. If we know it, we can endure and enjoy in suffering. We can believe that God washes away our tears and heals our hurt inner mind. God doesn’t stand afar, aloof, unable or unwilling to get involved. God is in the life’s context where his people suffer so that he comforts them and gives strength in order to endure and overcome suffering. Above all, God is with us when we suffer. In the mystery of incarnation, we may realize the dual image of God, powerful and yet powerless. The first approach is that we should make people in suffering realize the true meaning of suffering that they confront. If they know the real purpose of suffering while suffering, on the contrary, the suffering can change to benefits and obtain as ability to overcome it. Another approach is a good opportunity that people can be mature in their faith and personal character through suffering. We should help and comfort people in suffering in order to reach a mature faith that praises and thanks God in any circumstances. Therefore, pastoral counselors or pastors can help and comfort people in suffering in order to take a positive viewpoint to suffering and reach a mature faith. it is certain that our sufferings rather change to the spiritual advancement and the blessed life. In this respect, human suffering is one of the blessings from God.

도스토예프스키의 『죄와 벌』에 나타난 정의와 고통의 문제 연구

조혜경 한국러시아문학회 2022 러시아어문학 연구논집 Vol.76 No.-

The purpose of this paper is to examine the problems of suffering and justice of the characters in Dostoevsky's novel 『Crime and Punishment』. Justice is an existential problem of human beings and a core value underlying social formation. It is justice not to turn away from those who suffer, and in the process, humans take care of themselves, others, and society. Raskol’nikov considers his own suffering (the suffering of a Übermensch) to be a useful suffering for justice. That is, he believed in the utility theory of pain. But suffering is not a means to dominate others or to gain power. Suffering cannot in itself be a means to an end. But every suffering can have a meaning. That life, including meaningless suffering, can be meaningful gives us a reason to endure even meaningless suffering. In other words, the meaninglessness of suffering does not make life meaningless, but it makes even the meaningless pain of life a reason to endure. Raskol’nikov longs for pain to achieve justice, but he cannot bear the suffering of reality. So he tries to avoid the suffering. What is important to him is perhaps the universal suffering of mankind, not the suffering of me and those around me, as evidence of an unjust society. So he regards Sonya's suffering as the suffering of mankind and bows down in front of it. However, Sonya calls herself a great sinner and humbly embraces the suffering of others (his family and Raskol’nikov). Sonya, who humbly practices love, shows what transcendent justice is. Transcendental justice transcends theory, logic, and perception, and begins with the idea that everyone is a sinner for everyone (Sonya calls herself a great sinner) and embracing others.

Views on human freedom and suffering through the event of crucifixion - In relation to Karl Rahner’s understanding of death -

권혁남 한국실천신학회 2011 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.29

In the Christian ethic the discussion about the essence of suffering necessarily includes the discussion of cross. It is because the cross becomes the first explanatory model over the meaning of suffering. Meanwhile, Christian theology has insisted that all kinds of sufferings can obtain their meaning through the cross. Especially, the concept of redemptive suffering affirms that suffering has the potential which can give a meaningful place in human life. It is because the root and original form of redemptive suffering come from Jesus’ suffering and the theological understanding of suffering always inherently has the nature of Christology in its nature. Theological line of this insistence is clearly revealed, but we need to make matter more clearly revealed how the cross can be a basis of criteria for the approach to suffering. To make the attitude toward the mystery of suffering revealed more clearly, Karl Rahner sees that theology needs to approach to the cross. According to Rahner, theological task is to show why our salvation is achieved through Christ’s death and how this kind of special free action has the meaning of salvation. Rahner asks how Jesus’ freedom decisively and receptively is involved in the suffering and salvation. Since this question testifies the connection between the moral attitudes in which human beings take action to reduce the suffering and the theology of suffering, it will be a very important issue in this study. Therefore, in this study, after we examine the interaction between Rahner’s Christology and theological Doctrine of Man, we see that three elements in Rahner’s theology of cross are given as one pattern and paradigm to practice the freedom in the face of suffering. First, meeting with Jesus’ death as human share of common prospect which is called as death can make all human beings accept their own ‘destiny’ in the common way as they practice their own freedom perfectly. Second, since Jesus’ death as an ethical behavior accepts the death with consciousness and teleology, theology of death as act makes us see the death as an active participation in God in the experience of Jesus’ suffering and death. Finally, the cross is a meeting with the part of incomprehensibility of suffering, that is, in Rahner a part of incomprehensibility of God. According to Rahner, the unavoidable and uncontrollable fact which is called as death, which is anticipated in all experiences of suffering, is the context which realizes Jesus’ own identity and His freedom.

논문 : 이승하 시에 나타난 고통의 의미 -『욥의 슬픔을 아시나요』를 중심으로

김정신 ( Jeong Shin Kim ) 한국문학과종교학회 2011 문학과종교 Vol.16 No.3

This paper aims to look into the suffering and its meanings shown in the poetry of Lee Seungha focusing on Do You Know of Job`s Sorrow? Job in here is referred to as not only an insane sister but also the narrator, patients in a mental hospital, and even people living in the huge outside world. The suffering of the sick sister in this poem shows how a family and a society are distracted. This indeed can be called an aspect of human alienation caused by anxiety and fear over existence. This kind of aspect is extended to the whole world in Days of Violence and Insanity. The meanings of suffering presented in Do You Know of Job`s Sorrow? are as follows. Firstly, Job in the Book of Job suffers regardless of his sins. Likewise, it is shown that the suffering of the mad sister and the narrator in the poem is not a punishment for their sins. Secondly, the suffering of Job can be seen as God`s trial to train Job. Similarly, it can be due to the providence of God that He allows the sister and the narrator to suffer in the poem. Thirdly, Job receives a reward for his suffering. But, on the other hand, the sister and the narrator in the poem end up receiving no specific rewards for suffering from their diseases. And lastly, the suffering for redemption on behalf of another can be taken. It is shown that Job`s suffering is not for atonement redemption, but that the poetic narrator`s suffering in the poem is for redemption on behalf of another. Today the poetry of Lee Seungha, who could read human suffering over individual suffering in the 1990`s, means something significant to people who believe in the healing power of literature.

`섞여진 공동의 관계` 안에서의 `고통`과 `영성`에 관한 생성-과정철학적 고찰

이선근 ( Lee Sun Keun ) 한국화이트헤드학회 2016 화이트헤드 연구 Vol.33 No.-

보통 `고통`이라는 말을 언급할 때, 우리는 감각적 `통증(pain)`과 정서적`고통(suffering)`을 상황에 따라 구별하여 사용한다. 이러한 구별은, `신체적 통증`에 반응하는 뇌의 영역과 `정서적 고통`에 반응하는 뇌의 영역의 차이가 뇌과학으로부터 발견되어 실증적으로 지지된다.1) 그러므로 `고통`은 정신(mind)의 극에서, 신체(body)가 구별되어 순수한 신체성의 영역으로부터 일부 정신의 제한된 부분들이 신체성에 섞여진 영역에까지 넓은 스펙트럼을 갖는다. 이렇게 대상이 되는 고통은 실증의 가능성을 전제로 하는 해부학, 마취통증의학, 신경과학, 뇌과학, 정신분석학, 심리철학 등 다양한 분야에서 경계가 분명한 영역을 갖는 과학으로 다루어진다. 반면 아쉽게도 현대의 과학적 방법에서 벗어난 한에서 `영혼의 고통`에 대한 분석은 적극적으로 시도되지 않는다. 이러한 영역은 주로 일부 철학이나 전통적인 신학의 주제였을 뿐이며, 교양을 갖춘 상식에서는 `영혼`이라는 단어를 전-근대의 미신적인 것으로서 취급하기 일쑤다. 그럼에도 불구하고 본 연구자는 정신의 극단에 닿아, 날카롭게 분리되어 왔던 정서적인 고통, 즉 `영혼의 고통`을 포함한 통합적인 `고통`에 관심하여 본고에서 직접 다루고자 한다. 본 연구자가 보기에, 고통 일반을 관통하는 영혼의 고통에 대한 통합적인 접근은 신체성의 감각적 측면으로부터 정신성의 정서적 측면으로, 다시 정신성의 정서적 측면에서 신체성의 감각적 측면으로 전이되는 일체의 과정으로 이해할 수 있다. 이는 차이를 갖고 반복하는 생의 약동2)에 관한 이해를 기반으로 한다. 이렇게 하여 본 연구자는 즉자적 차이를 갖고 매 반복에서 생성되는 영혼의 `고통`을 `사회적 고통`으로 재구성할 것이며, 이를 직면하고 견디며 극복하여 넘어서는 `사회적 영성`에 대한 의미와 가치를 생성-과정철학적으로 탐구하고자 한다. When usually mentioning the word suffering, we distinguished sensational pain or emotional suffering for their usage depends on situation. Neuroscience has proven that the reacting area of the brain by physical pain and by emotional suffering are distinguished. The range of suffering has a wide spectrum which includes from a mysterious part of mind to pure physicality without spirit, through physicality with the consideration of the mind. Science deals with the suffering in the clear areas of studies such as anatomy, anesthesia medicine, neuroscience, brain science, psychoanalysis, and psychological philosophy. However, modern science methodologies dose not actively approach or conduct some researches on the suffering of the spirit. The reason of this was caused by the thoughts that these subjects are only belong to some philosophies or traditional theology, and people consider this topic as outdated superstition. Nonetheless, I as a researcher will treat a holistic suffering as an important subject, capturing that suffering include the part of mind that would might located at the pole of mentality and through spirit. In this study, the approach will introduce the perspective of integrity the suffering. It is not just as categorization but circular process between mind and body, sense and mentality: this concept is grounded on the understanding of the elan vital, which continuously repeats in differences. In this sense, I will not limit the suffering as personal things but will extend to social dimension. Suffering can be reconstructed in social setting and I attempt to discover social spirituality that could overcome suffering in social dimension based on the becoming-process philosophy.

애가 3장과 이사야 53장에 나타난 “나” “그” “우리”의 수사학

이영미(Yeong-Mee Lee) 연세대학교 신과대학(연합신학대학원) 2010 신학논단 Vol.62 No.-

The present article explores the rhetoric of suffering by examining the identity of “I,” “He,” and “We” in Lamentations 3 and Isaiah 53. It employs two biblical methods, literary criticism and intertextual criticism. The study first shows that both texts share a male figure, gebel in Lamentations 3 and suffering servant in Isaiah, who represents Israel as a whole and corresponds with a female figure of Zion-Jerusalem in its larger literary context. The “IIHe” suffers the suffering because of the sin the whole community. Although he is a member of the community, he is separated from others as the one who is faithful to God and is waiting for salvation of God(Lam 3) and as the one who takes the sin of the community on his shoulder. He is bearing the suffering of the community. Yet, the there remains difference between the features of gebel in Lamentations 3 and servant in Isaiah 53. While the messianic feature is not fully reflected in the self-understanding of gebel in Lamentations 3, the servant is seen as a messianic figure in Isaiah 53. It also shows that salvation is brought through the confession of sin by “We,” the community. In Lamentations 3, the call for returning to God by “I” imme-diately evokes the community’s confession of sin. In Isaiah 53, the com-munity confess their sin by seeing the suffering of the servant on behalf of them. The rhetoric of “I/He” and “We” in these texts demonstrates the importance of communal confession of the sin and collective responsi-bility to the suffering in the time of communal suffering. The present article explores the rhetoric of suffering by examining the identity of “I,” “He,” and “We” in Lamentations 3 and Isaiah 53. It employs two biblical methods, literary criticism and intertextual criticism. The study first shows that both texts share a male figure, gebel in Lamentations 3 and suffering servant in Isaiah, who represents Israel as a whole and corresponds with a female figure of Zion-Jerusalem in its larger literary context. The “IIHe” suffers the suffering because of the sin the whole community. Although he is a member of the community, he is separated from others as the one who is faithful to God and is waiting for salvation of God(Lam 3) and as the one who takes the sin of the community on his shoulder. He is bearing the suffering of the community. Yet, the there remains difference between the features of gebel in Lamentations 3 and servant in Isaiah 53. While the messianic feature is not fully reflected in the self-understanding of gebel in Lamentations 3, the servant is seen as a messianic figure in Isaiah 53. It also shows that salvation is brought through the confession of sin by “We,” the community. In Lamentations 3, the call for returning to God by “I” imme-diately evokes the community’s confession of sin. In Isaiah 53, the com-munity confess their sin by seeing the suffering of the servant on behalf of them. The rhetoric of “I/He” and “We” in these texts demonstrates the importance of communal confession of the sin and collective responsi-bility to the suffering in the time of communal suffering.