Keiji Nishitani and Karl Rahner: A Response to Nihility

Author(s): Heidi Ann Russell

Source: Buddhist-Christian Studies, Vol. 28 (2008), pp. 27-41
Published by: University of Hawai'i Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30152926
Accessed: 14-12-2015 09:05 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30152926?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Buddhist-Christian Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ARTICLES

KeijiNishitaniand KarlRahner:
A Responseto Nihility

HeidiAnnRussell
ofPastoralStudies
Institute
at LoyolaUniversity
Chicago

In his essay"Kenosis and Emptiness,"BuddhistscholarMasao Abe statesthat"the

necessityoftacklingtheBuddhist-Christian dialoguenotmerelyin termsofinterfaith
dialogue,but also as an inseparablepartof the widersocioculturalproblemof reli-
gion versusirreligionhas become moreand morepressingin thepastfewdecades."1
From Keiji Nishitani'sperspectivea cultureof self-centeredness has developedout
of the inabilityof many people to move beyond a sense of nihilismin theirlives.
Furthermore, technologicaladvancesand an increasedunderstanding of the laws of
naturehave allowed humans to manipulatethose laws fortheirown purposes.In
thisdevelopment,Nishitanibelievesthat"theperversionthatoccurredin the origi-
nal relationshipof man to the laws of naturehas takenthe shape of a fundamental
intertwining of the mechanizationof man and his transformation into a subjectin
pursuitof itsdesires,at the groundofwhichnihilityhas opened up as a senseof the
meaninglessness of thewhole business."2
Both Nishitaniand Karl Rahnersee in the developmentof scienceand technol-
ogy a tendencyto manipulatethe laws of natureforone's own benefitin a way that
increasesthe self-centeredness and self-absorption of humankindwhile at the same
timedevaluinghumanityand engendering an attitudeofmeaninglessness. In a world
todaythatis confrontedwith issuessuch as war and global warmingand in which
religiouscommunitiesare tryingto make sense out of scientificissuessuch as stem
cell researchand cloning,the abilityto addressa nihilisticstandpointthatsees the
surroundingworld as simplybeingat human disposalhas neverbeen morecrucial.
So how does one confrontthis crisisof a nihilisticculture?Abe recommendsthat
both Buddhismand Christianity need "to pursuea fundamentalreorganizationin
characterizing their faith such that the prevailingbasic assumptionsare drastically
a
changed-for example, revolutionary reinterpretation of the concept of God in
Christianity and the concept of Emptinessin Buddhism-therebyallowinga new
paradigmor model of understandingto emerge."3The concept of emptinessor
nothingnessin Keiji Nishitani'sReligionand Nothingness and the concept of God
as incomprehensible mysteryin the theologyof Karl Rahner4could allow forthe

Studies28 (2008). by Universityof Hawai'i Press.All rightsreserved.

Buddhist-Christian

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
28 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

emergence ofa modelofunderstanding thataddresses theproblemofirreligion or

nihilityfrom an interreligiousperspective.'While in no waynegating theveryreal
dissimilarities
betweentheconceptsofNishitani and Rahneror therespective reli-
gioustraditions ofwhichtheyarea part,one neednotthinkof theirconceptsas
diametricallyopposedto one anotherin sucha waythatdialogueis impossible. To
thateffect,thisessaywillexplorethecommongroundbetween Nishitani's concept
of sunyatd6 (oftentranslated or definedas kulemptiness or mu/nothingness) and
Rahner's incomprehensible God basedon theirinterpretations ofthehumanexperi-
enceofmeaninglessness andtheneedfora surrender oftheselfthatmanifests itself
in
one'slovingrelationship withothers. Commonhumanexperience, suchas theexpe-
rienceofdeathormeaninglessness, andtheinterpretations ofthatexperience found
in variousreligionscanprovide groundfromwhichto begininterreligious dialogue.
One cansearchfora connection between thereligiousconcepts bylookingattheway
theymakesenseoutofa commonaffective experiencewithout requiringan absolute
identitybetweenthecognitive religiousconcepts themselves.8 The important point
of comparison is notmanufacturing a falseidentitybetweentheconcepts, butthe
waytheconcepts workwithinthelivingcommunities tomoveonetovolitive action.
In thiswaythepractical orethicalimplications oftheconcepts andhowtheyarelived
outin theworldbecomethefocus.In theworkofNishitani andRahner, thatcom-
monhumanexperience is themeaninglessness encountered in theworldtodayand
thecallfora selflesslovethatwilltranscend suchmeaninglessness. In theirrolesas
philosopher-theologians, bothNishitani and Rahnerhaveprobably hadmoreinflu-
enceon individuals or leaderswithincertainBuddhist and Christian communities
rather thanbyhavingspecific livingcommunities thatarefoundedon or dedicated
to theirthought.9 Working outthepractical or ethicalimplicationsoftheirthought
thusshowshowtheycancontinue be
to relevant to communities of faithtoday.

EMPTINESS IN THE THOUGHT OF KEIJI NISHITANI

Nishitani's
understanding ofemptiness orabsolutenothingness in hisbookReligion
and Nothingness1o
can be explicated bylookingat how Nishitaniunderstands the
humanexperience ofnihility,
howhe seesemptiness as a reality
that grounds even
theexperienceofnihility,andfinallytheresultantneedforan understanding ofthe
non-self.
Nishitanispeaksof theexperience of nihility of human
as an existential
existence.
The experience ofnihility
is partofwhatitmeansto be human,anditis
thepointat whichone can beginthereligious quest.Nishitani describes as
nihility
"thatwhichrenders meaningless themeaningoflife.Whenwe becomea question
and whentheproblemofwhywe existarises,thismeansthatnihility
to ourselves
hasemerged fromthegroundofourexistence andthatourveryexistence hasturned
intoa questionmark."ii Atthispointofmeaninglessness onequestions thepurpose
oflifeand ofhumanexistence. Nishitani attributes
thisexperience and thedeepen-
ingofawareness thatresultsfromtheexperience to thecommonhumanexperience
ofdeath.He statesthat"ourliferunsup againstdeathat itsevery step;we keepone
footplantedinthevaleofdeathatalltimes.Ourlifestandspoisedatthebrinkofthe

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJINISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 29

abyssof nihilityto whichit mayreturnat anymoment.Our existenceis an existence

at one withnon-existence, swingingback and forthovernihility, ceaselesslypassing
awayand ceaselesslygainingitsexistence.This is whatis called the'incessantbecom-
ing' of existence."12
It is preciselywhen one runsup againstthe frailty of human existence,the real-
izationthatlifecan end much morequicklythanit began,thatone beginsto ques-
tion whetheror not lifeis meaningful.For Nishitani,thisexperienceof death and
finiteness causesa void or an abyssto appear,in thefaceofwhich"notone of all the
thingsthathad made up the stuffof lifeuntilthenis of any use." 13Everything that
has givenone'slifemeaningup to thatpointsuddenlyceasesto be meaningfulas one
looks at thegapinghole ofnonexistenceon whosebrinkone stands.It is at thispoint,
Nishitanimaintains,thatall thingslose theirnecessityand utility.'"One no longer
asks the purposeof thingsforoneself-that is, in what way are theynecessaryand
usefulto me-but ratherone beginsto ask what is one's own purpose."5This ques-
tion thatone is, forNishitani,is the beginningof the religiousquest.To stop at the
point of theyawningabyssof meaninglessness is nihilism,but Nishitaniinsiststhat
one mustlook to thatwhich groundseven the abyssof nihilism,absolutenothing-
nessor sunyata.
In the glossaryof the Englishtranslationof Nishitani'sReligionand Nothingness,
JanVan Bragtdefinesemptinessor fnyata as follows:"In accordwiththeimagesug-
gestedbytheChinesecharacter, it is said to be 'skylike'and is comparedin thetextto
an all-encompassingcosmic sky."16In Religionand Nothingness Nishitaniuses both
"emptiness"and "absolutenothingness" to referto thisreality. Accordingto Walden-
fels,Nishitanieventuallycomes to replacethe term"absolutenothingness" withthe
term"emptiness"in his work "in memoryof" Nagarjuna.'7To describeemptiness,
it is firstnecessaryto understandwhatemptinessis not.On the one hand,Nishitani
maintainsthat emptinessis not a nihilistic,positivistic,or materialisticatheism.'8
On the otherhand, he also deniesthatit is theismor pantheism.'9Nishitaniobjects
to the fact that "'nothingness'is generallyforcedinto a relationshipwith 'being'
and made to serveas its negation,leading to its conceptionas somethingthat 'is'
nothingnessbecauseit 'is not' being."20This understanding of nothingness would be
nihilistic.Nishitanimaintainsthat "insofaras one stops here,nothingnessremains
a concept,a nothingnessonly in thought.Absolutenothingnesswhereineven that
is' is negated,is not possibleas a nothingnessthatis thoughtbut onlya nothingness
thatis lived."21For Nishitaninothingnessmusthave ethicalimplications.However,
despitetheseobjectionsto a nothingness thatis thought,unlikeNagarjuna,Nishitani
does givea positivecontentto theunderstanding of nothingness.Nishitanidescribes
emptinessas encompassing all things, includingnihility. He statesthat"it is a cosmic
skyenvelopingthe earthand man and countlesslegionsof starsthatmove and have
theirbeingwithinit. It liesbeneaththegroundwe tread,itsbottomreachingbeneath
thevalley'sbottom.If theplace wheretheomnipresentGod residesbe called heaven,
then heaven would also have to reach beneaththe bottomlesspit of hell: heaven
would be an abyssforhell.This is the sense in which emptinessis an abyssforthe
abyssof nihility."22 Going beyondNishitani'sdefinition,the termemptinessas it is

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
30 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

describedhereimpliestheconceptof opennessor space. This emptinessor openness

holds all thingswithinit. It is thewomb of God thatencompassesand makesroom
withinit forthatwhichis other.
Nishitanihimself,in his efforts to build a bridgebetweenEasternand Western
thought,connectsthe idea of emptinessto Christiandoctrine.Nishitaniconnects
this understandingof selflessness or snyata to the nondifferentiating
love of God
in Christianity.He uses "thebiblicalanalogythattellsus thereis no such thingas
selfishor selectivesunshine"23to describesuch nondifferentiating love. As the sun
shineson the good and thebad alike,so too does thelove of God. He identifiesthis
Christiananalogywith the Great CompassionateHeart of Buddhism.24By reason
of thisnondifferentiating love, Nishitanidoes not call God personalor impersonal
but transpersonal, the groundof a personalrelationshipwithGod. He understands
God as impersonally personalor personallyimpersonal,as an impersonalpersonor
a personal nonperson.25
The idea of sunyatagroundsthe idea of the transpersonalGod. Sunyatais the
fieldthatprovidesthespace forrelationships of any kind,includingthe relationship
betweena personand God. He states,"it is onlyon thefieldof thissame emptiness
that God and man, and the relationshipsbetweenthem,are constitutedin a per-
sonal Form,and thattheirrespectiverepresentations are made possible."26Nishitani
drawson MeisterEckhart'sunderstanding of God and Godhead in orderto make
thisdistinctionbetweenGod and the representation of God. The emptinessof God
allowsus to conceiveof God in a personalwayand to relateto thatrepresentation of
God. Emptinessis thatwhichis the mostnearto us and themostfarfromus, most
personaland yetnondifferentiating. Nishitaniuses theimageof anglesto describeit
as the pointwhereO0is at the same time3600, thepoint at whichtheabsolutenear
side is also theabsolutefarside.27
The idea of God makingroom forthatwhichis otheris also seen in Nishitani's
understanding of theChristiandoctrineof creatioex nihilo.He understandsthisdoc-
trinein termsof theabsolutedistinctness of all thingsfromGod and theirgrounding
in nihilum,yetat thesametimebeingsustainedin existencethroughGod.28Nishitani
explainstheomnipresenceand absoluteimmanenceof God throughthisdoctrineof
creationfromnothingas thatwhichmakesGod absolutelytranscendent.29 Nishitani
arguesthat"theGod beforewhom all of creationis as nothingmakeshimselfpresent
throughall ofcreation.The Christianmustbe able to pick up a singlepebbleor blade
of grassand see the same consumingfireof God and thepillarof fire,hearthesame
thunderousroar,and feelthe same 'fearand trembling'thatMoses experienced."30
The Christiandoes not experiencethispresenceof God in a pantheisticway,as if
the pebble or the blade of grassis God, but experiencesGod preciselybecause the
pebbleor blade ofgrassisnotGod, butis createdbyGod. Nishitaniexplainsthat"the
being of the createdis groundedupon a nothingness and seen fundamentally to be a
nothingness.At the same time,it is an immanenceof absoluteaffirmation, forthe
nothingnessof thecreatedis thegroundofitsbeing.This is theomnipresenceofGod
in all thingsthathave theirbeing as a creatioex nihilo."31The interdependence of
absolutenegationand absoluteaffirmation groundsthe Christian'sneed and ability

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJI NISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 31

to die to selfand live in God.32Such an understanding of the interdependence of all

thingsgroundedin theircreationbyGod out of nothingshouldthenhave an impact
on how people treatone anotherand the createdworldin whichwe live. No longer
can one see theworldand otherhumanbeingsas beingforone's own subjectionand
use; now,in theexperienceofGod in and throughwhatis other,one mustsee oneself
at the serviceof God in and throughserviceto God's creation.This conceptwill be
developedin the sectionon Rahner'sunderstanding of the unityof love of God and
love of neighbor.
For Nishitani,however,therealityof theworldis thatmanydo not move beyond
nihilism,thus causinga crisisof modernculturethatresultsin a rampantself-cen-
teredness.One becomes caughtup in a bittercirclein which nihilitybecomes the
groundof a self-centeredness thatresultsin a continualdevaluationof life,and thus
increasesthe experienceof meaninglessness. Nishitaninotesthat"withthe advance
of the rationalizationof life,yet standingbehind it, anotherstandpointcontinues
to gatherstrength:the growingaffirmation of a prereflective human mode of being
that is totallynon-rational and non-spiritual, the stance of the subjectthatlocates
itselfon nihilityas it pursuesits own desiresunreservedly."33 Nishitanicritiquesthe
use of technologyand the abilityto manipulatethe laws of natureas contributing
to the self-centeredness of humankind.He extendshis critiqueto theway in which
countriesare governed,notingthatthe communistgovernments maintaina totali-
tarianismthatresultsin the mechanizationof institutions and of humans,while the
liberalistgovernments equate the freedomof individualswiththe freedomof a sub-
ject to pursueitsown desires.34 Both systemsare groundedon nihilityand resultin a
humanityabsorbedin meaninglessness and selfishness.
Nishitaniconfrontsthis nihilisticculturewith the beliefthat thereis a reality
beyondnihility, and thatrealityis Sunyata,theemptinessthatgroundstheexperience
of nihility.The problemwith nihilismis that it objectifiesnothingness,makingit
into some "thing."35Nishitaniexplains:"nihilitycomes to be represented as some-
thingoutside of the existenceof the selfand all things,as some 'thing'absolutely
otherthanexistence,some 'thing'called nothingness."36 Nishitaniadvocatesa "lived
nothingness"thatmanifestsitselfin selflessness or the non-selfinsteadof a nihility
thatresultsin selfishness.
The idea of lived nothingnessis a call to conversionin which "the negationof
person-centeredness mustamountto an existential ofman as person."37
self-negation
But forNishitani,"in thiskindofexistential conversion,theselfdoes not cease being
a personalbeing. What is leftbehind is only the person-centered mode of being
whereinthe personis caughtup in itself.In thatveryconversionthe personalmode
of being becomes more real,drawscloserto the self,and appears in its truesuch-
ness.When person-centered is brokendown and nothingnessis really
self-prehension
actualizedin the self,personalexistencealso comes reallyand trulyto actualization
in the self."38It is only in the negationof the selfas a whollyindependententity
thatone is able to be trulyin relationship.In such a negationof self,one no longer
understandsoneselfas a subjectoverand againstall otherthings,thingsthatare then
seenas objects.Rather,one comesto understandtheinterrelatedness ofall thingsand

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
32 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

thefactthatitispreciselythatinterrelatedness thatallowsonetohaveandbe a "self."

The comingto awareness of one'sinterrelatedness is intrinsically
connected to the
experience ofnihilityin whichone realizesthatforfriends and strangers alike,one
canneverknowwheretheycamefromorwheretheyaregoing,thusbothareto the
samedegree"unknown." 39ForNishitani, thisnihility occurswitha fieldofempti-
ness"onwhichan essential encounter cantakeplacebetween entities
normally taken
to be mostdistantlyrelated, evenat enmity witheachother, no lessthanthosethat
aremostclosely In a worldofincreasing
related."40 globalconflict, onemustcometo
realizethatoneis mostoneself inrecognizing one'soneness withallothers, evenwith
one'senemies. ThusNishitani goeson tosaythat"wehaveherean absoluteself-iden-
tityin whichtheone and theotheraretrulythemselves, at onceabsolutely broken
apartandabsolutely joinedtogether. Theyarean absolutetwoandat thesametime
an absoluteone.""4It is precisely in ourdifferences and in thebrokenness of our
humanity thatwe shouldcometo recognize ouroneness.Note thesimilarethical
implicationsoftheChristian teaching to loveone'senemiesandtheteaching found
inthestory ofthegoodSamaritan thatoneshouldnotdifferentiate between peoplein
deciding whoisone'sneighbor becauseallpeopleareone'sneighbor. Nishitani asserts
that"thislackofselfishness is what by
is meant non-egoor 'emptiness' (inyata)."42
Sznyata,as a responseto thethreat ofnihility inourworld,mustbe experienced and
lived.Havingexamined Nisitani'sunderstanding ofthehumanexperience ofnihility
as grounded in iSnyataandhavingseenthattheresultoflivingiunyata shouldbe a
self-negationthatallowsfora self-giving relationship withothers, thenextsection
turnstothetheology ofKarlRahner. Nishitani provides a sounddialoguepartner for
KarlRahnerbecausetheybothgroundtheirreligious conceptsin a response to the
humanexperience ofmeaningless foundin theinterdependence ofall creation.

THE INCOMPREHENSIBLE GOD OF KARL RAHNER

KarlRahnermaintains thatthe"struggle againstatheismis alwaysand foremost a

struggleagainsta viewofGod whichis in dangerofreplacing thetrue,incompre-
hensibleGod bya humanidol."43He also pointsout thatan allianceof religions
basedon whattheyholdin commondespitetheirdivergences couldbe employed in
thestruggle againstatheism.44His theology makesan effortto callone backto the
incomprehensibilityofGod. Thistheology oftheincomprehensible God allowsfor
a dialoguebetween his thought and the thought of Keiji Nishitani.The common
the
groundfor two respectiveunderstandings of reality,
as was stated above,is the
humanexperience ofmeaninglessness and thecallforselflessnessandself-surrender
in thefaceofthatmeaningless.
As Nishitanisaw humanexistence as a questionof meaning, so too does Karl
Rahner.Rahner,likeNishitani, seesthequestionthathumanexistence is as aris-
ingfromtheexistential experienceofdeathand alienation. Rahnerresponds to the
humanexperience ofmeaninglessness byexplicating an understanding ofGod that
can groundthatexperience in absolutemeaning, thusproviding theanswerto the
questionthatis humanexistence.

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJI NISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 33

Rahnermaintainsthat"humanexistenceitselfmakesman feellonely,as ifplaced

into emptiness,as if involvedin an infinitefall."45 Rahner'sunderstandingof the
humanexperienceofemptinessechoesNishitani'sunderstanding oftheexperienceof
nihility. Rahnerdescribesthefeelingofemptinessas being"surroundedbyan infinite
ocean of darknessand an immenseunexplorednight-always merelymanagingto
survivefromone contingencyto another."46Like Nishitani,Rahneralso associates
thisexperiencewiththe human realityand consciousnessof death.The one experi-
ence thateveryhuman mustfaceis death.Rahnerstatesthatthehuman "feelsdeath
livingwithinhim in themidstof his life.He feelshow deathis thefinallimitbeyond
which he himselfcannot pass."47In the face of death one begins to question the
meaningfulness of human existence.
Rahner also notes that the meaninglessness and selfishnessof human existence
can be theconsequenceof modernadvancesin science.48 The questionthatis human
existencearisesbecause of the contemporary situationof livingin a world in which
humans put themselvesat the center,seeingall otherthingsfortheirown use and
control,even theirfellowhuman beings.Nishitaniarguesthatthis attitudeis pre-
ciselywhat leads to dehumanization.Rahnernotesthat"we live in an age in which
man activelymanipulatestheworldand himself,in whichtheworld,farfrombeing
thoughtof in concretetermsas subjectto the controlof heavenlypowers,becomes
the object of rationalresearchand a quarryof arid factsfromwhichman drawshis
materialsforthe constructionof thatworld which he plans accordingto his own
image and likeness,and wherethereseemsto be room forwonderonlywhereman
himselfis absentfromthe scene."49The worldthatRahnerdescribesis one whereit
becomesharderto findanymeaningbecausehumanityis alwaysplaced at thecenter
of realityinsteadof God. Communitiesof faithtodaymustfacea worldin environ-
mentalcrisisbecause of the consequencesof placingall of creationat the serviceof
humankind.Societyat large,as well as faithcommunities,will struggleto balance
thegoodnessof advancingscientific knowledgewiththeethicalimplicationsof those
advancesin scienceand technology.Humans todayhave an unparalleledabilityto
manipulatethe world around them and even manipulatehumanityitselfthrough
advancesin geneticsand cloning.50 Abuses of human rightsin situationsof war and
evenin themarketeconomyabound so thatthedestruction or devaluationofhuman
lifeis too oftensimplyunderstoodas collateraldamage.The resultof such a worldis
a common human experienceof meaninglessness.
Ideally the existentialsituationof meaninglessness leads to the realizationthat
by one'sverynatureone is a questionto whichthereis no answerto be foundother
thantheincomprehensible God. As willbe explainedbelow,theanswerbecomesrel-
evantin our livedrealitywhenone understandsthatforRahnertheexperienceof the
incomprehensible God is mediatedthroughone's relationto and interdependence
with the world in which we live. Rahnernotes thatwe can remainin the comfort
zone whereGod and realityarecomprehensible, but "we can do thisonlywiththeaid
of rationalistictheoryand . .. thebitternessof life'sfrustrations
bringus up continu-
allyagainstthismarginalexperience,so thatat mostwe maywonderwhetherwhatis
beyondthisfieldof clearknowledgeand autonomouslypracticableplansamountsto

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
34 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

a fallintoan abysmal meaninglessness orto beingcaughtup bya sheltering incom-

prehensibilityrelieving us purelyand simplyof ourselves and our question."51 In
otherwords,a rational, comprehensible ideaofGod fallsshortinmaking senseoutof
theexperience ofnihility inlife.In theendonemustmakea choicebetween trusting
thatalloflifeis headedtowardtheultimate meaning foundin theincomprehensible
mystery ofGod,orgivingin to a nihilistic despair.52
ForRahner, theanswer tothequestionofthemeaninglessness ofhumanexistence
is God. He asserts thatGod is meaning, butnotmeaning as oneusuallyunderstands
theterm.Itis notthatwhichcomeswithin ourgrasp,butrather themeaning that,as
incomprehensible, groundsall concrete, comprehensible meaning.53 Rahnerargues
that"it is onlyin falling intoan unfathomable abyssthatwe grasptheindividual
realitytowhichwe cancling."54In Rahner's language ofan abyssthatgrounds all of
concrete knowledge, one is reminded ofNishitani'sunderstanding oftheemptiness
thatgrounds all distinctions.
As Nishitani explainslunyatd as absolutenearness andabsolutedistance, Rahner
describestheincomprehensible God,seemingly so distantin theveryfactofGod's
incomprehensibility, as preciselywhatis closestbecauseit is whatgroundshuman
existence.One is reminded ofNishitani's imageofanglesto describe lnyata as the
place where at
O0is thesametime3600. Rahner believes "the thatthebasis
experience
of man'sexistence is theabyss:thatGod is essentially theinconceivable" 55is what
grounds humantranscendence. Elsewhere Rahnerspeaksofthehuman's "inescapable
experience ofthefactthatheisgrounded intheabyssoftheinsoluble mystery" 56and
thatthismystery is to be understood nearness.
as fulfilling As absolutenearness, this
mystery ofGod is notto be considered impersonal, eventhoughGod as personal is
alwaysto be understood in lightofGod'sincomprehensibility anddissimilarity from
ourselves.57
For Rahnerthe resultof the experienceof understanding
human existenceas a
questionaboutthemeaning oflifecombined withfinding theanswerin theincom-
prehensible God is theneedto surrender oneselfto thatmystery.In doingso, one
findsoneselfin a stancethatis verysimilarto Nishitani's "non-self"--that is,in a
stanceofgivingup autonomy forlove.ForRahnerthisstancemanifests itselfin the
loveofone'sneighbor, a lovethatis exemplifiedinJesusChrist.
Rahnermaintains thatthe"actin whichman can allowforand acceptGod's
incomprehensibility . . . is theact ofself-surrenderinglovetrustingentirelyin this
veryincomprehensibility, in whichknowledge surpasses risingto itssuper-
itself,
nature,and is awareof itselfonlybybecominglove."58In a worldin whichone
is facedwiththethreatof meaninglessness, surrendering to theincomprehensible
God thatgroundsall existence meansrecognizing ofall things
theinterrelatedness
and reaching out to all existence in love.Rahnerfullyrealizesthatsucha trusting
surrenderis notan easytask.In facthe statesthat"itis easierto letoneself fallinto
one'sownemptiness thanintotheabyssoftheBlessedMystery. Butit is notmore
courageous ortrue." 59In otherwords,nihility is an easierchoicethansurrendering
to love,butit is precisely themoredifficult taskofsurrendering to God thatone is
calledtoas a humanperson.Rahneralsonotesthatonecanneverbe certain ifoneis

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJINISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 35

reallyaccepting "this'blinding'darkness intowhichweplungeourselves andbecome

incomprehensible to ourselves" or if"weareultimately takingrefuge in a desperate
actofself-assertion."60
Rahnerarguesthatevenin one's"striving to assertoneselfas autonomous," one
alwaysknows"thepossibility of self-surrendering and forthatreasonone
love,"''61
remains unhappyin one'sself-autonomy. The moreone asserts oneselfin individu-
alisticandautonomous ways,subjecting theworldto one'sownpurposes, themore
meaningless one findstheworldto be. It is onlyin "thelovingleap intotheone
possibility (accepting theincomprehensibility ofGod)" that"theotherpossibility (of
isolatedself-possession) no longerexists." 62In surrendering oneself
toGod,onegives
up theself-centeredness ofseeingoneself as separate fromall others,
andprecisely in
thissurrender to whatis otherone findsoneself. This surrender to God manifests
itselfin theloveofone'sneighbor precisely becauseone nowunderstands oneselfas
interrelated to all thingsthrough God. Rahnerexplainsthat"theexperience oflife
is an experience ofotherpersons, one in whichmaterial objectsareencountered as
elements connected with,and surrounding concrete personsand nototherwise....
The 'I' is alwaysrelated to a 'Thou,'arising at thesamemoment in the'Thou' as in
the'I,' experiencing in all cases
itself only in itsencounter with theotherperson." 63
In thegivingup ofoneself one is ableto recognize andrealizeone'sownsubjectivity
as wellas thesubjectivity ofone'sneighbor-astancethatis humanizing insteadof
dehumanizing.64 The dangerinherent in thisviewremains thepossibility ofseeing
theothersimplyas a meansto one'sownself-actualization and realization ofone's
subjectivity. To do so,however, wouldbe inherently andnegatethe
self-contradicting
veryprocessthatRahneris attempting todescribe inwhichonefindsoneself onlyin
givingoneself inlove.
This givingoverofoneselfto theotherin a waythatdefiesall humanreasonis
exemplified forRahnerinJesusChrist.ForRahnertheoccurrence ofthis"irrational"
lovein themidstofone'severyday lifeis theplacewhere"thelastrenunciation and
thelastsurrender to God can occur,"whichin turn"admitsus to a participation
in thefinaldeedofJesuson thecross." 65 Rahnerunderstands thesurrender to the
incomprehensible God thatmanifests itself in a selflessloveofone'sneighbor to be
thegroundof a personalrelationship with our incomprehensible God. He states
that

we haveto enterJesus'fateand giveourselves hopeand loveto

overin faith,
hisunconditional loveforhisfellowmenand hisdeath.We haveto liveand
die withhimin theemptydarkness ofhisdeath.We shallthenlearnin his
Spirithowto associatewithGod himself beyondthereality ofthisworld,how
to fallwithoutperishinginto this mysterious
inexpressibly God,whosejudg-
mentsareso incomprehensible, andhowtherefore theultimate
todiscover and
definitive beyondthislife.IftheChristian
reality hasa personal
anddirectlove
forJesusand letsJesus'lifeand fatebecometheinnerformand entelechy of
hisownlife,hewillinevitably findthatJesusis theway,thetruth,andthelife
and thathe willtakehimto theFather. He willalso discoverthathe is able
to calltheincomprehensible God Father,eventhoughhe is namelessandthat

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

a nameanda way,canstillbehishomeandgivehim
thisGod,whoiswithout
eternal
life.66

This admittedly longcitationprovides summary

an excellent of Rahner's position.
to
One surrenderstheincomprehensibility by
ofGod entering intoJesus'suncondi-
tionalloveforhumanity andhisabsolutesurrender intoGod'sincomprehensibility
thatculminated inhisdeath.In doingso,onefindsthemeaning ofhumanexistence,
and theGod thatseemedso distant in God'sincomprehensibility is foundto be the
mostnear,Abba,theverygroundofone'sexistence. The answerto theexperience of
thatourverybeingisgrounded
is torecognize
nihility ininterconnectedness. Rahner
concludes that"ontheonehandtheexperience ofGod andtheexperience ofselfare
one,andon theotherthattheexperience ofselfandtheencounter withneighbor are
one,thatall thesethreeexperiencesultimatelyconstitutea singlerealitywiththree
aspectsmutually oneanother."
conditioning 67Whena faithcommunity isgrounded
intheonenessofself,other,andGod,a counterculturalapproach toissuesofindivid-
ualism,materialism,humanexploitation,andthefuture ofthecreated worldemerges
pointthatone'sownwell-being,
thattakesas itsstarting and in factone'sveryexis-
tence,is dependenton thewell-beingandexistenceoftheother.

CONCLUSION

In lookingat thetheologies of KeijiNishitaniand KarlRahner, one findsa point

of connection at whicha dialoguecan occurbetweena Buddhistand a Christian.
Thispointofconnection is thecommonhumanexperience ofcontemporary culture
thatmakesone questiontheultimate purposeand meaningof life.Boththeolo-
giansrespondwithan understanding of reality,
Sinyataand an incomprehensible
God respectively, thatgrounds humanexistence andencompasses theemptiness that
humanpersonsexperience. Whenone acceptseitherunderstanding of reality, the
resultis a surrenderofselfto thatreality thatmanifests in an interdependence
itself
withanda radicalloveforall ofhumanity.
In lookingat thesesimilaritiesbetween Rahner'sconceptofGod andNishitani's
conceptofemptiness, itisimportant toremember thattherecannotbea strict identity
between thetwoconcepts ofreality.One important distinctionto maintain between
Rahnerand Nishitani is thatwhileNishitani's primary metaphor is emptiness that
surrounds theemptiness in thehumanperson,Rahner's primary metaphor is abso-
lutefullness as thatwhichfillstheemptiness in thehumanperson.The distinction
is important, butnotone thatputsthetwoconceptsin opposition to one another,
especially consideringNishitani's understanding thatabsoluteemptiness is absolute
fullness,andRahner's description oftheabsolutefullness as an abyss.
dialogueshouldnotaimfora uniform
Interreligious conceptofreality. The goal
is notthatall religionsbe identical,butrather thatall religionsbe respectful ofone
another's differences
whiletogether seekingto furtherthecommongoodofhuman-
ity.To thatenditishelpful toputRahnerandNishitani indialoguewithoneanother
in orderto givea response to theexperience of meaninglessness in contemporary

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJINISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 37

thattoooftenresults
an experience
culture, andviolenceinstead
in dehumanization
oflove.

APPENDIX: SUNYATA IN BUDDHISM68

Buddhism is a religionthathasseennotonlythedevelopment ofthought thatoccurs

overtime,butthedevelopment from
thatresults thetransplantation ofthought into
differentcultures. Buddhism hasdeveloped bothchronologically andgeographically.
The religion beganin Indiaduringthe6thcentury BCEwiththemanSiddhartha
Gautama,a Hinduwhobecameknownas theBuddhaortheawakened/enlightened
one and whoadvocated"themiddleway"betweena lifein theworldand a lifeof
The rootsoftheconceptofiunyata,
asceticism.69' or emptiness, canbe foundin the
earlyBuddhistconceptsof anatmanandpratityasamtpda-thatis, non-self and
dependent co-origination.70Thesetwoconcepts advocatea mutualinterdependence
ofall thatexistsand a negation ofselfas an independent subject.HansWaldenfels
describesthem in correlationas "theideathat there is no suchthingas an indepen-
dent,self-supporting worldsubstance; insteadall beingsin theworld,in virtueof
theirdependency, havetheirbeingfromandin dependency on oneanother." 71
The conceptof Sinyata,incorporating the concepts of non-self and dependent
co-origination, isgivena central roleinBuddhist thought andpractice bythesecond
century CE Mah~yanaBuddhist philosopher Ngarjuna in theMdhyamikaschool
ofBuddhism. Sinyataisunderstood inthisschoolas absolute negation, including the
negation ofnegation. Allconcepts areemptyofmeaning in theMadhyamika school
including theconceptof s'unyatd, thereforeevento saySunyatis false.It is theidea
of"notthis,notthat."Assoonas onethinks onehasunderstood, onehasprovedthe
levelofone'smisunderstanding. Abraham Vilez de Cea explainsthatforNagarjuna
idnyata hasbotha cognitive andan affective intent inwhichthe"cognitive abandon-
mentandrelinquishing ofviewsofabsoluteidentity is inseparable fromtheaffective
cessation ofattachment totheabsoluteidentity ofpersons andthings."72 As Gregory
Ornatowski pointsout,forNagarjunaidnyata hasa mainly sotierologicalfunction.73
In otherwords,theconcepthasa practical intent, whichis tonegateallconcepts ofan
"absolute reality" in orderthathisfollowers mightexperience absolutereality. Orna-
towskistatesthat"forNagarjuna'emptiness' wasthusultimately a soteriologicalaid
towardenlightenment, nota philosophy itself.Bydenying all pointsofviewitwas
theassertion thatonlymeditation andnonattachment to anyviewswastheanswer.
Anyattempt to construct a philosophy, especially a Western-style one,basedupon
emptiness shouldbe impossible ifoneremains truetowhatseemsto be Nagrjuna's
originalintent. This is thefundamental contradiction withinthethought of these
threeKyoto-school philosophers [Nishida, Nishitani, andAbe]."4 Forthisreason,it
is important to makea distinction between theoriginal conceptofidnyatfoundin
theworkofNagarjunaandthewaytheconceptcameto be understood in theKyoto
school.75The Kyotoschool,however, isdrawing notsimply on theconceptofsunyatd
as itwasunderstood byNgarjuna,buton thewayithasbeenhistorically andgeo-
graphically developed. the
Within Madhyamika school itself"Absolute Reality came

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
38 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

to be ascribedtosuchnotionsas tathatd (suchness),

tathgatagarbha (wombofBud-
dhahood),and dharmakdya (absolute truthbodyof the Buddha) and was viewed
as what'remained' aftertheradical'emptying' ofall things'substantive nature,"''76
despitethefactthatNaigarjuna himself neverusedtheseterms.
One oftheschoolsthatdeveloped outoftheMadhyamika schoolis theYogacara
school(ca. 300 CE).The textsofthisschoolbecomethefocusoftheChineseCh'an
school(Zen in Japan).Whatis important to notein thisdevelopment is thatin
theYogacara school,Nagarjuna's conceptofemptiness becomesidentified withpure
consciousness.7 AlongwiththeYogicaratexts,Zen emphasizes theolderWisdom
Sutrasthatteachtheformula formis emptiness andemptiness is form.7"In translat-
ingNishitani'swork,VanBragtnotesthat"form" canbe understood as "thing" inthis
equationand is relatedto Nishitani's of
formula beingis nothingness and nothing-
nessis being.79
Havingtracedtheimportant aspectsoftheconceptofemptiness in theBuddhist
lineagedownto theZen school, one arrives
at theKyotoschool,to whichNishi-
tanibelongs.The Kyotoschoolsimplydesignates "a wayofphilosophizing-more
a philosophical ethosthana unifiedsystemof thought--which developedin the
department ofphilosophy and religion at theStateUniversity of Kyotounderthe
ofKitaroNishida(1870-1945)."s80VanBragtdescribes
initialinspiration theKyoto
school'sbasiccharacteristics
as "a thoroughgoing loyaltytoitsowntraditions, a com-
mittedopennessto Western traditions, and a deliberateattempt to bringabouta
synthesisofEastandWest."'81 It is in thecontext ofthishistory thatonecanlookat
theconceptofemptiness in KeijiNishitani's workReligion andNothingness.

NOTES

1.MasaoAbe,"Kenosis andEmptiness,"inBuddhist
Emptiness
andChristian Trinity:
Essays
andExplorations,
ed.Roger andPaulKnitter
Corless (NewYork:PaulistPress:1990),6.
2. KeijiNishitani,
Religion
andNothingness,trans.
JanVanBragt (Berkeley: University
of
California 1982),88.
Press,
3. Abe,"KenosisandEmptiness,"6.
4. ReferencestoRahner'sapplicable
works follow
inthenotestosection2. Itisnotedhere
thatanydialoguebetween Christianity
andanother must
religion factor
inJesus While
Christ.
thescopeofthisarticledoesnotaddresstheroleofChrist
intheBuddhist-Christiandialogue,
several works
excellent havebeendonerelating theconceptofemptinessinBuddhism tothe
concept ofkenosis toChrist
asitrelates inChristianity.
SeeBuddhist
Emptiness andChristian
as wellas DivineEmptiness
Trinity, and Historical A Buddhist
Fullness: Jewish
Christian
Con-
versation
with
MasaoAbe,ed.Christopher
Ives(Valley
Forge,
PA:Trinity
Press
International,
1995) and Hans Waldenfels,Absolute Nothingness:
Foundations fora Buddhist-Christian Dia-
logue,trans,byJ. W. Heisig (New York:PaulistPress,1980). For the perspectiveof an evan-
gelical
Christian partner
dialogue forNishitani's seeRussell
work, H. Bowers
Jr., or
Someone
Nothing?
Nishitani's
Religion
andNothingness
as a Foundation
forChristian-Buddhist
Dialogue,
Asian Thought and Culture27 (New York:PeterLang, 1995).
5. It should also be noted thatboth men studiedunderHeideggerand thatthiscommon
philosophicalbackgroundmost likelycontributesto manyof the similaritiesin the way they
understandrealityand the vocabularytheyuse to describethat reality.Unfortunately it is
beyondthe scope of thisarticleto explorethatconnectionany further.

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJINISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 39

6. Fora briefhistory
oftheconceptofjunyatain Buddhism thebackground
thatprovides
forNishitani's
work,seetheappendixto thisarticle.
7. Fora morecomprehensive accountoftheincomprehensibility
ofGod in theChristian
tradition,see thefollowingarticlesbyKarl Rahnerin Theological Vol.XVI: Expe-
Investigations,
rienceof theSpirit:Sourceof Theology,trans.David Morland (New York: Crossroad, 1983):
"The Hiddennessof God," 227-243, and "AnInvestigation of theIncomprehensibilityof
God in St.ThomasAquinas,"244-254.
8. One mustalso notethattheaffective experienceitselfmayvarydue to thecognitive
framework withinwhichtheexperience occurs.
9. In theStanford Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy,BrettDavis notesin hisentry on theKyoto
schoolthat"theKyotoSchoolisperhaps becoming, forbetterandforworse,morean objectof
scholarship thana predominantly livingtradition.However, as withmostschoolsofphiloso-
phy,thelinebetween critical
scholarship andcreativeappropriation is hardly
a clearone,and
in practice theretrospectivestudyoftheKyotoSchooloftenblendstogether withitsfurther
development schoolofthought."
as a vibrant BretW. Davis,"The KyotoSchool,"TheStan-
fordEncyclopedia ofPhilosophy(spring2006 ed.), ed. EdwardN. Zalta,http://plato.stanford
.edularchives/spr2006/entries/kyoto-school/.
10. See alsoHase Shoto,"Nihilism, Science,andEmptiness inNishitani,"
Buddhist-Chris-
tianStudies19 (1999): 139-154,and theresponse to thatarticle,
RyuseiTakeda,"Religion
and Science:Nishitani's ViewofNihility andEmptiness-APureLandCritique,"Buddhist-
Christian Studies19 (1999): 155-163.
11. Nishitani, Religion
andNothingness, 4.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.,3.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.,2.
16. Ibid.,296.
16.
17. Waldenfels,AbsoluteNothingness,
18. Nishitani, andNothingness,
Religion 99.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.,70.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.,98.
23. Ibid.,60.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.,40-41.
26. Ibid.,99.
27. Ibid.,105-106.
28. Ibid.,37-38.
29. Ibid.,39.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.,40.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.,86.
34. Ibid.,87.
35. Ibid.,95-96.
36. Ibid.,96.
37. Ibid.,70.
38. Ibid.,71.
39. Ibid.,100-101.
40. Ibid.,102.
41. Ibid.

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
40 HEIDI ANN RUSSELL

42. Ibid., 60.

43. Karl Rahner,"The Church and Atheism,"in TheologicalInvestigations, Vol.21: Science
and ChristianFaith,trans.Hugh Riley(New York:Crossroad,1988), 148.
44. Ibid.
45. Karl Rahner,"Thoughts on the Possibilityof BeliefToday," in TheologicalInvestiga-
tions,Vol. 5: Later Writings, trans.Karl-H. Kruger(Baltimore:Helicon Press, 1966), 5-6.
Hereaftercited as TI 5:1.
46. Ibid., 6.
47. Ibid.
48. It mustbe notedherethatRahnerdoes not see scienceas incompatiblewithreligionor
as somehowinherently evil.His critiqueheresimplyregardsone way in whichmodernscience
and technologyhas been used.
49. Karl Rahner,"ChristianLivingFormerlyand Today" in TheologicalInvestigations, Vol.
7: FurtherTheolgogy oftheSpiritualLifeI, trans.David Bourke (London: Darton, Longman
and Todd, 1971), 12. Hereaftercitedas TI 7:1.
50. For example,thenewsrecentlycarrieda storyabout Catholic bishopsin Englandtrying
to formulatea responseto possible legislationin the United Kingdom thatwould allow the
creationof embryosthatare human chimeras(injectinganimal DNA into human embryos
to create an animal/humanhybrid)for the purposes of research,so long as theywere not
implantedand weredestroyedwithintwoweeks.While standingfirmly againstthecreationof
such beings,the bishopsnonethelessconcludedthathavingpartialanimalgeneticmaterialdid
not negatethe rightto lifeinvolvedifthe beingalso had partor mostlyhuman geneticmate-
rial.JonathanPetre,"ChimeraEmbyrosHave Rightto Life,Say Catholic Bishops," Telegraph.
Co. UK, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/26/nchimera126
.xml,accessedJune30, 2007.
51. Karl Rahner,"The Human Question of Meaning in Face of the AbsoluteMysteryof
God," in TheologicalInvestigations, Vol. 18: God and Revelation,trans.Edward Quinn (New
York:Crossroad,1983), 99. Hereaftercitedas TI 18:5.
52. Rahnerdoes not advocatesuch a choice as theresultof blind faith,but rathersees such
a leap of faithas alwaysgroundedby human reason.
53. TI 18:5, 92, 94, 98.
54. Ibid., 98.
55. TI7:1, 15.
56. TI 5:1, 7.
57. Karl Rahner,"Justifying Faith in an AgnosticWorld" in TI 21, 134. Hereaftercited
as T121:8.
58. TI21:8, 135.
59. TI 5:1, 8.
60. TI21:8, 135.
61. Karl Rahner,"Thomas Aquinas on theIncomprehensibility of God," JournalofReligion
58 supplement(1978): S124.
62. Ibid.
63. Karl Rahner,"The Experienceof Selfand theExperienceof God," in Theological Inves-
tigations,Vol.XIII: Theology, Anthropology, trans.David Bourke (New York:Sea-
Christology,
bury,1975), 127 (hereafter citedas TI 13:8).
64. Karl Rahner,TheLove of esusand theLove ofNeighbor,trans.RobertBarr(New York:
Crossroad,1983), 99-100.
65. Ibid., 103-104. Again I referthe readerto the work thathas been done relatingthe
kenosisof Christto theconceptof "emptiness"in theKyotoschool of Buddhism.See footnote
4 above.
66. Karl Rahnerand WilhelmThiising,A New Christology, trans.David Smithand Verdant
Green (New York:SeaburyPress,1980), 15.

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 KEIJINISHITANI AND KARL RAHNER 41

67. Rahner,TI 13:8, 127.

68. For moreinformation, see FrederickJ. Streng,Emptiness:A Studyin ReligiousMeaning
(Nashville,TN: AbingdonPress,1967) and T. R. V. Murti, The CentralPhilosophy ofBuddhism
(London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 1960).
69. Theodore de Bary,ed., The BuddhistTraditionin India, China and Japan (New York:
Random House VintageBooks, 1969), 6.
70. Hans Waldenfels,AbsoluteNothingness: fora Buddhist-Christian
Foundations Dialogue,
trans.J.W. Heisig (New York:PaulistPress,1980), 8-14.
71. Ibid., 14.
72. AbrahamVdlez de Cea, "A New DirectionforComparativeStudiesof Buddhistsand
Christians:Evidence fromNagarjuna and Johnof the Cross," Buddhist-Christian Studies26
(2006): 148.
73. GregoryOrnatowski,"Transformations of 'Emptiness':On the Idea of Sunyataand
the Thought of Abe and the Kyoto School of Philosophy,"JournalofEcumenicalStudies34
(1997): 95.
74. Ibid., 103.
75. See Ornatowski,100-103, foran accountof fourmajor contrastsbetweenthe concept
as it is used by Nagarjuna and theway it is used in the Kyotoschool.
76. Ibid., 95. See also note 12.
77. Waldenfels,25.
78. Ibid., 26. For a moredetailedaccountof thisdevelopment,especiallythe development
of the Yogacara school of thoughtin China under the influenceof Chi-I and Fa-tsung,see
Ornatowski,96-99.
79. Nishitani,Religionand Nothingness, 297, 303. Nishitaniuses theLatin sivehere,which
could also be expressedas qua and is meantto implya reciprocalrelationship(303).
80. Ibid., "Translator's Introduction,"xxviii.
81. Ibid.

This content downloaded from 192.54.242.155 on Mon, 14 Dec 2015 09:05:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions