According to this version of deconstruction, however, Derrida's approach is still logocentric, for what needs to be deconstructed is not just language but the world we live in and the way we live in it, trapped within a cage of our own making - "bound by our own rope," to use the Zen phrase. Thanks to sensitivities that Derrida's texts have helped to develop, it is possible to understand the Buddhist tradition as a history of this struggle between deconstructive delimitation and metaphysical re-appropriation, between a message that undermines all security by undermining the sense-ofself that seeks security, and a countervailing tendency to dogmatize and institutionalize that challenge. Like all religions, Buddhism includes a strong onto-theological element, yet it also contains the resources that have repeatedly repeatedly deconstructed this tendency. What Derrida says about philosophy, that it "always re-appropriates for itself the discourse that delimits it", is equally true of Buddhism. What is interesting about Derrida's type of deconstruction, deconstruction, from a Buddhist point of view, is that it is logocentric. What is interesting about Buddhism, from a deconstructive point of view,is that it is both onto-theological (therefore what-needs-to-be-deconstructed) what-needs-to-be-deconstructed) and deconstructive (providing a different example of how-to-deconstruct).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |