Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Promises and Pitfalls
Mark Berkson
________________________________________
The Center for the Pacific Rim and the University of San Francisco hosted a conference on Buddhist-Christian Dialogue on May 8, 1998. The conference brought together scholars and practitioners of both traditions in an encounter that was not only academically stimulating, but also personally and spiritually enriching for those involved. The participants included both those who have had extensive experience in the dialogue, as well as a number of new voices. The conference both critiqued previous and ongoing efforts at dialogue and also took the dialogue itself in new directions. While Buddhist-Christian dialogue of the past has often focused on comparative doctrine, involving theological issues and comparative beliefs, this conference focused instead on comparative practice, an approach that was quite productive. The practices explored included monasticism, pilgrimage, bowing, meditation, renunciation, social action and--of particular relevance to the overall project of interfaith encounter--the practice of dialogue itself and the methods and virtues necessary to carry it out successfully.
Comparative Practice
In the first of three panels, the following questions were central: Despite the differences that exist in metaphysics, doctrine, and worldview between the traditions, are there certain practices which, because they are shared, point to some deep commonalities between the traditions? What is the relation of belief to both the interpretation of practice and to the experience itself? Can a tradition authentically incorporate the practices of another tradition? What obstacles are involved in the process?
The first speaker, Sister Mary Margaret Funk, executive director of the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue and a Benedictine prioress, gave a paper entitled "Monastic Practice: Views of the Mind." She focused on the theme of renunciation in monastic life and discussed three types of renunciation Benedictine monastics undergo that seem to resonate with the experience of Buddhist monastics. The first is the renunciation of the former way of life, moving away from "the designs of self-willed projects and works that serve to shore up the ego and make one's own personality the main concern in life." Following that comes the renunciation of thoughts about the [End Page 181] former way of life. Sister Funk pointed out that while monastics might physically renounce their former life (e.g., move into a monastery), their thoughts, desires, and passions follow them. The final renunciation is to give up even thoughts, images, and mental constructs of God. She observed: "The monastic practices that deal with the mind seem to be parallel tracks in both spiritualities. The observation of our thoughts, desires, and passions [is] a universal experience."
David Komito, a fellow at the Center for the Pacific Rim and scholar of Tibetan Buddhism, in his talk "Teacher, Reliquary, Circumambulation," discussed the practice of pilgrimage in the Vajrayana Buddhist tradition of Tibet. The questions that framed his talk included, "What would be the virtue of visiting a stupa (reliquary) and what would be the goal of travel?" He pointed out that the answer to such questions would depend on one's philosophical or theological position, explaining that the different schools of Buddhism would often provide different answers. This raised an important point for the conference: We might look at Buddhists undertaking a particular practice, such as pilgrimage, and assume that they're doing the same thing; for example, traveling to a place in a group, walking around that place, and returning home. Yet their experiences might be very different; in fact, pilgrims on the same journey who arrive at a sacred site may even be seeing different things while looking at one and the same object. This is because they might be framing, interpreting, and understanding the experience differently. If this is true among Buddhists, how much more so between Buddhists and Christians?
The panel continued with Father Paul Bernadicou's "Catholic Guides to Buddhist Practice." Father Bernadicou, the chair of the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at USF, discussed a number of Catholics who have had deep encounters with Buddhism and incorporated Buddhist practice and insights into their own spiritual path. Through this historical survey, he both provided a context in which to understand our conference and showed us the possibilities that lie in our own encounter with another tradition when we enter into genuine dialogue rather than looking to proselytize. The thinkers Father Bernadicou discussed include Thomas Merton, Aelred Graham, Heinrich Dumoulin, and Thomas Keating. He concluded with a quote from Merton that sounded a theme echoed throughout the conference: "I think we have reached a stage of (long-overdue) religious maturity at which it may be possible for someone to remain perfectly faithful to a Christian commitment, and yet to learn in depth from, say, a Buddhist or Hindu discipline and experience."
Rev. Heng Sure, director of the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery, gave a talk entitled "Humbling Pride: Buddhist Repentance Bowing." Pointing out the centrality of bowing in Mahayana Buddhism, he discussed both the physical practice of bowing as well as its psychological and spiritual components. The act of bowing, he suggested, is used as an "effective means to reduce pride and penetrate the illusory view of the self." Bowing is a "yoga," a physical practice that alters one's orientation. As one lowers oneself, pride and arrogance are reduced; a layer of "self" is shed with each bow. To give the audience a concrete example, he gave a lively and dramatic account of his nearly three-year "three steps, one bow" pilgrimage in which he made [End Page 182] a full prostration to the ground every three steps for eight hundred miles of California coastline. He also addressed the problems that many westerners have with the practice of bowing, but concluded that Mahayana Buddhists "saw in the practice of bowing not so much worship of idols or surrender of personal autonomy to an external religious authority, but as an effective means to reduce pride and penetrate the illusory view of the self."
The Practice of Dialogue
The second panel looked at issues surrounding the ongoing interreligious dialogue, including problems of interpretation, understanding, and meaning. Durwood Foster, professor emeritus at the Pacific School of Religion, provided a thoughtful overview of the process of dialogue in "Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Progress and Problems." He started by warning against common pitfalls that beset the dialogue, including "taking the particular for the general" (e.g., Zen for Buddhism, Lutheran for Christian), excluding underrepresented voices, expecting quick results, and "presumption about the other's beliefs." He went on to point out some of the deep commonalities between the two traditions, including "their boundless saving intentionality, addressing our universal plight of self-centeredness and grounded hopefully in the nature of things."
Professor Foster then provided a list of sticking points that create difficulty for the process of mutual understanding. These include the following pairs of concepts (where, depending on interpretation, the Buddhist concept might be incompatible with the Christian and might, in certain ways, be analogous or very similar): emptiness/God, compassion/agape, upaya (skillful means)/truth, and nirvana/kingdom of God.
Father Thomas Hand, director of the meditation program at Mercy Center in Burlingame and a self-described "Zen Christian," provided a specific example of how this reinterpretive enterprise might work in his talk "Christ and Buddha: Facing the Millennium." He began with a quote from Kevin O'Shea that provided the background for his reflections: "A new sense of Godness is arising in our cultural consciousness. Assertions about the femininity of God, and of change in God, are only steps along the way to a massive paradigm change about God, in which we are using our brains differently." Using the text of the Mahayana Heart Sutra (in particular the lines "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form"), Father Hand gave a thought-provoking interpretation of Buddhist notions of emptiness and form and Christian notions of the trinity, exploring how new light can be shed on each through an exploration of the other. Among the patterns that emerge from the encounter of the two traditions is "the coincidence of opposites (which) constitute the unified whole of reality." On the Buddhist side, while emptiness (formlessness) and form are in one sense opposites, they are not entities (beings) but rather are both constituents of being. Formlessness and form are "the ultimate constituents of the unified whole which we call reality." Father Hand then applies this understanding [End Page 183] to the Christian notion of the Trinity. The three of the Trinity must also not be seen as beings, but rather as constituents of Divine Being. Through a careful, complex interpretation, Father Hand connects the Buddhist and Christian understandings, stating that "the One God is Three, who are called Father (formless source), Son (universal form) and Holy Spirit (movement from the formless into form and back)." In the words of Father Hand, "We are nothing but the movement of formless/form manifesting individually."
Taigen Daniel Leighton, a Soto Zen priest and scholar of Buddhism, in a talk entitled "Finding the Heart through Another Tradition: How Buddhism Is Informed by Christianity," showed in a very practical way how Buddhism can benefit from an encounter with Christianity. He focused particularly on the ways that Buddhism can be enriched by incorporating elements of Christian teachings on social justice and Christian devotional practices. Regarding the teachings on social justice, Taigen began by praising Christian social action for its "strong commitment and dedication to social justice and righteousness." The Christian notion that God acts in history, acting to oppose injustice and oppression, energizes Christian approaches to social transformation. While such notions resonate with the movement of "engaged Buddhism" and the spirit of the bodhisattva, the Buddhist approach is framed in terms of nondualism, the idea of karma, an emphasis on ignorance as the primary problem (rather than evil), and a stance of nonjudgment. Taigen shows how we can work toward an effective combination of the Christian intensity of commitment with the Buddhist approach grounded in meditative calm and an understanding of the workings of karma.
Dialogue as Religious Practice
The final panel looked at how engaging in dialogue itself can be seen as a part of one's religious path. One thread that ran through all three talks in this panel is our need to cultivate certain virtues (excellences of character) in order to participate in interfaith encounter most fruitfully and ultimately live well in an increasingly pluralistic nation.
Professor Lee Yearley of Stanford University, in his talk "Buddhist-Christian Dialogue and New Religious Virtues," began by pointing out four ways that adherents of religious traditions have historically looked at those who belong to another tradition: seeing the adherents of the other tradition as "in error," as "less developed," "more developed," and "only apparently different." Each of these positions required the proponents to manifest certain virtues. Professor Yearley, after showing that virtues can be "era specific," showed another possibility by providing an account of a new religious virtue, "spiritual regret," which he argued "concerns the appropriate response to the recognition that extremely varied, legitimate religious ideals exist and that no person can possibly manifest all of them." This virtue, which requires the training of the imagination, combines a deep appreciation and enjoyment of the goods represented in the view of another tradition, along with a sadness [End Page 184] that, due to our facticity and the need to maintain integrity of the self, we will never be able to realize these goods in our own lives. We begin with the understanding that our way of life, our vision of the good, is only one among many.
Professor Jim Fredericks of Loyola Marymount University, further developing the theme of important virtues in a pluralistic age, delivered a paper entitled "Interreligious Friendship as a Theological Virtue." Professor Fredericks began with a theoretical discussion of virtues, explaining that they have a history (are defined in response to changing historical situations) and can function as correctives to human weaknesses. He then gave a specific example with his discussion of the importance of friendship with someone of another religious tradition, exploring the virtues that are required to make friendship possible and those that are cultivated through the relationship. He emphasized the notion of love captured by philia--preferential love that requires a bond of reciprocal affection--rather than agape--unconditional love that is steadfast in the face of rejection. While agape may provide the basis for religious tolerance, philia moves us beyond this to a place where our lives may be transformed by the concrete "other." Befriending someone with a different way of understanding and being in the world can decenter our ego, expand our horizons, and "draw us out of ourselves and into a world significantly different than our presuppositions."
Professor Mark Unno of Carleton College opened his talk, "Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: By Whom and for Whom," by stating, "We may talk about Buddhist ideas and Christian ideas in abstraction, but the real significance is, I believe, in the one-to-one encounter." Professor Unno highlighted how critical reflection on Buddhist self-understanding must be undertaken in light of non-Buddhist discourse (e.g., Christian, feminist, psychotherapeutic) while remaining within a perspective grounded in Buddhist tradition. Both a centeredness within a tradition and an openness to the insights of other ways of thinking are necessary for what Professor Unno calls a "critical synergy" to emerge. Is there a way of becoming responsive to the great diversity of human life in a manner that expands the horizons of Buddhist theology rather than rendering it ineffectual and self-enclosed? Professor Unno pointed out three possible strategies that adherents might take: conservative retreat, progressive reform, and "constructive bricolage," which entails the creative intellectual task of weaving together, from one's social and conceptual inheritances, a pattern that "is provisional and created to meet the needs of the moment." Drawing on the Vimalakirti Sutra, which states that the ultimate truth of emptiness "should be sought in . . . heretical teachings," Unno said, "Where should a Buddhist look for his or her truth? Look for it in Christianity, Islam, feminist discourse . . . in all discourses in the diversity of this world."
The keynote address of the conference, entitled "Religious Transformation: Rituals of Traditional Practice and Contemporary Dialogue," was given by Anne Klein, professor and chair of religious studies at Rice University. Although she acknowledged the importance of "the commonality of experience" of Buddhists and Christians, a theme that had been discussed a number of times throughout the day, Professor Klein began her talk by emphasizing that "this is a profoundly cross-cultural [End Page 185] dialogue" and that what looks the same from the outside (e.g., a particular practice) may involve very difference experiences. She illustrated this by showing the remarkably different ways that Americans and Chinese understood the experience they had on an identical meditation retreat. She explained this by saying: "We bring our cultural selves to whatever practice we do. . . . We all are born out of a certain cultural matrix and whatever we take into ourselves (e.g., in dialogue) participates with that matrix." While never losing sight of these differences, Professor Klein went on to characterize a basic structural characteristic of the religious experience common to each. She said, "Perhaps the archetypal religious move of virtually any practitioner is to open beingness up to a larger system, however that is understood." When one prays or otherwise interacts with a larger system, one is expanding the sense of self. This involves commonality between religious practitioners and is, at the same time, a mark of difference because "we do this in different ways with fundamentally different assumptions about the self that we're bringing to practice in the first place."
The full papers from this conference will be published and distributed by the Center for the Pacific Rim. Inquiries may be directed to the Center.