as an interesting footnote to Keenan's comments on interfaith dialogue (and Christian-Buddhist dialogue more specifically), i came across this quote taken from James Frederick's essay Jodo Shinshu's Mission to History in Engaged Pure Land Buddhism -
[...] dialogue partners must not be too hasty in affirming the similarities which unite their traditions. The point of dialogue is not to discover the truth of one's own tradition in the tradition of another. This would be to domesticate the truth by finding in the other simply "more of the same". Rather, the great promise of inter-religious dialogue today is to discover a religious truth in the other that is not like the truth of one's own tradition and to be enriched by this truth.
besides the criticism such a quote shares with Keenan's, whereby in affirming such similarities, discussion then lapses into "a numbing cup of soporific wine of dialogic oblivion", Frederick points towards a greater purpose to be sought in such encounters.
on a more personal level, i have to confess a remnant of my Christian upbringing in the evangelical tendency to seek to convert*, or at the very least, affirm similarities in the hope of enboldening my own viewpoints, not only in the sphere of religious dialogue but beyond into politics and other subjects. This challenge then, "to find truth in the other that is not like the truth of one's own" and be enriched by it, can similarly extend beyond discussions of faith to be applied in a broader sense. perhaps then real dialogue can occur in which respect and acknowledgement of "the other" deepens encounter, rather than the usual headbutting of differences i too often find myself instigating.
namu amida butsu
* although, to be fair, this says more about my own idea of Christianity during childhood than the attitude of Christians across the board
Thanks for this Jon. I agree whole-heartedly with James Frederick. Although I find common ground between faiths very encouraging, it is at the points of difference - apparent or real - that real dialogue and growth takes places.
ReplyDeleteBy the way Dennis Hirota makes any interesting comment in 'Toward a contemporary understanding of Pure Land Buddhism' where he says:
"if we begin by grasping the teachings in terms of 'truth claims', are we not already assuming features of religious traditions that limit too narrowly the kind of conversation that can develop?"(p.34)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NvnDimfxE3QC&dq=Toward+a+Contemporary+Understanding+of+Pure+Land+Buddhism&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=Vzf6S5ayGY_60wTG7ujpBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
It might be more helpful, he seems to suggest, to start out from the perspective of praxis. Why do we do what we do?
hi Kyoshin, thanks for sharing the Hirota quote. i think he makes a salient point and seems to provide a model i'd like to implement.
ReplyDeleteat the moment, what i'm observing in myself during dialogue is above and before all else, the motivation of crediting my own stance or opinion. often at the expense of another's.
what i take from Frederick's and Hirota's quotes though, among other things, is that a more productive and less selfish approach may be to seek to explore the differences rather than dismiss them - how someone has reached their own pov, why they believe what they believe and how they feel they benefit from that belief etc.
Isn't Truth truth? There can't be more than one. I see the various religions as ways of pointing to truth, which work for one or another person, depending on personality, culture, etc. Nothing that can be spoken is the absolute truth.
ReplyDeletehi Anon (be great to have a name!), welcome and thanks for your comments :)
ReplyDeletei think very few religions claim to be pointing to the same thing. Christianity doesn't claim to point towards Buddhahood and Buddhadharma doesn't claim to point towards salvation in Christ. Christianity and Jainism believe in an eternal soul (albeit in different ways), Buddhism rejects the belief as "wrong view" and sees it as a hindrance to realisation.
i'd like to believe there are points of convergence between most if not all religions, but i believe the differences are significant enough to be acknowledged and thought about.
and if nothing that can be spoken is the absolute truth, where does that leave the truth that "there can't be more than one"?
Well, OK. It's just my experience; I certainly wouldn't want it taken as doctrine! I guess I would say that it doesn't matter what various religions CLAIM to be pointing at. The conscious thoughts about Truth don't have to reflect where the deeper impulse is coming from. Words don't mean anything; they aren't real -- just phantoms in the wind.
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough about religions other than Buddhism (and not nearly as much about Buddhism as you do) but why is belief in an "eternal soul" seen as a hindrance? I mean, I don't see the need for that belief myself, but I don't see why it would get in the way of realization.
But more fundamentally, it seems to me that someone who calls his blog "Blathering Nonsense" indeed knows that words are empty -- like everything else.
ReplyDeletehi Chris, i'm certainly no authority myself on the matter!!
ReplyDeletething is, the belief in a soul is seen as a hindrance as it is a source of clinging or attachment, ref. Kaccayanagotta Sutta
(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html) -
""This world, O Kaccayana, generally proceeds on a duality of the belief in existence and the belief in non-existence [...] All exists, Kaccayana, that is one extreme. Naught exists, Kaccayana, that is the other extreme. Not approaching either extreme, the Tathagata teaches you a doctrine by the middle way."
posit the existence of a soul within the Buddhist world-view and you contradict the teachings of anatman (not-self) and sunyata (emptiness).
deny the existence of a soul within the Christian world-view and you remove the necessity of absolution.