Buddhist-Christian Relations (pre-final Manuscript)

Pre-final manuscript; – printed edition appeared in: Perry Schmidt-Leukel (Hg), Buddhist Attitudes to Other Religions. St. Ottilien 2008, 237–268. Andreas Grünschloß Buddhist-Christian Relationships When I was invited to contribute to this topic I immediately agreed since it is directly related to my interests as a religious studies (Religionswissenschaft) researcher in the analysis of inter-religious perceptions and in early Buddhism.1 Furthermore: After several years of doing predominantly etic religious studies research, it might also give me the chance to comment – at least, towards the end of this contribution – on the issue of Buddhist-Christian relations from the perspective as a Christian Theologian, who I am besides my main role as a descriptive Religionswissenschaftler. But where should I start? – It is certainly not the place here to cover the entire realm of BuddhistChristian relations in history, with all the very different kinds of Buddhisms and Christianities involved in many such encounters over time, place and context.2 Instead of attempting such an all-encompassing overview, my approach, therefore, will be highly selective – maybe even impressionistic to some extent. But I do hope that some of the examples of perceptions given in my presentation can shed light on typical questions, problems and options in Buddhist-Christian interrelations. I would also like to note that I am going to focus on conceptual relationships, hermeneutical strategies in the relation of Buddhism to Christianity, not so much on relationships in a straightforward sense of the word as concrete personal – or group – interactions and encounters. I will do so because the clarification of conceptual images, guiding principles of relating to the other seem to be more crucial and more decisive than less problematic relationships on the concrete level of, for example, spiritual practice or local ethic concerns.3 But before I go into the issue of Buddhist perceptions of Christians specifically, I would also like to raise a few historical and systematic observations, which are 1 See especially my analytic study of interreligious perceptions (Grünschloß 1999), especially chapter 4 on „interreligious hermeneutics in Pāli-Buddhism“, ibid. 189–230, as well as Grünschloß (2000). – Last access to Internet sources mentioned in this contribution: March 2008. 2 For a (nearly) comprehensive overview see Brück, Lai (1997) – a significantly abbreviated translation appeared as Brück, Lai (2001). For a brief summary of Buddhist-Christian relations in past and present see Schmidt-Leukel (2005). 3 In this respect I am working with a similar approach as Kristin Kiblinger in her contribution to this volume. 1 vital for any discussion and analysis of the perception of Christianity (or of Christian faith elements) from a Buddhist perspective. And, as a matter of observation, unfortunately there has been much more interest from the side of Christians into Buddhism lately – at least more than vice versa. Without the enormous impact of Helena P. Blavatsky’s exotic and esoteric views on Buddhism as a fascinating ancient „secret“ we would have hardly had that Western discourse on Buddhism (and India and Tibet) which we had during the last hundred years or so. This typically Western discourse about the „exotic“ and „mysterious“ force of Buddhism triggered interests into this religion, its “philosophy” and its meditative practices on many levels – and this is a continuing process until today. The Dalai Lama, for example, only needs to sit somewhere quietly without saying something, and the TV reporter will immediately attribute him with “being currently in deep, deep meditation”. Basic hermeneutics of religious otherness in the Pāli-Canon Historically, we have only a few glimpses of probability when searching for facts about the historical Siddhattha Gotama (Siddhārtha Gautama in Sanskrit) and his attitude to other religions. We can take it for granted that he engaged frequently in dialogues with other “mendicants and Brahmans” (samaňabrāhmaňā), and in the narrations about these encounters he appears as a sharp and ingenious interlocutor. Long before “skillful means” (upāya / upāya kauśalya) surfaced as an explicit topic of reflection in Mahāyāna writings, the Buddha is already portrayed as a skillful dialogue partner, who is able to adapt to various dialogue situations and to raise the others’ ideas to levels of deeper understanding. But much happened in more than two hundred years of oral tradition before canonic scripturalization, and nowadays we do not know exactly in how far the process of canonization also implied significant shifts in the representation of certain teachings about the religiously “others” from the time of the historical Siddhartha Gautama. The Pāli Canon of the Theravādin (together with its fragmented Sanskrit parallels) finally displays the Buddha as a person who is highly self-conscious of the cosmic role he is playing in world history: Why should one go hunting along other animals‘ “traces“, if the huge trace of this elephant is so big and promising – an elephant who is actually wiping out all other traces with his 2 gigantic foot-prints?4 If the Buddha was inclusivist at all, according to this picture, then it was a highly “strong” sort of inclusivism (“inclusivism of strenth”, according to Paul Hacker)5, implying rather heavy superiority claims, which often culminate in even exclusivist positions. When asked by another mendicant for a differentiated statement about the truth realization of other “highly esteemed” teachers, we can even read him say: “If the noble eightfold path does not play a role in another religious faith-andpractice, then there is no room for real Samaňa-ship”6. The mendicant’s question, whether those have attained insight or not, or only in degree, is confronted by the Buddha’s response (“leave it, Subbhadda”), that without any implementation of the eightfold path, all other soteriological teachings are ultimately “empty” (suññā) of Samaňas. As Oliver Freiberger has shown in his in-depth study concerning the role of the saģgha in the Pāli Canon:7 It is not just the dhamma-teaching of the Buddha, but especially his formative community, the bhikkhusaģgha, which forms the salvific prerequisite for any truth attainment – or, in other words: extra saģgham nulla salus. This might sound amazing to those who hold the typical Western image of Buddhism as a generically “tolerant” and inter-religiously “liberal” tradition. But the early formative tradition depicts the Buddhist way as a universal message, aimed at all people of all origins and backgrounds. – In the Brahmajālasutta (Dīgha Nikāya 1), the Buddha explains that all the other samaňabrāhmaňā are altogether „ignorant“ (ajānant), „blind“ (apassant) driven by „thirst“ (taňhā)8, and with their „Pseudo-Science“ (tiracchāna-vijjā) they only practice typical forms of magic, divination and superstition – things which are forbidden to a serious bhikkhu. From all we can know and hypothesize about the early Buddhist Canon, the Buddha himself – or, at least, the early Buddhist community – was characterized by clinging to a strong soteriocentric principle: The Buddhadhamma has “one taste, the 4 This is an allusion to the „simile of the elephant‘s trace“ in Majjhima Nikāya 28, which displays the four noble truths of the Buddha as the one and only all-encompassing truth-trace (MNPTS I, 184). 5 Paul Hackers formative ideas on the “Indian Inclusivism” – and here especially on the Buddhists’ „Inklusivismus der Stärke“ – were published posthumously as Hacker (1983). 6 Dialogue with Subhadda, contained in the Mahāparinibbānasutta (Dīgha Nikāya 16,5.23ff; DNPTS II,148ff) 7 Cf. Freiberger (2000). 8 I.e., they are addicted to one of the very fundamental illnesses which cause suffering in the world. 3 taste of redemption” (ekarasa vimuttirasa)9. As a matter of fact, no other questions and answers are needed. This is consistent with the standard epitheta of the Buddha: If he is the one “teacher of Gods and men”, his path is trustworthy and it is the “only path” (ekāyana magga) to enlightenment and freedom from pain and rebirth. There is only one advice: Follow this path, along the marks of this one numinous teacher, who is far beyond a simply human person in his incorporation of the true path: “The one who sees the dhamma sees me, and the one who sees me sees the dhamma.”10 Everything else, all metaphysical questions are irrelevant, as the famous simile of the arrow depicts it vividly (Majjhima Nikāya 63); likewise, the famous simile of the “blind born and the elephant” (Udāna 6,4) alludes to the Buddha (king) as the only one who has a vision of the complete elephant over against the partial and distorted insights of the ‘others’ (blind ones). How can there truly be another path, another teaching or insight besides that, an insight which could – also – prove helpful at all in soteriological, in salvific terms? – All the other samaňabrāhmaňā appear either as “blind” in the Canon, as drivedriven, or as ignorant and even malevolent: In direct opposition to the Buddha, who managed to evade the trap of the “net” of rebirth, other religious actors are always portrayed to draw their followers deeper and deeper “into the net” (of birth and rebirth). Nigaňţha Nātaputta or Makkhali Gosāla, the almost contemporary founders of Jainism and the Ājivikas, are likewise portrayed as ignorant and are, therefore, even conceived as dangerous because of their misleading teachings. How then can a God or a God-like person be at all credited with soteriologically helpful characteristics? – In the context of the Pāli Canon, even the great God Brahmā himself is portrayed as a figure with blamable cosmological ignorance. A beautiful story contained in the Kevaddhasutta (Dīgha Nikāya 11) makes fun of the chief godhead of the Indian pantheon; it is one of the most hilarious passages in the Pāli scriptures, humorously ridiculing the (ignorance of the) so-called Highest God: One of the Bhikkhus, after his realization of higher states of consciousness, had developed “super-human powers” (uttarimanussadhammā) 9 Aģguttara Nikāya 8,19 (ANPTS IV,203). 10 Saņyutta Nikāya 22,87 (SNPTS III,120). 4 and para-normal faculties (iddhi). With the use of ‘astral projection’ he even made his way up into the heavens in order to ask the Gods where the four elements (earth, water, fire, air) would come to an end – a mind-bugging question, to which he had found no answer yet. But the Gods of the lower celestial regions were not of much help to him, and, thus, he was always asked to ‘move up’ to the next heavenly plane – followed by an increasing crowd of Gods who became more and more interested into the subject and the solution to the riddle. He finally ends up in the highest heaven and approaches the great Brahmā, greeting him, “Hello, friend”, and asking his question concerning the final whereabouts of the four elements. The great God responds with dignity: “I am Brahmā, the great Brahmā, almighty, not subordinate to anyone, …etc. ” But he doesn’t give an answer. The bhikkhu repeats his question again, but the great Brahmā always takes a side-refuge to grandiose language. Finally, he takes the bhikkhu a few steps aside in order to be safely away from the nosy lower Gods, saying: “I don’t want to answer you in their presence, since me too, I don’t have a clue where the four elements come to an end. You made a mistake in not asking the Buddha first. … Go back to him and ask him!”11 Of course, things change considerably when we turn to Mahāyāna-perspectives and the cosmological ‘explosion’ in heavens taking place there, so to say: with innumerable Buddhas and Bodhisattvas besides the one historical Buddha – and also on different layers of reality in the universe. This implies a “new turning of the dhammawheel”, where even “bhakti” towards a numinous figure of this pantheon becomes a new possibility for the religious practice again (e.g. Amida-Buddhism) – in strong opposition to the teachings of the historical Siddhartha Gautama (who once identified such affectionate binding to his person as a real obstacle on the path to salvation)12. – But the imagery of the early Buddhist tradition over against “others” is very clear and always appears constructed along certain guiding differences: enlightenment versus 11 The paragraph is a paraphrase of Dīgha Nikāya 11,81ff (DNPTS I,221). 12 One of his disciples, Vakkali Thera, showed such a bhakti-like affection to the Buddha and, thus, needed special exercises to loosen up again. Cf. for an overview on this person and the issues involved see “Vakkali Thera” in Malalasekera (1974), pp. 799ff 5 blindness, detachment from “grasping” the world versus drive-driven attachment; evasion from the net of rebirth versus being caught in the net of rebirth (etc.). – To say the least: When setting out from the historical appearance of early Buddhism we can expect a strong reservation and hesitance on the side of Buddhists to buy easily into any salvific aspects of other religious traditions, … especially religions like Christianity with its focus on a divine person, divine salvation and personal faith into a personal godhead. But before I move on to this issue, let me step back in order to share a few systematic-analytic ideas concerning the problems of inter-religious perceptions. A few systematic remarks on exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism Whenever we deal with inter-religious perceptions today, the threefold imagery of inter-religious relations – Exclusivism–Inclusivism–Pluralism – is re-appearing again and again. Rightly so, since the scheme carries a lot of helpful systematic-analytic power, but the application of this threefold scheme is far from being an easy, self-evident endeavor. First of all, it has to be placed within a wider range of internal self-perceptions and internal reconstructions of the self-relation towards forms of religious otherness. A religious system (be it a personal position, a tradition or a sub-tradition) can change (1) with respect to its internal elements alone (intensification) or (2) because of a confrontation (perception, exchange) with other religious “systems” or elements thereof (extensification). – The table below is an attempt to illustrate this systematically:13 (1) “Intensification” can vary on a scale between the extremes of “extinction” of traditional items and an “evolution” which adds new contents – leaving differentiated form of recombination, reinterpretation, reformation with new accents in the middle. In the case of (2), extensification, the relationship can be constructed in terms of conceptual relations towards the other (relations), or in terms of a factual material absorption or material inclusions of certain traditions or elements of the other (syncretism). 13 It forms a shortened extract of the systematizations in my book-length study on inter-religious relations and perceptions: Grünschloß (1999). 6 Self and Other – Different Areas and Modes of Perception INTENSIFICATION Evolution new Reformation – EXTENSIFICATION – RELATIONS SYNCRETISM – distancing (different forms) – hierarchical (+ / -) Reinterpretation inclusive Superiority Recombination exotic Inferiority old – harmonizing Repristination EXTINCTION CONVERSION For our discussion here, the “relations”-section in the middle of the scheme is of vital interest. The relations towards the other can be formulated in terms of “distancing relations” (exclusivism) or, on the other extreme, in “harmonizing relations” (pluralism) – leaving the different forms of “hierarchical relations” in the middle. These latter ones can appear in the form of self-referential arguments, which perceive the others’ claims to truth or salvation in the form of an “inclusive superiority” of the own system (inclusivism) or, contrarily, they perceive of themselves in terms of an “exotic inferiority” where the other religion (or parts thereof) are perceived with strong fascination and reverence (exotism). In the case of personal encounters with another religious traditions, this exotic inferiority can finally lead to a full “conversion” to the other religious outlook. Syncretistic amalgamations of material from the “other” tradition (in all its different forms)14 can empirically appear combined with all these relations – inclusive, hierarchical and harmonizing: As matter of fact, the absorption or transforming adaptation of other material into the own tradition can indeed take place with or without corresponding “positive” (harmonizing or hierarchical) conceptual relations. The problem of such a scheme is that it tends to imply systematic coherence and clarity for all cases, that one might be able to say that tradition (or position) “x” is 14 Cf. here the helpful terminological analysis in Berner (1982). 7 constructing one certain, discernable “relation” towards the other tradition “y”. In reality, as becomes evident in any closer investigation into empirical inter-religious relations, the positions are far from being that easily discernable: In many, if not most, cases, several different (and almost contradicting) relations appear to be formulated at the same time from within one and the same religious position or tradition! – The layers of conceptual formulations of interrelations are much too complicated to be put into a one-dimensional scale – as, for example, in the case of the threefold imagery of Exclusivism–Inclusivism–Pluralism. Religious traditions (positions, persons) often appear as opting for several, seemingly contradicting positions towards the other at the same time. From one specific intra-religious argument, openness towards truth disclosures in other traditions might appear cogent, from another aspect, exclusivist strategies can be induced as dominant, whereas hierarchical conceptions of both kinds (inclusive superiority or exotic inferiority) can be the handy device on other argumentative layers. To a religious studies (Religionswissenschaft) researcher like myself, therefore, the whole debate about the analysis of inter-religious relations appears constantly poisoned by a simplified, almost stupidifying discourse asking for a generic validity of exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism. But as a matter of sober observation, these conceptual processes of perception and reconstruction take place on different levels at the same time … contradicting each other, accompanying and building layers of differing arguments as well as disguising (or legitimizing) material absorptions or rejections. Therefore it so important to take closer looks, and to discern that religious relations towards the other cannot only be formulated on the macro-level of generic religious systems (traditions) but also on the level of their respective elements (element-level). A Theravāda Buddhist person, for example, might be inclined to formulate a generic exclusivist relation towards “Christianity” on the whole (system-level) but with respect to certain elements of the Christian tradition, he or she might feel much more positive and affirmative (e.g. concerning Christian love, ethics and charitable engagement), whereas others (e.g. the faithful relation to a personal God) are perceived in congruence with the reservation of the generic exclusivist “macro-outlook”. Conclusion. – The whole discussion about exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism, therefore, has to be enlarged not only by the additional category of “exotism” – which, by the way, is playing a heavy role in many observable Christian perceptions of Buddhism (!) – but also by a fundamental and constructive insight into the multi8 layered construction of inter-relations: on system- and element-level of the argument, as well as multi-facetted and even ‘contradicting’ relations of difference or similarity, which can be drawn from various internal aspects with regard to (again: different) aspects of the other. Moreover, there are also religious positions, which hold the claim that insights into the nature of inter-religions truth-relations are by no means accessible, not discernible for the human person under the conditions of existence. Such positions might reserve this insight only to a Godhead or numinous person, as in the case of some Suras in the Qur’an. Such an “epistemological inaccessibility” of the interreligious truth-question would be logically beyond propositional schemes of the exclusivism, inclusivism, or pluralism type. Similarly, some religious positions only claim that it might be possible that salvation or truth could happen in other religious traditions – a slightly different position which, thus, refers to some sort of a pure modality. In a slight alteration of the table above, the relations between the self and the other, therefore, would have to be conceived on two main different layers: on the more generic level of whole systems and on the level(s) of elements (cf. following table). Since the perceptions and relations on the element-level can be contradicting and crossing each other, it might often be very hard to formulate a neat ‘result’ of such an apparently difficult position towards the other. Such “mixed cases” appear very often. Paul Tillich’s Systematic Theology (I-III)15 might serve as a good example from Christian theology: In the first volume he seems to favor a salvation-historical inclusivist relationship between the religions (as ‘stages’ on the revelation history of God), whereas in the second volume on Christology, a strict antithesis between self-redemption (in other ‘paths’) and redemption by the Other in Christ seems to denote an exclusivist argument, and the third – pneumatological – volume constantly alludes to the many “break-throughs” of the “Holy” in the various facets of human culture, which seems to support basically a pluralist idea. Even in such a coherent rational presentation of a theologian’s position, different layers of relations towards the religiously other appear possible – how much more in less ‘constructed’, less ‘rationalized’ and empirically grown positions and traditions. 15 Cf. Tillich (1973–1980). 9 Self and Other – Different Modes and Levels of Perception INTENSIFICATION Evolution new Reformation – EXTENSIFICATION – RELATIONS SYNCRETISM – distancing (different forms) – hierarchical (+ / -) Reinterpretation inclusive Superiority Recombination exotic Inferiority old – harmonizing Repristination EXTINCTION CONVERSION Levels of Systems INTENSIFICATION Evolution new Reformation – EXTENSIFICATION – RELATIONS SYNCRETISM – distancing (different forms) – hierarchical (+ / -) Reinterpretation inclusive Superiority Recombination exotic Inferiority old – harmonizing Repristination EXTINCTION Levels of Elements After these theoretic remarks and suggestions, I return to the basics of my topic, and I commence with a fairly recent example of (Zen-)Buddhist exclusivism over against Christianity. Christian Zen – a vegetarian meat dish? Klaus Zernickow, a medical doctor practicing in Berlin, is a Zen-teacher of the 10 Rinzai-tradition in Germany. In this respect, he is rather known under his ritual name, Sotetsu Yuzen Roshi, which he received upon his Zen-realization. In his critique and rejection of a Christian reception of Zen-Buddhist meditation he refers to Hakuin Ekaku (1685–1768) and quotes Zen Master Hakuin’s polemics against Pure Land Buddhism: Adding Pure Land to Zen, someone said, is like fixing a tiger with wings. What an empty-headed piffle! Zen! Zen! Anyone who would say something like that could never understand Zen, not in his wildest dreams. […] Adding Pure Land to Zen is like depriving a cat of its eyes. Adding Zen to Pure Land is like raising a sail in the back of a cow.16 Zernickow (Yuzen Roshi) parallels this internal Buddhist critique to the Christian reception of Zen in the form of “Christian Zen”: The ‘other’, which has been Pure Land practice back in those days, is nowadays Catholic Christianity. The Christian (Catholic) digestion and amalgamation of Zen, therefore, is “depriving Zen of its life, mutilating it and abusing it for Church-internal innovation”17. No, says, Zernickow, “Zen relies on self-redemption (jiriki), and with this it stands in direct juxtaposition to redemption by faith (tariki) and through an other or higher source of power.”18 – In all its concepts, Christian spiritual education must lead into a dualism, falsely absolutizing primary oppositions like: creator–creature, nature–human (etc.). “Christian Zen”, therefore, is leading nowhere, is nothing but a “vegetarian meat dish”, nothing real of both, an artificial something. This refutation breathes the affective negation of any form of ‘syncretism’ (although the term is not used by Zernickow): mixing the “true” with the ‘other’ is dangerous, misleading. Consequently, Zernickow’s Rinzai-Zen community “Momun-Kai” in Berlin19 (and elsewhere) used to ask new practitioners for a proof that they have indeed left the Christian church. 16 From Hakuin’s Sokkô-roku Kaien-fusetsu (Wadell 1994, p. 45). Zernickow (1999, p. 30) quotes from the German translation of Wadell’s edition (Meister Hakuin, Authetisches Zen, Frankfurt/M.: Fischer: 1997, p. 86). An Internet-based edition of Zernickow’s German essay is currently available at http://www.evbg.ch/fileadmin/meditation/pdf/kontemplation.pdf (pages 13–15). 17 Zernickow (1999), p. 30. 18 Ibd. 19 Cf. on the Internet: http://www.mumon-kai.de. 11 Zernickow’s polemics have not remained unquestioned by other Buddhists. And, of course, a front against Pure Land practice is by far not ubiquitious in the Zen tradition; there have been several identifications, on higher levels, in the typical way of the Mahāyāna tradition. Christian receptions of Zen (or of Zen elements) have also found positive responses within Zen. But this example shows very well that (traditions of) internal debates and polemics within a given tradition can be “used” as (ideal-)typical ways to decipher typical – if not stereo-typical – enemies of the truth in the religious realms outside. The ‘other’ outside – as well as the relation to this ‘other’ – can easily be identified, rationalized and stigmatized by such a repristination of discursive conventions from the anti-heretical arsenal in one’s own tradition. – In conclusion: The identification of the religious enemies outside often mirrors established maps and icons of the heretics inside. A similar example from the Christian realm would be the fact that the Catholic missionaries, who in the 16th century encountered Amida-Buddhism in Japan for the first time and then reported back home that this is the same teaching that the “devil” had inspired to Luther.20 The early German Buddhist converts, protagonists and disseminators, for example Paul Dahlke, were likewise clear in juxtaposing their Buddhism against Christianity: i.e. sober rationality against transcendental lean-upons, philosophic clearness and knowledge against mere faith, against the soteriologically futile belief in a personal god, supported by a repressive organization called the church. In some instances, especially of such first generation converts, Christianity is degraded as the dark, negative background of a picture, which now has a shining Buddhism in its foreground. Zernickow too, in his older book Ein befreiendes Lachen [A liberating laughter], first published in Vienna 1983, appears to develop the image of (Zen-) Buddhism against the background of a decidedly negative sketch of Christianity (dogmatic core; heteronomy over against autonomous decisions; dualistic metaphors; worldly; un-free, masochistic, with unhealthy fixations on after-life). Buddhism, in this picture, is a true guarantee of freedom, self-decision and liberation; and the path from Christianity to Buddhism is one of liberation, of healing: “Liberation from this captivity within a net of anxiety, insecurity, guilt and sin developed 20 Cf. Valignano (1944), p. 161. 12 gradually, accompanied by consequent and severe Zen practice.”21 In terms of ethical practice, both, Buddhists and Christians, have to be measured by their factual actions, Zernickow states. However, it appears to him that Christianity, intolerant as it has always been, would still go for “Säuberungsaktionen” (cleansing actions) and murder millions of people. We should not forget that Zernickow, as well as the earlier protagonists, were converts. The issue of conversion seems to ring through in these examples: Christianity in most of its elements does not appear as an interesting issue, a positive challenge to deal with from these “new-born” Buddhist perspectives. – But is the image untypical of Buddhism? Buddhist images of Christianity in German writings and Usenet-postings The Buddha’s so-called “lion’s roar” of his truth-teaching (dhammadesanā) left the Gods trembling: Similar to the elephants, which start to urinate in fear after hearing the lion’s roar, likewise, the Gods are put into fear since they have to realize that they are not of eternal existence, that they also have to die.22 – In the early Buddhist canon, Gods are often debunked, ridiculed and turned into rather ignorant students of the Buddha way. For them, too, final salvation can be obtained only by following the Buddha’s path; there is no alternative – even for these Higher Ones. No wonder, that Theravāda Buddhism always had problems in relating positively to other faith traditions with a personal godhead (or personal godheads). Christianity, here, is no exemption. As I said before, the issue that Zernickow and Dahlke were converts plays an important role in their construction of Christianity.23 Does the image change if we look upon protagonists who have not been converts? – Based on Buddhist publications in German, one of the conclusions of the most recent study (2007) on Buddhist 21 I had no access to this text, so I have to rely on and quote from the analysis in Hapatsch (2007), p. 96. 22 The famous simile of the “lion’s roar” (sīhanāda) is contained in Saņyutta Nikāya 22,78 (PTSIII, 84ff). 23 Whether this attitude can be reconstructed (at least to some extent) in the sense that they are still visibly “grasped” and “affected” by a dual juxtaposition here, I leave open to an inner-Buddhist analysis. 13 Perceptions of Christianity by Hischam Hapatsch24 is that the apologetic and polemic tone is mainly dominant among the very early protagonists. However, a few later ones, like Klaus Zernickow or Uli Olivedi, are also highly critical of Christianity. But the more popular authors today mostly appear as “integrators”25 and less as “opponents”. What is interesting: If these “integrators” are at all interested in Christianity, they might talk about a relatively positive Image of Jesus, which in their opinion has after all been blurred by the “church” who became intolerant of other religions. Interestingly also, it is mostly Catholicism, which is in the focus of many Buddhist authors in their negative appraisal:26 The Catholic Church seems to be the ideal-typical representation of existing Christendom in its organized form – protestant traditions are rarely mentioned. I would like to present a few insights from Hapatsch’s interesting study. In order to collect generic, ‘every day’ utterances and attitudes, he also went through the postings in the German Buddhist Usenet group “de.soc.weltanschauung.buddhismus”27, where he could detect similar attitudes towards elements of the Christian tradition. – A few examples: God. – There is a typical set of religio-critical and decidedly a-theistic ideas among modern Buddhists, which culminate in the very idea that a God does not exist. Example: „The gag is that you don’t have to prove that God is non-existent: He simply became superfluous and is now irrelevant for explaining the world.”28 Faith. – A prevalent opinion holds the idea that “faith” has to do with “not knowing” (i.e. “believe”)29 and is related to something hard-minded, which cannot be put into a constructive discourse. Buddhism, on the other side, has to do with “experience” and “practice”, not with theory and dogmatic beliefs. E.g., a Pāli-Canon oriented posting debunks Amida-Buddhism for being all too close to Christianity: “If Buddha is turned into the ‘Nice Dear God’ [“Liebe Gott”], then you could go and 24 Cf. Hapatsch (2007). 25 Ibid. pp. 171ff. 26 Ibid., p. 173. 27 Cf. http://groups.google.com/group/de.soc.weltanschauung.buddhismus. 28 Hapatsch (2007), p. 197. 29 I.e., in the sense of Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1979), an utmost confusion of “faith” with so-called “belief/believe”. 14 become a Christian right away”.30 Church power and hierarchy. – Many critiques of Tibetan Buddhist clergy power, including the Dalai Lama, appear related to an image of the authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church and the Pope (over against a positive stress of individual choice and self-direction). – On the other hand, those connected to Tibetan Buddhism try to present their structure as being as net of personal relations and free choices, with good teaching competence – whereas the Christian church is here presented as an anonymous institution, which rules its members directly from the papal Rome, since in most cases, there is no mentioning of priests and pastors in between.31 Spirituality. – Spirituality is perceived as entirely lacking in the Christian tradition: There is no real guidance, no developed path, there are no competent teachers to guide the seeker; generically, Christian spirituality appears as inefficient. All in all, the imagery of the Usenet-discussions displays a strong resemblance to the Grimm-Dahlke-connection and opposition to Christianity. If at all, only a few scattered interests in elements of Christian mysticism seem to have been a partly valuable and intermediary step on the path towards Buddhism. But: Again we have a group of people who are dominantly converts or who come from a milieu where religio-critical or esoteric ideas were already present. The so-called “Jesus [is] positive – Church [is] negative” scheme which Haptasch identifies in almost all such Buddhist statements, is also dominant in other contemporary, esoteric and rationalistic traditions of modern industrial societies. A public church-critical, non-Buddhist discourse about Christianity seems to have been integrated and absorbed in these Cyberspace-statements of Buddhist opinions. As an hermeneutical summary, based on web-based as well as on published Buddhist sources about Christianity in German, Hapatsch can finally conclude: “Even today, in the foreground of the [Buddhist] reception of Christianity we still find a distancing relation, not a content-oriented interrelation with Christianity.”32– Apart 30 Hapatsch (2007), p. 200. – In its relation to salvation, this faithful, praying and bhakti-relation to Amida is often ridiculed by non-Amida-Buddhists for its infantilism, and as such it is put in close relationship to its Christian siblings, since Christianity is also presented as an infantile path, not able to really lead somewhere spiritually. 31 Hapatsch (2007), pp. 207–215. 32 Ibid. p. 324. 15 from some scattered idealized protagonists in the mystical strands of Christianity, no positive appraisal of any kind of Christian spirituality or of its faith practice is mentioned. Christianity is simply not of interest to Buddhist eyes – apart from casual selfreferential side remarks. I cannot go into all the different layers of Buddhist-Christian relations here. Suffice it to raise the attention to the fact the whole area needs a differentiated and detailed analysis. To name a few examples: (a) Meditation, contemplation and prayer is one specific and well received field of dialogue (including visits between monasteries etc.) which has led to the insight that despite all striking theological differences, several forms of spirituality often appear “more similar than different”33. – (b) On the other hand, in summarizing their in-depth analysis of Buddhist-Christian interrelations in history, Michael von Brück and Whalen Lai point to the fact that apparently Christianity is mostly reconstructed within the reference of upāya, that is, in the form a Buddhist inclusivism. The question then is: Can there be room for more than this form of “cautious respect”?34 – (c) Differing Buddhist sub-groups approach Christianity in entirely different ways: Amida-Buddhists can relate much more positively to personal “faith”, a personal Godhead and the experience of “grace”; again, the philosophically oriented Kyōto-School has its very own approach of connecting to certain strands and elements within the Christian tradition (etc.). – (d) In modern times, many Christians have “experimented” with Buddhist meditation; in many cases, the integration of these forms might have led to a sort of “double belonging” in their religious orientation. If this scheme of the “positive Jesus – negative Church” is fairly representative, what exactly can Buddhists say here about Christianity with regard to Jesus? – Although the topic of Buddhist views of Jesus has been a subject of several recent publications35, I would like to pick it up again sketching the views four Buddhist authors, their book-length reconstructions of Jesus and their correspondent readings of the Bible.36 33 Gross (2003), p. 99. 34 Cf. Brück, Lai (1997), p. 276, where they strike the balance on the recent Buddhist-Christian encounters with reference to an apparently dominant form of Buddhist upāya inclusivism. 35 Cf. Gross, Muck (1999); Schmidt-Leukel (2001); Barker (2005). 36 For the following section see my (more extensive) article: Grünschloß (2004). – An online-version is available at http://www.theologie-online.uni-goettingen.de/rw/gruen2.htm. 16 The Buddhist Jesus: Exception or Challenge? or: The Buddhist Jesus: … an unknown brother of the Buddha? (1) Ayya Khema (1923–1997) is the first person to be analyzed here. She was a well know Buddhist nun, who originally came from a Jewish family, who finally managed to escape from Nazi Germany in 1938. Later, she was trained as a Theravāda-Buddhist teacher in Burma, Thailand and Sri Lanka. She was ordained as a bhikkhuni in 1979, and she founded and organized several retreat and study centers. She returned to Germany in 1989 where she was active in BuddhistChristian Dialogues until her death. Ayya Khema can serve us as a good representative of the Theravāda, Pāli Canon-based form of Buddhism. There are two books from her focusing on biblical themes.37 – Not being a convert from Christianity to Buddhism, how does she cope with Christianity and Jesus? In an introduction she states that she is aiming at a better understanding between the traditions, in order to acknowledge the community between the traditions and “to get into better understanding, especially on the spiritual realm”.38 Right away she formulates her important guiding thesis “that the same is being taught in every religion”39 – and that is: whether we understand that which has to be done, and whether we practice this way. She can parallel 1 Kor 13 (“Song of Love”) and Mt 5,3ff (“Beatitudes”) verse by verse with Buddhist associations. – A few examples: “Blessed are those who are poor in the spirit, since is the kingdom of the Heavens is theirs,” is paralleled with the 37 In what follows, I focus on Khema (1999) – See also Khema (2000). 38 Khema (1999), p. 9f. 39 Ibid. p. 12. 17 Buddha’s teaching to empty the mind, to become “poor in the spirit”, to focus the mind and to attain calmness of the mind (samathabhāvanā) and the consecutive meditative stages (jhānas). The phrase “Kingdom of Heavens” is interpreted to allude to such higher states of consciousness. The blessing of those without power, of the grieving, of the ones who thirst for justice – all these highly “realistic” examples of Jesus’ Beatitudes are spiritualized by Ayya Khema: “We have to approach his words on a certain level, which can open spiritual understanding of the question how we can be filled inwardly … since not to experience fulfillment, that’s our lot.”40 In her concluding paragraph on the blessings she writes: This is all about an exercise to let go thinking in favor of some direct experience; only the acceptance of un-fulfillment (i.e. “suffering”) brings remedy; all claims to power have to be overcome in favor of an “inner richness”; detachment and readiness to give are important. Thus, it becomes obvious, she states again, that all religions teach the same – but: “The Buddha-dhamma additionally informs us with a method to realize this inner growth.”41 But when she runs into passages, which are dealing with God – or visions of God –, she becomes more hesitant (“the conception of a personal God cannot help us to get closer to the truth”42); her commentaries boil down to statements like God can be understood as “our true nature” or “true love can be called the Divine”43. However, in some respect, Ayya Khema appeares to opt for a transcendent, even mystical “ground” of the so-called “Divine” (“göttliche Natur”, “göttlicher Funke”) which lies beyond categorical, rational understanding.44 Conclusion. – As these few examples can already illustrate, Ayya Khema is ‘re-discovering’ items of Buddhist wisdom all over the Bible. Concrete remarks about justice, sadness, powerlessness (etc.) are always spiritualized and explained as generic inner attitudes. The element of a personal “God” is evaded and often appears in 40 Ibid. p. 45. 41 Ibid. p. 46. 42 Ibid. p. 62. 43 Ibid. p. 60. 44 Ibid. p. 62f. – This could be understood as a hint towards her former involvement in mystical strands of the Jewish faith – prior to her decision for Buddhism. Cf. the references to Ayya Khema in Nathan Katz’ contribution to this volume. – I would like to thank Nathan Katz and Perry Schmidt-Leukel, who have convincingly pointed out to me in conversation that there might be more to Ayya Khema’s biographical involvement with a kabbalistic essence behind the manifestations. 18 reduction to cultivation of spiritual awareness – only a trans-personal “Divine” could perhaps denote something like a (common) deeper layer of religious experience. – Finally, the only striking difference between Christianity and Buddhism lies in the fact that the Buddha also taught a way of how to achieve these common goals and virtues (which can be found in all religions). – She never seems to finds something new, something different, or something surprising. She constantly alienates Jesus’ sayings from their origin and context and appropriates them in a very inclusivist manner through Buddhist eyes and concepts. – Although this might not do justice to Ayya Khema’s personality and friendly approaching manner, this inclusivism is conceptually nevertheless a form of the “got the same back home but bigger”45 attitude, which is typical of all such hierarchical appropriations of the other. (2) Thich Nhat Hanh (*1926). – The famous Zen-Teacher from Vietnam does not need to be introduced here; he is famous for his personal integration of socio-critical, peace-making efforts and meditative spirituality.46 Thich Nhat Hanh has written several books on the inter-relation between Buddhism and Christianity, and he displays a different approach: He has been living with biblical texts for a longer time, he cultivates a personal spirituality with relation to Jesus and Buddha – “the living Buddha” and “the living Christ”, as he says.47 – But in terms of content, his findings are nevertheless similar to Ayya Khema’s. He also (re-)discovers mindfulness, a raise of consciousness among Jesus’ disciples, peacefulness (the prescription against killing), as well as kind openness towards all people. Jesus, therefore, is to him explicitly another “Dharma door”.48 Jesus’ saying, “Whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I am there”, is explained in so far as the eternal Buddha-Dharmakāya and the Christian God have to be understood as the living and ever teaching “ground of being”.49 True religious experience always leads to a de-dogmatizing and de-dualizing; the “Our Father”-prayer is aimed at the destruction of the human ego (etc.).50 Jesus appears as a spiritually advanced teacher and as a social activist, and as 45 This utterance is said to be a typical statement of Australians during visits in London (British rumor). 46 Cf. K.Kiblinger’s contribution to this volume. – Cf. also Brück, Lai (1997), pp. 560–568. 47 Nhat Hanh (1996). – Cf. also Nhat Hanh (1996b) and (1999). 48 Nhat Hanh 1996, p. 39. 49 Ibid. p. 51. 50 Ibid. pp. 179-186. 19 such he is an important “ancestor” for Thich Nhat Hanh, because Buddha and Jesus together are for him spiritual corner stones in the orientation for a new form of spirituality, which is meditatively centered and also active in fostering peace. The protagonist of “inter-being” is not afraid of a religious “fruit salad”,51 but he bases his life actively on two sources: not the historical Buddha and the historical Jesus, but both teachers as living realities, which can manifest themselves in life with other people – as spiritual realities which transcend mere words like “God”.52 Conclusion. – Thich Nhat Hanh recollects many virtues and ideals, which have become vital for him in his life – also in the face of the biblical Jesus. However, he would like to have him rather not portrayed on the cross: “This does not create happiness and peace, and doesn’t do justice to Jesus. I wished our Christian friends would depict Jesus differently – maybe sitting in the Lotus position or doing the kinhin walking meditation. Then peace and happiness could enter our hearts, when we approach Jesus in contemplation.”53 (Solomon Raj’s Indian wood carving “Jesus the Teacher”54 can serve as a good illustration, since it seems to depict the calm guru/master Jesus of the forth gospel, who appears like a perfect avatāra.) (3) The XIV. Dalai Lama (*1935). – In his book The Good Heart, a collection on bible talks given by him during the John Maine seminar in 1994 (World Community for Christian Meditation),55 the Dalai Lama exposes his thoughts on biblical traditions of the New Testament. He is very clear that he is not going to opt for some easy 51 Ibid. p. 1f. 52 Ibid. p. 21f. 53 Nhat Hanh (1999), p. xx DdL 46. 54 Raj (1988), p. 19. 55 Dalai Lama (2002). 20 ‘common ground’: Differences between the religions have to be recognized, he assures. Therefore, one cannot speak of one essentially identical religion behind the differences, and one should not be searching for some “universal religion”, since this could never do justice to the different spiritual needs of humans.56 – The Dalai Lama reads the Bible passages and comments on them from a Buddhist perspective, with Buddhist associations – similar to the preceding two examples – but: He is very much aware of the fact that he is doing so from a Buddhist perspective, not wanting to present his ideas as decisive interpretations.57 – Again, spirituality turns out as the area of clearest convergence: compassion, love, meditation and tolerance, as well as ethics.58 Jesus’ calls to neighbor and enemy love are paralleled with the call to tolerance in Śāntideva’s Bodhicariyāvatāra, for example; as a “master”, Jesus represents the “essence” of his teachings, analogous to the Buddha’s perception as dharmakāya (etc.).59 Only with reference to philosophical/metaphysical questions, Christianity and Buddhism seem to go along differing paths (esp. with respect to dependent co-orgination versus a personal creator God).60 – But, as a Mahāyāna-Buddhist, he can cope more positively with ‘divine figures’, since in the end, he concludes: “For me, as a Buddhist, my attitude toward Jesus is that he was either a fully enlightened being, or a Bodhisattva of very high spiritual realization.”61 The idea of a Jesus-Bodhisattva, propounded here by the Dalai Lama, was touched upon in an interesting interview by James A. Beverley, a theology professor from Toronto, in Christianity Today in 2001:62 I reminded him of his belief that Jesus is “a fully enlightened being” and asked, “If Jesus is fully enlightened, wouldn't he be teaching the truth 56 Cf. ibid. pp. 39, 73. ß meine Seitenverweise 82f und 128f stimmen jetzt wieder 57 Cf. ibid. pp. 42. 58 Cf. ibid. p. 81. 59 Cf. ibid. p. 58, 60. 60 Cf. ibid p. 82. 61 Ibid. p. 83. Cf. similarly on the preceding page (82f): If a Buddhist could meet Jesus, “who has affected millions of people in a spiritual way, bringing about their liberation and freedom from suffering”, then a Buddhist would feel “reverence toward a fully enlightened being or a bodhisattva”. 62 The text of this interview is available at the Internet portal of Christianity Today, and can be accessed via the URL http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/008/15.64.html (scroll to page 6 for the following quotes). 21 about himself? Therefore, if he is teaching the truth, then he is the Son of God, and there is a God, and Jesus is the Savior. If he is fully enlightened, he should teach the truth. If he is not teaching the truth, he is not that enlightened.” As the Dalai Lama felt the momentum of the question, he laughed more than at any other time in the interview. He obviously understood the argument […]. “This is a very good question,” he said. “This is very, very important, very important.” Even in Buddha's case, he said, a distinction must always be made between teachings that “always remain valid” and others that “we have the liberty to reject.” He argued that the Buddha knew people were not always ready for the higher truth because it “wouldn't suit, wouldn't help.” Therefore, lesser truths are sometimes taught because of the person's ignorance or condition. This is known in Buddhist dharma as the doctrine of uppayah (sic!), or skillful means. The Dalai Lama then applied this to the question about Jesus. “Jesus Christ also lived previous lives,” he said. “So, you see, he reached a high state, either as a Bodhisattva, or an enlightened person, through Buddhist practice or something like that. Then, at a certain period, certain era, he appeared as a new master, and then because of circumstances, he taught certain views different from Buddhism, but he also taught the same religious values as I mentioned earlier: Be patient, tolerant, compassionate. This is, you see, the real message in order to become a better human being.” He said that there was absolutely no lying involved since Jesus' motivation was to help people. According to this interview, the Dalai Lama holds the idea that Jesus’ teachings – though being actually based on genuine Buddhist insights – are not his true insights: They are a disguise, they appear as nothing but a Buddhist Bodhisattva’s skilful 22 adaptation (“skillful means”; upāya / upāya kauśalya) to his specific context, in order to save certain people who do not have access to another (deeper) understanding (cf. the pictorial representation of such a Jesus-Bodhisattva by a Tibetan Lama).63 Conclusion. – Without having to go through all the examples here, one can summarize that the Dalai Lama develops a quite differentiated and cautious position about biblical traditions. In his interpretations, he also sees the main similarities in the spiritual and ethical realms. Jesus is understood as a Buddha or Bodhisattva who then adapted his higher insights to the people around him. (4) Kenneth Leong. – He is probably the least known in this row. Born in Honkong in 1953, he works as a banker in financial risk management in the USA. He is also a Zen-teacher, and in his book, The Zen-Teachings of Jesus64 (the title is quite telling), he displays his understanding of Jesus from a Zen perspective. Similar to Ayya Khema, but different from the Dalai Lama, he insists: “We must realize that Zen and Christianity are not telling two different stories but one story. The only difference is language.”65 Leong was raised as an Anglican, but left the faith in the age of sixteen, but nowadays he thinks differently about his decision: “I left Jesus to search for the Tao when I was sixteen. Now I am forty, and I realize that I could have found the Tao in Jesus.”66 This is because Zen is nothing alien, but “everyday spirituality” and a phenomenon, which is cross-culturally and religiously available.67 In this light Leong re-reads the Bible, and re-detects (Zen) humor, spontaneity, poetry in Jesus68: Jesus’ teachings are interpreted by him as a kind of “spiritual Judo” – an art of “winning through losing”.69 Jesus is portrayed as a clever Zen-teacher: When he says “the kingdom of God is in the midst of you,” he alludes to something like the experience of “the great space – vast, void and clear” in the here and now; likewise, to be “born again” actually means to have the attainment of Satori (etc.).70 Therefore, “the 63 Lama Lhanang Rinpoche has created this illustrative artistic representation of the Jesus-Bodhisattva; cf. www.wisdompath.org. 64 Leong (1995). 65 Ibid. p. 95. 66 Ibid. p. 11. 67 Ibid. p. 11. 68 Ibid. pp. 12ff. 69 Ibid. p. 45. 70 Ibid. pp. 63ff., 73ff 23 difference between Zen and Christianity”, he states, “is just a difference in vocabulary”.71 – When Jesus uses the title „Son of God“, he is presenting one of his “greatest koans”, says Leong. We have to compare this “inner divinity” (!) to the “Buddha-Nature” in every human being: “The first step to spirituality is to believe in the Christ-inus.” 72 Conclusion. – Jesus is nothing but a great Master of Zen, a poet who dances through live like a Chinese Tao/Zen-freak – someone who tries to awake people to mindfulness. Among the four examples, this book is in fact most about Buddhism – it is a book about Zen, to be precise, which comes in the disguise of a book about Jesus; although this is not to deny altogether that some of his thoughts are stimulatingly different perspectives on Jesus. Comparing and summarizing the four positions, one can say the following: Ayya Khema rediscovers basic Buddhist messages in the sermon of the mount without really struggling at all with the person of Jesus. Biblical passages trigger various allusions to Buddhist virtues. Thus, the New Testament is read as a mirror of Buddhist spirituality, esp. compassion – to which Buddhism alone can educate methodologically (however, since all religions are teaching the same, there might be a mythical unity behind them). Thich Nhat Hanh has his own way of living with biblical passages: he is fascinated by Jesus’ practice, which forms a vital inspiration for his “engaged Buddhism”. Jesus and Buddha are core icons for a transforming spirituality – something like a meditatively spiritualized “social gospel”. The Dalai Lama – in my reading – appears as rather safeguarded against the danger to take over and ‘use’ the bible – or Jesus – for his Buddhist views. He remains well aware of the differences between the traditions and of his own Buddhist perspective upon the subject; although he too sees common points in the spiritual orientation and ethic practice and Jesus is absorbed as a crypto-Buddhist Bodhisattva. Kenneth Lang reads the Bible as a disclosure of Zen stories; Jesus therefore appears as an authentic Zen teacher – not more, but also nothing less. All represent clear nuances of their background traditions. As a practicing 71 Ibid. p. 104. 72 Ibid. p. 106ff. 24 Theravāda Buddhist, Ayya Khema can hardly make sense of the personal God of the Bible and of Jesus. To the three Mahāyāna-Buddhists, this seems easier: Based on the spheres of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas they can account for analogous personal “representations” of the ultimate truth and they can recognize Jesus as another, special and personally concrete embodiment. Spirituality and mindfulness appear as the ruling contents of the Bible and of Jesus’ teachings. Counterintuitive issues of struggling for justice, apocalypticism, eschatology, a personal God (etc.) are diminished and spiritualized in order to make room for associations, which appear more compatible with Buddhist ideas. With the exception of the Dalai Lama, a real confrontation with the “otherness” of the other and with the remaining difference of the Biblical world is not being sought (he also does not go into that otherness, but he is aware of it). The three others develop smooth, even relatively simple postulates of identity. In sum, the true “face” (“Antlitz”) of the other does not yet appear, since Christianity is completely mapped into the Buddhist cognitive landscape.73 Its otherness is reduced to an “alter ego”, put into a hierarchical (inclusivist) gesture of interpretation. Buddhists are not alone with such a self-referential posture – it appears everywhere on the religious landscape, to be sure. But, astonishing as it might seem to someone who still holds the idealistic conception of a religiously and hermeneutically “tolerant” Buddhism, they in fact alienate Jesus from his context and his own plane of reference, and appropriate him for their Buddhist goals, since the multidimensionality of Jesus and the bible is in the end reduced to Buddhist virtues of mindfulness and compassion. Final Remarks and Conclusion I sympathize with John Makransky’s way of dealing with the issue of taking religious otherness into consideration, and I very well understand his uneasiness with his inclusivist result,74 since – from a point of observation as a religious studies researcher – I would also say that religious positions mostly cannot evade inclusivism in the end, when they try to put the picture together again, after attempting to come to grips with 73 One could however argue whether Ayya Khema’s Buddhist inclusivism could be traced back, or down, to a deeper (biographical) layer in searching for a (Jewish-kabbalistic) mystical experience. 74 Cf. his contribution to this volume. 25 the religiously other. Even if we fall in love with pluralism for good reasons, we end up being married to inclusvism, in most cases, I would say – as a Christian theologian and as a religious studies researcher. But, how can a Buddhist inclusivist like John Makransky, although he takes for granted that the ultimate reality in both traditions is the same one, the dharmakāya, which is ultimately emptying all dualistic oppositions – how can he ever come to a positive acceptance of the Christian (Jewish, Islamic …) faith experience, which is implying that the opposition between creator and creation, between God and world/human person, extra nos and intra nos (etc.), that all these distinctions are not mere relative absolutes which can be (or even have to) be transcended, but which stand there as the vital ruling difference in which everything in this world and everything for salvation is grounded, well grounded, and that these are no mere vikalpas, micchā diţţhi (etc.). Can someone, Buddhistically focusing on the Mahāyāna-relativization of all discrete differences, positively cope with the Christian faith tradition and its vital differentiations? – A Christian, Jew, Muslim would always react to that description with a “Sorry, with all due respect to your Buddhist reconstruction, but I am not convinced that certain vital differences indeed have to be overcome”. The same is true, vice versa, for Christians who are challenged to truly make sense of the Buddhist experience. The Christian tradition has often enough diminished other religions and exclusively commented on access to truth. If Christian faith is about God’s unconditional love to all living beings, then this friendliness should be empirically shining through every Christian’s face when relating to somebody else in the Universe. The experiential dimension of “justification by faith”, of being accepted by God as you are, should enable the person to live this spirit of acceptance towards everybody. For some time I have played with the idea that this experience of god’s unconditional acceptance can have a similar religio-psychological effect on the person as have some Buddhist experiences – to indeed set the person free to unconditional compassion and love. Although, I wouldn’t want to say that the essential core of religion(s) lies, thus, in ethics! I do not buy into that modern stereotype, which also pops up in inter-religious discourses over and over all the time … as if religions would be just an ethic tool. – Some religious instances, sometimes, appear fascinatingly convergent … whereas others do remain strikingly different. So I don’t even know if we can actually speak of a “common ground” of all religions: Dharmakāya and God – are we really talking here about the same thing? 26 Back in the seventies and eighties, the “Dialogue” unit of the World Council of Churches grounded inter-religious dialogue on the Christian side on the commandment that “you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” – in short: Don’t lie about your neighbor (including his faith).75 There are no shortcuts to inter-religious understanding, go through it in depth and with the acceptance that every dialogue partner has the right and freedom to define him/herself (and that they are not to be defined by others)!76 – Similarly, Buddhists would probably be able to agree that the abstinence from gossip and shallow talk – according to the ethic prescriptions (sīla) – and the foremost rule of abstinence from harming others (ahiķsā) would also imply abstinence from hermeneutically harming others, from doing violence to their own understanding and self-perception. Buddhists would probably agree that this provides a good basis to proceed further in relating towards another person’s religion and spiritual practice. The Buddha’s sermon to the Kālāmas (Aģguttara Nikāya III.66, ANPTS I,188–193) is often quoted in this respect, like other admonitions for a well “controlled” attitude in the relationship to others77. Rather than pressing the issue, whether one can or even should be a Buddhist Inclusivist or Pluralist, it is more important to deal with these concrete relations and cross-understandings between traditions. However, we know, that all we construct here is “shaky common ground”, as the decided pluralist Paul Knitter once said.78 “Shaky” common ground, because it is dependent on at least two perspectives at the same time. Already the next meeting may show, that the common ground which was at grasp today, may have suddenly gone tomorrow and the search for it may then even appear futile … But the Buddhist-Christian interrelation on a broader scale, – as Perry Schmidt-Leukel once said during the conference on which this volume is based79, implicitly quoting Wilfred Cantwell Smith, that we together talk about us in our relation 75 Cf., for example, § 17 in the well-known “Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies” of 1979 (WCC online-resource: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/77glinese.html). 76 Cf. Guidelines, section III (here: no. 4 of “Learning and understanding in dialogue”). 77 The Bramajālasutta (Dīgha Nikāya 1) also develops hermeneutical principles for the relation to others (cf. esp. Dīgha Nikāya 1.1.5f, DN PTSI, 2f), in order not to drawn into a conflict which might easily escalate. 78 Cf. Knitter (1991), p. 167. 79 Cf. J. May, P. Schmidt-Leukel “Introcuction: Buddhism and its ‘Others’” in this volume. 27 towards each other80 – this is just beginning in Buddhist-Christian relationships.81 Much can happen in the mutual perceptions still to come. The question at the end of this contribution on Buddhist perceptions or religious otherness is: How far will Buddhists themselves really be interested in Christianity on its own plane of reference, behind the ready made, self-referential Buddhist mirror-image of it? – One could go and refine that image, sure, and repeatedly cleanse the “alter ego” mirror, but I hope that – in allusion to the famous “Heart-Sutra” (Mahāprājñāparāmitāhŗdāya, jap. Hannya Shingyō) – there might be much more going, going, going beyond, (gate, gate, pāragate), although of course it would be asked to much to await a fully going beyond (pārasaņgate) from the inner Buddhist perspective – since that would actually imply to ask for a another, additional and different “bodhi”-experience which would then have to originate from within the other (Christian) tradition. It is not the place here to develop a Christian theology of dialogue and interreligious relations, but let me add a few thoughts on it. In his Christian reflections on inter-religious relations the Indian theologian M. M. Thomas has coined the capturing metaphor “Risking Christ for Christ’s Sake” as an important inner attitude in dialogue:82 As long as we cling to Christ in an idolatrous way, we do not do justice to his mission; it even appears dangerous if we simply infer and deduce exclusivistic claims from the idea of Christ’s uniqueness. Wilfred Cantwell Smith has rightly argued: “The damnation of my neighbour is too weighty a matter to rest on a syllogism.”83 In a similar vein, H.-J. Margull of the WCC-Dialogue unit spoke of “vulnerability” (“Verwundbarkeit”)84 as an important experiential aspect: Our own religious constructs start to appear “vulnerable” when we truly open ourselves in dialogue with religiously others. In the face of the other we will always experience points where aspects of our traditional mental maps start to crumble or even collapse; during deep communication new sources of insight can appear. The breakdown of long trotted paths, the collapsing of handy imageries, can be read as signs of an attainment of some deeper insight and knowledge – I know, this thought is not alien to Buddhist perspectives. And it is 80 Cf. his famous essay, “Comparative Religion: Whither – and Why?” (Smith 1959). 81 The Continuum books: Gross, Muck (1999) and (2003), are good examples for such colloquies. 82 Cf. Thomas (1987). 83 Smith (1972) p. 135. 84 Margull (1974). 28 not alien to Christian perspectives, too: I can relate to a new re-velation of the ‘other’ during deep communication, and what I have understood about my God so far can suddenly lead to surprising dis-closures and shine upon me from the true face of the other. Mahāyāna-Buddhists are cosmologically in a rather comfortable situation during inter-religious challenges: In using the Bodhisattva-concept, they can cope relatively well with impressive disclosures among religiously others, as we have seen in the example of the Dalai Lama and his idea of a Jesus-Bodhisattva. Christians are in a much more difficult situation here, since their source of truth is conceived as a once for all event in one person. But I believe that we Christians are on the right track – and actually following the example of Jesus – when we take M.M. Thomas’ advice and actually dare to “risk Christ for Christ’s sake”, so to say, during inter-religious encounters, since this would be our way of going, going, going beyond preconceived religio-theological propositions85 (though this should surely also not imply a culmination towards a fully going beyond). One thing is clear: The really exciting moment in inter-religious relations appears when the ‘other’ suddenly starts to appear in its, his and her “otherness” and suchness – ‘boundless open’, apart from the preconceived self-referential imagery. But as a matter of empirical facts, this is unfortunately a relatively rare case in interreligious hermeneutics, as we have seen – for Buddhists as well as for Christians. So we better meet the challenge and help to guide us mutually to such creatively deconstructive deeper understanding. References: Barker, G.A. (ed.) (2005), Jesus in the World’s Faiths, Maryknoll/NY: Orbis 2005. Berner, Ulrich (1982), Untersuchungen zur Verwendung des Synkretismus-Begriffs, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Brück, Michael von, Lai, Whalen (1997), Buddhismus und Christentum. Geschichte, Konfrontation, Dialog, München: C.H. Beck. Brück, Michael von, Lai, Whalen (2001), Christianity and Buddhism: A Multicultural History of Their Dialogue, Maryknoll: Orbis. 85 K. Cragg has used an analogous metaphor, i.e. that Christians ought to leave their “sandals” before the mosque, in order to engage in an open-minded discursive experience with Islamic faith; cf. Cragg (1959). 29 Cragg, Kenneth (1959), Sandals at the Mosque: Christian Presence and Islam, New York/Oxford: OUP. Freiberger, Oliver (2000), Der Orden in der Lehre. Zur religiösen Deutung des Saģgha im frühen Buddhismus. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Dalai Lama (2002), The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. (11996), London: Rider. Gross, R. M., Muck, T. C. (eds.) (1999), Buddhists Talk about Jesus – Christians Talk about the Buddha, New York/London: Continuum. Gross, R. M., Muck, T. C. (eds.) (2003), Christians Talk about Buddhist Meditation - Buddhists Talk about Christian Prayer, New York/London: Continuum.. Gross, Rita M. (2003), “Mediation and Prayer: A Comparative Inquiry”, in: R.M. Gross & T.M. Muck (eds.), Christians Talk about Buddhist Meditation – Buddhists Talk about Christian Prayer, New York / London: Continuum. Gruenschloß, Andreas (1999), Der eigene und der fremde Glaube. Studien zur Struktur interreligiöser Fremdwahrnehmung. (HUTh 37) Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Gruenschloß, Andreas (2000), „Zur Thematisierung des religiös Fremden im frühen Buddhismus (PāliKanon)”, in: D. Becker (ed.), Mit dem Fremden leben. Perspektiven einer Theologie der Konvivenz (FS Theo Sundermeier), Band 1: Religionen – Regionen. Erlangen 2000, pp. 81–92. Gruenschloß, Andreas (2004), “Buddhistische Jesus-Bilder. Zeitgenössische Beispiele einer buddhistischen Hermeneutik des Christentums”, in: U. Berner, Chr. Bochinger & K. Hock (eds.), Das Christentum aus der Sicht der Anderen. Religionswissenschaftliche und missionswissenschaftliche Beiträge (Beiheft der Zeitschrift für Mission, Nr. 3), Frankfurt am Main 2004, pp. 133–166. “Guidelines on Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies” (1979), WCC online-resource: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/77glines-e.html Hacker, Paul (1983), “Inklusivismus” in: G. Oberhammer (ed.), Inklusivismus – eine indische Denkform. Leiden 1983, 11-28. Hapatsch, H.A. (2007), Die Rezeption von Kirche und Christentum im deutschsprachigen Buddhismus, Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač. Khema, Ayya (1999), Das Größte ist die Liebe. Die Bergpredigt und das Hohelied der Liebe aus buddhistischer Sicht (11995), Uttenbühl: Jhana Verlag Khema, Ayya (2000), Nicht so viel denken, mehr lieben. Buddha und Jesus im Dialog (11995), München. Knitter, Paul F. (1991), “Beyond a Mono-religious Theological Education” in: B. Wheeler & E. Farey (eds.), Shifting Boundaries. Contextual Approaches to the Structure of Theological Education, Louisville/KY, pp. 151–180. Leong, Kenneth (1995), The Zen Teachings of Jesus, New York: Crossroad. Malalasekera, G.P. (1974), Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names, London: Routledge & Kegan. Margull, H.-J. (1974), “Verwundbarkeit – Bemerkungen zum Dialog”, in: Evangelische Theologie 34, 410–420. Nhat Hanh, Thich (1996), Living Buddha, Living Christ (11995), London: Rider. Nhat Hanh, Thich (1996b), Be Still and Know New York. Nhat Hanh, Thich (1999), Going Home. Jesus and Buddha as Brothers, New York. Raj, P. Solomon (1988), Auf Palmblatt geschrieben. 14 Holz- und Linolschnitte aus Indien. Wuppertal: Vereinigte Evangelische Mission Schmidt-Leukel, P. (ed.) (2001), Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus, St. Ottilien: EOS Schmidt-Leukel, Perry (2005), “Intimate Strangers: An Introduction”, in: idem. (ed.), Buddhism and Christianity in Dialogue. The Gerald Weisfeld Lectures 2004, London: SCM, pp. 1-22. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1979), Faith and Belief, Princeton: PUP. 30 Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1959), “Comparative Religion: Whither – and Why?” in: M. Eliade & J.M. Kitagawa (eds.), The History of Religions: Essays in Methodology, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 31–58. Smith, Wilfred Cantwell (1972), The Faith of Other Men (11963), New York/London: Harper & Row Tillich, Paul (1973-1980), Systematic Theology (3 vols), Chicago: University Chicago Press (several editions). Valignano, Alexandro (1944): Historia del principio y progresso de la Compana de Jesus en las Indias Orientales (1542-64), herausgegeben und erläutert von Josef Wicki S.J., Roma. Wadell, Norman (transl.) (1994), The Essential Teachings of Zen Master Hakuin (Sokkô-roku Kaienfusetsu), Boston: Shambhala. Zernickow, Klaus, “’Christliches Zen’ – eine vegetarische Fleischkost”, in: meditation – Zeitschrift für christliche Spiritualität und Lebensgestaltung 1999:1, pp. 28–31. 31