Recently the concept of “Interfaith Dialogue” has been
confronting me from several directions.
Actually, it might be more accurate to say “interfaith dialogues” as
there seem to be several concepts coming under this rubric. There seem to be a number of purposes for
engaging in interfaith dialogue: understanding, conversion, missionary
assertion of one’s religion, and so on. Most
commonly it seems to point toward building bridges of understanding between
faith communities.
I am neither an “expert” on interfaith dialogue and
engagement, nor a scholar nor an academic.
I don’t have a great deal of knowledge in this arena, and I do not have
access to scholarly and academic works, except those that are available to the
general public in libraries and online. So,
if you choose to engage in a discussion, I will be learning along with
you.
While I am not well versed in the topic of “interfaith
dialogue,” I am not unaware that not all “communities of faith” in a given
tradition – Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, for example – share the same reality, or
share the same vocabulary, or even share the same definition of words. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, released in mid-2001, by Oxford
University Press, there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into
a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. How do we even define a “faith
community?”
In Buddhism, we have Zen, and Tendai, Pure Land, and
Vipassana, and . . . well it’s a very long list. People immersed in, and/or adhering to a
particular school’s doctrines will probably not approach interfaith dialogue
from the same understandings. For
example, in Tendai Buddhism, the primary text is the Lotus Sutra, which teaches
that the Buddha is "a transcendent eternal being, preaching to myriad
arhats, gods, bodhisattvas, and other figures using all sorts of sermons,
lectures, imaginative parables, and miracles." (I find this statement on multiple websites. If anyone knows an original source for it,
would you be so kind as to post it in the comments?) In Theravāda Buddhism, the Buddha is in an
entirely separate category of being:
Buddha. The Buddha is neither
divine nor mortal; neither transcendent nor immanent. The Buddha is a being sui generis. A Buddha is . .
. well, just a Buddha.
The point to be made here is, that within a given faith
group or denomination, some terms such as Buddha, Nibbāna/Nirvāṇa,
Enlightenment, Kamma/Karma, Dhamma/Dharma, Dukkhā, Samādhi, and many, mnay
more, may be clearly and specifically defined, given a single meaning. But within the larger “religion” in which a
faith community is embedded, agreement may not be so apparent. Agreement may not even exist. And we may find local usage, local
conventions are at odds with the larger denomination. For example, from a Zen
perspective, “enlightenment” is something quite different that what is
understood in Theravāda sects. And when one goes “outside” the religion, such
as when a Christian or a Muslim tries to understand Buddhism, authentic “Buddhist”
understanding may be lost altogether. This
is true not only within Buddhism, but in other religions as well. Such terms such as "soul" and
"spirit," “Christian” and “Muslim,” “sin” and “salvation” and “love”
and “compassion” may be clearly and specifically defined, given a single
meaning, in some groups, but in other, closely related groups, and in the
larger culture, or on the global stage, these words and others become rather
goopy, having from 2 to a dozen or more meanings.
Unfortunately, it is often the case that people do not have
an awareness of this nature of language, and quite naturally assume that the
meaning that they have been taught is universally accepted, that the understanding
they hold is absolutely correct and appropriate. It is often the case that people operate with
the assumption that we all share the same concepts, referenced by the same words. Such differences in meaning and understanding
often result in misunderstandings.
In seeking understanding in any interfaith dialogue, it would
seem therefore necessary to identify precisely the community of faith to which
one belongs. It would seem to be
necessary to be mindful of language, and communication.
A further note on the topic of “language” in interfaith
dialogue. As I have encountered
interfaith dialogues, the language of the interlocutors has, for the most part,
employed terms, concepts and categories of thought that are firmly rooted in
Western Christian paradigms. I’m not
sure that imposing such conventions is really helpful in “building bridges of
understanding.” In fact, it may hinder
the process. Coming from a Buddhist
perspective, using terms such as God, sin, salvation, etc. to describe Buddhist
thought is inaccurate, and for some – Buddhist and Christian alike – is likely
to be confusing. And may impede
interfaith dialogue.
That said, I think there are a multitude of “topics” around
which interfaith dialogue could take place, and I welcome your comments. Following are some of those topics. This list is not exhaustive, merely a
starting point. Let’s see where things
go, and please feel free to contribute different topics in your comments.
1.
Cosmology & Cosmogony: the
origin and general structure of the universe understood philosophically and/or
physically. Issue of “time” and the end
of time/eternality of time/artificiality of time/cycles of time.
2.
Deities/Pantheon: Is there one god, multiple gods, or is “god”
and empty concept? If a god or gods
exist, what is their nature? What is
their relationship with humans? With
nature?
3.
The Human Condition:
a.
what it means to be “human:”
soul, spirit, body, mind, brain, etc.
What a person is made of.
b.
problem(s) in / with the human condition
c.
solution to the problem(s) in / with the human condition; efficacy?
4. Soteriology/Soteriological goal: religious doctrines concerned with
salvation; the desired goal for participants in any given religion (eg.
‘heaven,’ ‘nirvana,’ ‘moksa,’ etc.)
5.
Moral Code/Moral Reasoning: what
is the source of the moral code? What is
prescribed & proscribed? Are there
moral precepts to guide one in choosing well?
When it comes to choosing well, what does your faith say about the role
of patience and wisdom in your faith community?
a) descriptive ethics
b) normative ethics
6.
Source of Religious “Authority:”
a.
texts
b.
religious class
c.
the individual
7. Religious Observance: How do people of a particular faith tradition
gather to worship, and what kinds of special religious things happen on special
religious days?
a.
sacred space
b.
sacred activity
c.
sacred objects/ iconography - conventionally agreed-upon ways of
presenting deities, persons, or ideas visually
8. Orthopraxy/Orthodoxy vs. Heteropraxy/Heterodoxy: issues of
authenticity/legitimacy of practice/doctrine.
And there are specific issues of “doctrinal practice,” that
is how one “does” one’s religion. We
might characterize this as “living one’s theology” [more on the term “theology”
later]. As we live our lives, our
mundane, day-to-day existence, there are
a multitude of important issues that can, and probably should, be addressed
from a religious perspective. For example:
Stewardship: concern
about the preservation/conservation/exploitation/degradation of the environment;
Gender and Sexuality:
how do we deal with the growing understanding that women are equivalent to men
in every aspect of life, in every endeavor? How do we deal with the growing understanding
of biological diversity and genetic expression? What is our practice – gender bias,
gender neutrality, gender equity – with respect to access to
resources and opportunities? Does our
doctrine support such access regardless of gender? Or does our doctrine assert social, economic,
political and religious stratification along gender lines?
War and Violence:
can either ever be justified? What is
taught regarding respect for life?
Goodwill/Inclusion:
welcoming the stranger and attending to the needs of others: the hungry, the
homeless, the poor, the sick, or the imprisoned? what boundaries are important and necessary
to protect the integrity one’s goodwill gestures?
Social/Political
Organization:
a) what does the doctrine say about
how society is or should be structured?? Questions of marriage. Question of “family” What is the position on social stratification
- the existence of different hierarchic levels in a society; a class or
prestige-based social structure?
b) what does the doctrine say about
how society is or should be governed?
Autocracy? Meritocracy? Democracy?
Olgarchy? Anarchy? Plutocracy?
Vocation/Lifestyle:
engagement/interaction with others throughout your various jobs, school involvement,
service activity, and club/organization memberships?
Management of
Resources/Finances: In a world that encourages the consumer mentality of
craving and buying more “stuff,” what does the doctrine say about acquisition
of things, and about the handling and management of money? What does doctrine advise regarding support of
the faith community? Regarding
generosity with your time, your talents and skills?
It is my hope that over time we can explore some of these
topics in blog posts.
