Buddhistdoor View: Interfaith Is Inherently Worth It

FEATURES

Buddhistdoor View: Interfaith Is Inherently Worth It

By Buddhistdoor Global
August 3, 2024

Buddhists and Christians join hands during a Catholic Mass in Ávila, Spain. Photo by Rebecca Wong

The “3rd World Encounter Teresian Mysticism and Interreligious Dialogue” in the picturesque medieval Castellan city of Ávila ran from 25–28 July at the International Teresian-Sanjuanist Center (CITeS). It ended with a good-spirited bond of friendship and renewed commitments for further interactions between the Order of Discalced Carmelites and the University of Hong Kong’s Centre of Buddhist Studies (HKU CBS). Admittedly, there is no interfaith specialist at CBS. There is an entire subdiscipline of the theology of religions and comparative theology that has long been dominated by Christian or Western names such as Francis Clooney SJ, Diana L. Eck, and many more. “The theology of religions” does not mean the theology of a specific religion, but rather denotes exploring the theological meaning of the existence of so many.

An attempt to develop some kind of project of “Buddhist theology” was pioneered in the early 2000s by José Ignacio Cabezón, with detractors in Buddhist circles seemingly attached to the “form” of the word “theology” rather than its extremely relevant meaning—articulating faith for the needs of our time. It would seem helpful to attempt a return to reflecting on Buddhism’s place in a world of other Dharmic religions and filled with Abrahamic expressions.

The great challenge of conferences like these is establishing not only mutual goodwill—conversation over conversion—which everybody wants. It is easy and desirable to be friends. But it is intellectually, theologically, and sometimes emotionally challenging to establish lasting collaboration where common rubrics of encountering the truth or the ultimate must be pursued for the partnership to last. Metaphysics is notoriously difficult to build on, while the very orientation of Christianity as a theistic faith and Buddhism as a non-theistic tradition presents a fascinating if challenging starting point that has, fortunately, not put off Catholics from organizing interfaith symposiums in the past.

Ethics of love and self-giving, the defeat of war and violence by peace, and mutually resonant iconography and symbolism are some of the stronger foundations of interfaith dialogue. Comparative theology, which could be said to be a more specific sub-discipline of the theology of religions, aims to get into the meat of texts, running one text from two given traditions alongside each other in an attempt to glean meaning from not only possible common spiritual truths, but also from the very experience of comparing texts. This in itself makes interfaith encounters educational and therefore a worthwhile activity on the path to self-understanding and understanding others.

What else does this mean, practically? For one, it would seem important that Buddhists find some way to host our Carmelite friends in Hong Kong, a city with a heartbeat very different to Ávila’s: an Asian cosmopolitan enclave with a skyline defined by modernity, as opposed to Ávila’s medieval walls built between the 11th and 14th centuries. Perhaps there will be some fusion of academic traditions, one that CBS could even lead in Asia. The Asia-Pacific region is becoming the economic epicenter of the world, and an increasingly important geopolitical region touching all continents. But its historically most international and cosmopolitan religion, Buddhism, has had little opportunity to play host to Christians, Jews, and Muslims as interfaith conveners. Buddhists need to be given—and seize—opportunities to plan timetables, balance speakers, and most importantly, go beyond goodwill.

Right now, many interfaith discussions can seem somewhat superficial, a fancy congregation to simply agree to disagree. This has been the case, especially in recent years, due to renewed caution around falling into the trap of a “tyrannical perennialism” where the genuine attempt to seek common ground ends up painting all systems as the same. This is perfectly understandable. But why have perennial ideas remained so attractive in the first place? And why do all interfaith encounters end up in some manner of discourse that echoes perennialism, such as the “shared ground” of experience and whether each other’s “ultimate” are the same?

Perhaps, at heart, scholars and practitioners of all religions subconsciously agree that no matter how heartwarming or intellectually edifying interfaith activity is, some kind of similarity, whatever it may be, remains the elusive yet most core goal that completes the calling of comparative theology. This is like the holy grail of interfaith activity, but simultaneously the primary motivator for building such academic and inter-religious friendships.

Simply admitting unresolvable differences will not be fuel enough for further dialogue and collaboration. In partnerships and marriages, that would be grounds for separation and divorce. The “holy grail” of common experience and the encounter between texts as living entities of worship and insight should be our ambition. We should aim high and shoot for the stars. There has never been a better opportunity since 2017, the very first CITeS conference with CBS, to develop such a roadmap for Buddhist engagement with other faiths.