　 Where Beyond Dialog

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Where Beyond Dialog?

Co-sponsored by The Center for Process Studies and the Claremont School of Theology

Whitehead’s Philosophy and Genuine Religious Pluralism

March 27-31, 2003

John S. Yokota

Kyoto Women’s University

Faculty for the Study of Contemporary Society

Introductory Remarks:

The context of the Buddhist-Christian dialog is the foundation for a critical self- understanding of Buddhist doctrines and way of life. Moreover, to dialog with other religious as well as non-religious ways of knowing and thinking about our world is imperative for a fuller and truer vision of reality. Only in this context of dialog with traditions of disparate views of our world can there be real and full understanding of this world we live in. Nevertheless, while the gains, personally, from such an opening up to these other traditions have been central to the growth in my thinking and appreciation of my Shin Buddhist tradition, an inertia has set in that has caused me to question whether there is really anything beyond dialog. This is a personal confession as well as an opinion gleaned from participation in interreligious dialog groups most recently centered in Japan. The flush of adventure and the anticipation of potentially new horizons opening up soon turned into a constant viewing of late night re-runs.

This personal journey to and through dialog has fortunately taken me far from an unrecognized, parochial and absolutistic acceptance of my Shin Buddhist tradition. Admittedly, how far it has is a question that needs to be constantly pondered. This transformation has come about less by design than by fortunate or malicious happenstance. I simply do not know which. This ambivalent feeling toward the turn of events that has determined my personal and academic preoccupations derives from the fact, again, that I find myself at an impasse in personally developing my understanding and articulation of my tradition as well as judging the same seeming impasse in others joined in interreligious dialog. On a personal note, I simply keep on repeating myself. Have I gone too far, too quickly and perhaps too superficially to proclaim, ‘Amida as the Christ’? Do I need to go deeper into the reality of Christianity to see more distinctly a new and fuller reality of Buddhism? Do I need to go deeper into the reality of Buddhism to see more distinctly a new and fuller reality of Buddhism? Obviously, in either case, the answer is a constant yes. There is no end to this task. Where, indeed, are we headed?

The basic religious assumption I hold is reflected, surprisingly or perhaps not, in my one purely Buddhist Studies publication which summarized my specific concentration in Buddhist Studies---the Mahayana Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (or preferably, two-fold reality) with special emphasis on its Chinese Sunyavada development. (CDTT; CJC1) It reflects a period of study prior to any real knowledge of Christian theology. Again, this understanding of the Buddhist two truths doctrine, concretely and self-consciously, is the basic intuition that guides my studies in Buddhist Studies, Christian theology and interreligious dialog. The usual understanding of the two truths doctrine has a basic similarity to the two realms doctrine of Christianity. It can and has been used or abused to condone the socio-political status quo. The understanding of what I prefer to call the two-fold reality is that reality is an ever active coming forth out of itself to embody and reveal itself to us. Thus, there is reality-unto itself and reality going forth and actualizing itself in our everyday life. The religious ultimate finally is this active, primordially self-actualizing reality. It is reality itself or reality as it is and reality-for-us, reality coming forth to us and for us. The soteriological meaning and intent is explicit.

Again, this is not the orthodox understanding of the doctrine. Admittedly, its active soteriological emphasis may be questioned by more mainline Buddhist Studies experts. Indeed, the only major Buddhist Studies scholar who explicitly understood the two-truths doctrine in such a manner was Yoshifumi Ueda who directly influenced my understanding. His argument came from the simple paradox of the usual definition of the two truths declared to be ultimate truth and provisional or worldly truth with the explicit understanding that the latter was ultimately false. It made no sense, then, to talk of the two truths when one was not the truth. The basis of his understanding was Yogacara-vijnaptimatra (‘School of yogic practice toward consiousness-only’) not Madhyamika and reflects the transforming, soteriological aspect of the Yogacara’s distinctive doctrine of the three natures of existence and its emphasis on compassion. Moreover, Ueda was a Shin Buddhist scholar as well and his Budhist thought can be described as Mahayanized Shin Buddhism or a Shin Buddhist Mahayana. Cobb notes Ueda’s claim that Shinran’s thought is the culmination of the Mahayana spirit or quest for universality in its emphasis on salvation for all. (BD, p. 123)

The first part of this paper will restate and summarize earlier work in Buddhist-Christian dialog and the road taken to accepting and finally seeing the necessity for Amida as the Christ. This first section also raises a number of questions or problems involved with seeing Amida as the Christ. The second part of this paper will look into certain specific questions centering on the character of the process God and how they can and should be incorporated in the conceptualization of Amida Buddha and Dharma-kaya, the reality body. This discussion of God will lead to a new synthesis, a new development, in my heretofore work in the Christian-Buddhist dialog.

Amida as the Christ

The Challenge of Beyond Dialogue

It is, of course, with Cobb’s radical challenge of mutual transformation to both his own Protestant Christian tradition and my Shin Buddhist tradition that the issue of interreligious dialog attempts to fathom the core issues of one’s own religiosity and the rationale for interreligious dialog. (BD, 97-143) This is no simple matter. It forces one to see the other in all its otherness as well as similarity. Perhaps more importantly, it forces one to see one’s own tradition in a new light as a living tradition with a spiritual and traditional core but, nevertheless, always changing, growing and ideally open to radical self-transformation. To keep their vitality and power to convince, religious traditions must always be so constituted. Nevertheless, this is anything but an easy or simple task.

To open up truly to the other is obviously difficult even if one is enthusiastic about such an ideal. While in many ways intriqued and stimulated by Cobb’s proposals, it was difficult to actualize them in my own thinking and articulation of my tradition. I could not accept the notion of Jesus as being the central historical actualization of the compassion of the Vow of Amida Buddha and thus accept Amida as the Christ. Indeed, the imperative that the compassion of Amida Buddha needed a foundation upon historical actualization was not fully recognized. Nevertheless, the problem of the myth of Dharmakara Bodhisattva/Amida Buddha as the foundation of our tradition had been a source of intellectual discomfort for me for some time. Cobb’s explicit declaration of the problem myth therefore hit an intellectual sore spot. I had dealt with this problem, as many Christians did and do, in an existentialist manner of collapsing time in the moment of faith. I remember giving Cobb a copy of the translation of an influential essay by the Kyoto School philosopher Keiji Nishitani, “The Problem of Time in Shinran” (Ebnsxi/1). His courteous but ultimately dismissive remarks about this classic interpretive exposition of Shinran’s faith-centered, existential notion of time by this student of Nishida and Heideggar baffled me at the time.

The Problem of History

The preoccupation with history did not resonate with my religious way of thinking. I had come upon a Christian presumption that did not make sense to my Buddhist mentality. I tell an anecdote to my students in inter-religious/cultural studies courses to illustrate the great difference between our traditions. Enthusiastically returning from Japan to the States to engage in the Shin Buddhist ministry and the study of Christian theology, I looked forward to work again in my native language. I was stunned when I discovered I did not understand the meaning or the premises of the lectures and discussion. I believe that this reverse culture shock lasted for a good two years. Our premises are that different. The historical and ethical preoccupation of Christianity was something that seemed to be dangerously superfluous to the real religious agenda that Buddhism and Shin Buddhism tried to implement: salvation in and through enlightenment and compassion.

The Problem of Myth

Nevertheless, it was the problem of the myth of Dharmakara Bodhisattva becoming Amida Buddha and its central authenticating role in our tradition that made me open to a resolution of the problem of having one’s tradition based solely on a myth. It is to this story that we Shin Buddhists look to see the activity of compassion actualized. The power this myth still holds for many devout believers cannot be denied. It has an emotionally persuasive power that I can understand though not finally accept. The problem of myth should be an issue in the western cultures to which Shin Buddhism has been introduced as well as the present day Enlightenment influenced culture of Japan, however. Nevertheless, I have encountered no expression of uneasiness about the myth. The times I have broached the subject, there is a palpable horror on the part of clergy both in Japanese and American temples as well as confusion on the part of the laypeople. The laypeople are not aware of the historical-critical problems involved in the Dharmakara/Amida account in the professed statements of Sakyamuni and that is perhaps part of the problem. The problem of myth and inaccurate historical-critical statements is not a problem, because it is not talked about.

Myth is a very basic and important way by which primordial, religious reality is revealed and through which religious reality is apprehended. This is not being denied. It has been and will always be a fundamental way of expressing and revealing one’s deepest feelings in poetic, primordial images.

For a variety of reasons, perhaps, there is a low level of discomfort with this central position of myth within our tradition. One rationale for the basis of our belief in the compassionate activity of Amida Buddha may be as good as any other. Belief in the transcendant reality of the vows of Amida Buddha may need no more than the story of Dharmakara/Amida Buddha. In popular post-modern culture, the power of myth has been duly re-recognized. Again, I do not simply dismiss this attitude. However, a story is still just a story and, I, personally, have never been convinced by the myth. I still do not see how the reality of Amida Buddha and Amida Buddha’s compassion are authenticated by the story.

Accepting the Problem of History

The emphasis on a historical act or acts that actualize and express the compassionate intent of Amida Buddha while initially not deemed essential to an expression of the authenticity of Amida Buddha’s compassion slowly came to be seen by me as a needed concrete remedy to the supraworldly, suprahistorical quality of Shin Buddhist reality and this blind spot in Shin Buddhist Studies. Upon reflection, the one undeniable historical act of actualizing compassion in the Buddhist tradition is Sakyamuni Buddha rising from the seat of his own enlightenment to go forth and proclaim the content of this Enlightenment experience to others (PW). I took half of the challenge put forward by Cobb. I could not enter the full adventure that Cobb proposed with ‘Amida as the Christ’.

Nevertheless, this hesitant, uncertain participation in the adventure did yield an important and interesting insight into Shinran’s thinking on and articulation of Amida’s reality. While a truism, reading a familiar passage of scripture from a new perspective yields new interpretations and emphases. Shinran does indeed have a clear and pronounced concern about the historical transmission of the teaching and explication of the compassionate activity of Amida Buddha. He places great emphasis on specific articulations of Amida’s compassionate reality by a select line of Pure Land ‘Fathers’ from India (Sakyamuni, Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu), China (T’an Luan, Tao-ch’o, Shan-tao), and Japan (Genshin, Honen). Omitting Sakyamuni, these are the seven patriarchs of the Shin Buddhist tradition. Admittedly, this follows a favored precedent of authenticating one’s new school of Buddhism by claiming a lineage going back to Sakyamuni. In Shinran’s Shoshin Nembutsuge (Hymn of True Shinjin and the Nembutsu, the ending verse section of the second chapter of Ken Jodo Shinjitsu Kyo Gyo Sho Monrui, The True Teaching, Practice and Realization of the Pure Land Way, CWS pp. 69-74), Jodo Wasan (Hymns of the Pure Land) and Koso Wasan (The Hymns of the Pure Land Masters) (CWS pp.319-393), Shinran, in accessible and popular form, cites various declarations detailing the compassion of Amida Buddha by these Pure Land Buddhist masters including Sakyamuni. It is apparently very important for Shinran to make clear the historical expression of this spiritual truth. While the spiritual, individual experience is important if not central to the traditional stream of the tradition, there is this obvious need for and importance of articulating concrete expressions of this truth/reality by those in the tradition. These historical expressions make the compassionate reality and activity of Amida Buddha real. It may be because of their relative accessibility that the above works are used by the later tradition for liturgical purposes. Again, there is this historical emphasis in Shinran’s thought. It is important for Shinran to express examples or incidents within the tradition in which there is expression and actualization of the reality and efficacy of Amida Buddha’s compassionate activity. There is a sense in which the reality of Amida Buddha is concretized and made effectively real through the citation of the historical articulations or actualizations of the Amida story in the tradition.

There are, obviously, many historical-critical problems in the assumptions upon which Shinran cites the historical validity of Amida Buddha given by the above teachers. One, Sakyamuni Buddha, again, did not talk about Amida Buddha, nor in all probability did the other Indian masters, Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu. The notion of Amida Buddha is in all probability the the outcome of Buddhism being influenced by a central Asian Zoroastrian form of faith in a figure or divinity symbolized by light. Thus, in many ways, before ‘Amida as the Christ’, there was ‘Amida as the Buddha’. This point will be discussed at more length in the last section. Here, the point is that Sakyamuni did not preach the Pure Land Sutras or talk about Amida Buddha and the establishment of the Western Pure Land. It can be said and has been said by those responding to the critical-historical criticism of the alledged authorship of the Pure Land Sutras to Sakyamuni Buddha, that if not Sakyamuni Buddha, a Buddha, an enlightened one, did talk of Dharmakara’s practice and its fulfillment and thus the compassion of Amida Buddha. While that may be one way to declare the historicity of the Amida myth, it is far from satisfactory because of its vague generality.

I looked at the activity of Sakyamuni itself, as indicated above, instead. The message of Sakyamuni Buddha while impossible to determine with absolute certainty can be confidently summarized to encompass an analysis of our present spiritual and physical situation and the practical means to transcend their disabling limitations through certain spiritual practices centering primarily on meditational and ethical discipline. In short, while the ultimately soteriological orientation of the discussion is prominent, it is a salvation that is won, as it were, by the individual practitioner’s efforts. There is no indication of a compassionate activity working toward the salvation of believers. Rather, a straight forward message of spiritual discipline leading to spiritual emancipation was enunciated. That this enlightenment experience is anything but simple and easy to realize may not be necessary to state but should be emphasized.

While, admittedly, a strained expansion of the facts, I see not the enlightenment experience itself but rather the decision to go forth from the seat of enlightenment to teach and influence others toward their own enlightenment to be the primordial act of the entire Buddhist tradition. Without this act there is no Buddhist tradition. It is this act, not the enlightenment experience itself nor the specific teachings, that can be looked at as the activity of enlightenment, the compassionate coming forth of the enlightened one. Moreover, it is this act that is the compassion of Amida Buddha, the compassion of the activity of enlightenment, in its most concrete and understandable form. Reflection on my tradition through the catalyst of Cobb’s challenge thus had me recognize the inherent importance of the articulation of the reality of compassion and enlightenment in history and the fact that for Shinran himself this articulation was equally important. While the historical presumptions of Shinran were faulty in the case of Sakyamuni, the supposed speaker of the tale of Amida, this reworking in terms of what I think is a more credible historical narrative pointing to the primordial act in our tradition can be seen therefore as the historical articulation of the basically compassionate nature of Buddhist reality. Therefore, I did not see the need to incorporate Jesus as the explicit actualization of love/compassion in this world and thus declare Amida as the Christ.

The Issue of Historical-Critical Consciousness and Accuracy

A point should perhaps be made which has been in the back of my mind for some time but in the stimili involved in working on this review and extension of my thinking on the Buddhist-Christian dialog concretized itself. While I understand Cobb’s claim that Jesus in and through his ministry talked of the loving grace of God, there is still the historical-critical problem of ascertaining the actual message of Jesus. While clearly beyond my expertise, the findings of New Testament scholarship, especially radical elaborations, do seem to reflect a deep uncertainty about the actual message of Jesus. While the opinions of the Jesus Seminar may be too drastic a negation of the validity of the Gospel accounts, there is, nonetheless, a real question about how much one can know the authentic and accurate message of Jesus. In short, the existence and authenticity of ‘Q’ or the so-called source tradition of Jesus’ teachings itself is being questioned. I realize the fluid nature of biblical studies and the swings in opinion on the veracity of the sayings of Jesus. Yet, how much is really certain about the teachings of Jesus? In no way do I infer that the unequivocal negation of Sakyamuni’s link with the Pure Land sutras and Jesus’ with the Gospel accounts is any way similar. I just want to point out the relative uncertainty of all declarations of a core teaching of Jesus. In a parallel fashion, the critique of Pauline scholarship by K. Stendahl questioning whether there really was an explicit message of grace enunciated or even implied by Paul may be radical but is nevertheless the opinion of a respected New Testament scholar. Stendhahl’s point is that the later tradition, principally Augustine and Luther, had much to do with seeing Paul’s rather orthodox Jewish statements in a completely different light. The problem of historical-critical studies and their conclusions and methodology is a problem for us all. Again, it is important to have historical foundations for one’s central beliefs. Nevertheless, how far we can be certain we have an undeniable historical foundation is the question constantly to be pondered.

The above in no way denies the importance of the foundation of historical events. Rather its unquestioned certainty is never fully possible in terms of our formative religious events. Moreover, while I would personally like to say that this difference in attitude toward history between Buddhism and Christianity is a matter of degree and not kind, it is, unfortuately, a difference in kind. The consciousness or lack, thereof, for a need of historical anchoring of these formative events in our tradition is really not a problem, and of course, that is the problem. There is a ‘happy’ lack of concern for historical foundations in the Shin Buddhist tradition of scholarship.

One way to confront this problem of questionable historical foundation is to look at the larger context of one’s own tradition and not just the narrow range afforded by it. Here, interpretation of the tradition and its context is unavoidable and should therefore be clearly acknowledged. While tainted with subjectivity, I will offer one exploration of our larger traditional context. For my tradition, I think it is imperative to look at Shin Buddhism in the context of the wider perspective of so-called general Buddhism as well as other Indian and central Asian religious traditions in terms not only of theology or doctrine but concrete, historical and archeological data. In the same way, I believe, it is important to look at Christianity in the context of the religious traditions of the people of the Book. Judaism and the Jewish Bible as well as Islam and the Koranic tradition must be special dialog partners. I have been profoundly influenced by Abraham Heschel’s notion of the ‘God of Pathos’ (P) in trying to understand the Abrahamic tradition’s notion of God and have therefore tried to see the biblical tradition as a whole where the compassion or love of God in soteriological as well as in a personal sense is central to the whole tradition of the people of the Book. My knowledge of Islam is too scant to illustrate a parallel illustration in that tradition, though I am sure it exists. The discussion of the perspective of the larger tradition in the case both of Christianity and Buddhism will be discussed in the last section.(for the last sectionThe openness of the larger general Buddhist perspective The Jewish position as illustrated by Heschel and the God of Pathos)

From Sakyamuni to Jesus

I had come to see the importance of centering on the activity of Sakyamuni Buddha to anchor the myth of Amida Buddha onto a historical foundation. From my fellow Buddhists, however, I met with little acknowledgement of the importance of a historical foundation. The existential, faith-moment transcendence of the socio-historical realm is the basic stance of Japanese sectarian Buddhists be they Pure Land, Zen or Lotus Sutra related believer/practitioners. Perhaps because of the lack of consciousness of the importance of the socio-historical context in relation to the symbolic meaning of myth, centering on Sakyamuni’s act of going forth to expound the insights of enlightenment was never really confronted by my fellow Shin Buddhists. When acknowledged, the problem of actualization in history was, as usual, deflated in the individual, personal awakening to the reality of Dharmakara. (BCS, 213) I finally made the transition to seeing Amida as the Christ (CJC3 and TC, 205-6 see also 155-7) without really having any real stimili, positive or negative, from my fellow practitioners of the nembutsu. While half serious, this lack of response may be one reason why I took the plunge and asserted Amida as the Christ, just to shock my fellow believers.

In fact, why exactly I made the decision to commit myself to Amida as the Christ was unclear in my memory. Re-reading my earlier enunciations of Amida as the Christ, I saw that it was not so much that I asserted Amida as the Christ as that elements of the reality of Christ were what I felt were needed to ‘improve’ or to make ‘more complete’ the articulation of the reality of Amida Buddha. In my dialog with process theologians, their image of Christ with its similarities and differences became vital elements for improving the image of Amida Buddha. This recognition of the need, through dialog, to augment and develop one’s vision of reality, I believe, was the agenda set forth by Cobb. Thus, in mature or real interreligious dialog, one sees the need creatively to adopt elements of the dialog partner’s vision and enunciation of reality to complement and develop of one’s own understanding and elaboration of one’s own vision of this saving power to. A point should be made. It was and still is a personal, inner traditional task of trying to understand and conceptualize Amida Buddha that prompted me to declare Amida as the Christ. While admittedly largely a process hemeneutic guided by my basic image of reality as ever coming out of itself to reveal itself, I have tried to be faithful to traditional sources of general Buddhist and Shin Buddhist (fundamentally Shinran’s) writings. I have therefore always tended to look for elements in the tradition that supported this soteriologically active vision of reality.

Thus, the primary rationale for announcing Amida as the Christ was and is the desire to think about and thereby refine and if need be redefine the conceptuality of Amida Buddha. It is primarily an inner Shin Buddhist endeavor, not an endeavor of interreligious dialog. The explicit message or motive behind Cobb’s challenge to Shin Buddhists was to think about Amida Buddha and see whether our doctrinal message was coherent. If not, then we must re-think the doctrinal message by listening to the popular theology of common practice and belief and readjust the doctrine to this practice and belief so they will not be mutually negating. This was and is the task of Christian process theology and should obviously be the task of a Shin Buddhist process theology. In short, to announce Amida as the Christ was and is for me primarily the means for a development of a more tenable doctrine of Amida Buddha and the elaborations of a thus re-defined Shin Buddhist world view. The full and explicitly radical announcement of a declaration of Amida as the Christ and the incorporation of Jesus of Nazareth into the Shin Buddhist tradition was in many ways ignored in acknowledgement.

What then is the full import of declaring Amida as the Christ? It means that in the person and mission of Jesus of Nazareth we find the pivotal incarnation into history of the message and reality of salvation through a saving, other power. We Shin Buddhists can and more importantly should see in the person Jesus of Nazareth the central historical actualization of this saving, other power. In short, for Shin Buddhists, the reality of Amida Buddha is fully actualized in the person Jesus, who through word and deed actualized the power of the Primal Vow of Amida Buddha. The radical move to Amida as the Christ in many ways glibly made in order to help me rearticulate the reality of Amida Buddha carries this heavy baggage that must be recognized and willingly borne. In working on a Shin Buddhist social ethics, a re-thinking of the doctrines of Amida Buddha and the Pure Land, and developing a Buddhistic awareness of socio-historical influences on all social, including religious, phenomena, I, in fact, took the fruits of declaring Amida as the Christ without bearing the consequent religious implications of receiving Jesus-who-is-the-Christ into our tradition.

What, then, are the consequences of receivng Jesus, who is the Christ, the incarnate manifestation of the Christian God into our tradition? On a very superficial level, the Gospel accounts and the Pauline interpretation of the person of the Christ would have to become part of the sastra or commentative tradition in this transformed Shin Buddhism. We Shin Buddhists would include the ‘writers’ of the Gospels and Paul as new Pure Land Patriarchs along side T’an Luan, Shan-tao and Honen. Is this a realistic possibility? I do not know, though I know that this will not come about any time soon. Is it desirable? Again, I do not know, but it would seem that this kind of opening up of our traditions will at least have an effect of creating a viable range of religious choices and world views that should ideally and hopefully have the effect of curbing the crass secularity that bedevils our contemporary scene as well as curbing the religious sectarian fanaticism that also plagues our contemporary world.

These are peripheral issues that nevertheless indicate concrete actualization of the activity of making Amida the Christ. What, then, is the meaning of including Jesus and seeing Amida as the Christ?

The Implications of Accepting Amida as the Christ

To see and accept Amida Buddha as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus who is the Christ, the Son of God, the incarnation of the Word, God as a specific human being who expressed through his existence, words, acts, death and resurrection the saving grace of God as well as God’s stern and radical demand is to radically change the reality and conceptuality of Amida Buddha. In recognition of this radical change, I half- consciously (why one does things usually becomes clear in hindsight) embarked on a two track exercise in thinking about Shin Buddhism and the conceptuality of Amida Buddha. One preoccupation was the development of a Shin Buddhist social ethics closely related to a revised doctrine of Amida Buddha. The other preoccupation was the development of the doctrine of Amida Buddha where process modes of thought soon became central to the expression of the doctrine. (PS)

The rationale for developing a Shin Buddhist social ethics was two-fold. Work on the doctrine of the two-fold reality made me sensitive to the problem of social ethics. Thus, the motive was and is an inner Buddhist one. It is simply imperative to think about a Buddhist social ethics since we are all beings in a world. I developed the discussion of social ethics from an inner Buddhist perspective working from a Buddhist world view. However, it was the vision of Jesus as the Christ and the Judeo-Christian God that grew out of my work in Christian thought that was the imperative that guided the development of a Buddhist/Shin Buddhist social ethics. Amida as the Christ means that the consequent image of Amida Buddha must have an ethical core or at least a recognition of the moral imperative that the image of Christ includes.

Moreover, if Amida as the Christ is to be fully accepted with the implications of process theology, the merely soteriological emphasis of Amida Buddha must be expanded to include a vision of Amida Buddha with creative, transformative, uncoercive powers as well as the ability to take in the effects of these activities. It is a creating and persuasive power that has concern for the whole of the creative process and of all actual existent forms. This is probably the most disturbingly difficult change in the vision of Amida Buddha. The psychological barriers to transforming this solely saving power that is Amida Buddha to a more cosmic, creative power is a difficult line to cross. It is this point that on the one hand, must be done yet on the other hand is the most difficult emotionally as well as theoretically to accomplish. I have done such work (PS;TC, pp. ) and though it was, I believe, carefully thought out, I still have hesitation about the results. The line crossed with making a solely soteriological figure that grasps the faithful to bring them into the enlightenment of the western land of bliss never to let them go into a figure of creative transformative power is a very critical and problematic line. Granted, this creative transformative power is not an absolute power of creatio ex nihilo yet God as Creator is being asserted. Can this description apply to Amida Buddha? The issue is in many ways a simple one, the one distinctive difference between the Christian God that is all too similar to Amida Buddha is that our Amida Buddha is not a creator God. Can or should this taboo be broken and the distinction between our two religious ultimates be so blurred? What do we have left of our tradition after this Christianized Amida Buddha?

The God of Process Theology and Amida Buddha

The distinction of the primordial and consequent natures of God in process thought and its application to the conceptuality of Amida Buddha expresses both the clear benefit as well as difficulty with conceptualizing Amida Buddha as in the process conceptuality of God. For the conceptuality of the Christian God, this distinction is a successful way to reconceptualize the active participation of God in the creative process (primordial nature of God). It is also a valuable and needed way to conceptualize an ideal not found in the classical discussion of God but practiced and believed in the living faith of the tradition. The responsive, being affected and growing aspect of this God of love is expressed through the consequent nature of God. It is with the consequent nature of God that the reality of Amida Buddha can also be coherently conceptualized. More importantly, it can be conceptualized with an integrally important and inherent yet never explicitly declared quality presented and clarified. It is with the primordial nature of God that certain problems come to the fore. The consequent nature of God conceptualizes and enunciates certain assertions about God that are the consequence of holding God to be loving. In a similar fashion, the conceptuality of the consequent nature of God can help conceptualize and enunciate certain assertions about Amida Buddha’s compassionate character. The sometimes stoic and apathetic notions of the enlightened state that are pronounced by the tradition must be ended and the philosophic elaboration of feeling the feelings of others that is the consequent nature of God must become a vital and clearly expressed aspect of Amida Buddha, indeed of enlightened state itself. I have therefore developed this notion of the consequent nature of God with the aid of Heschel’s discussion of ‘the God of pathos’ in an elaboration of the compassionate nature of Amida Buddha. (TC, pp. 74-83; PS, pp. 92- 93) Again, the application of this process conceptuality of the consequent nature of God is essential to expressing and comprehending the implications and workings of the compassionate Amida Buddha.

It is interesting that while I discuss and develop the applicability of the primordial nature of God through the subjective aims and persuasive power of God to the conceptuality of Amida Buddha in the PS article (PS, pp. 94-95), I do not even hint of this conceptuality in the later, expanded discussion of Amida Buddha (TC). Again, the active side of Amida Buddha is the soteriological activity of a subject compassionately ‘grasping never to let go’. Amida Buddha has no sense of luring form or thingness upon reality. Amida Buddha is simply not thought of in any way as a creating activity. It is this problem with the use of the primordial nature of God that hinders a total identity of Amida as the Christ. Can and should we think of Amida Buddha as having powers of creation.

In an interesting but difficult exposition on process theism, Lewis Ford summarizes and clarifies a line of thought developed over years of thinking and exposition. It presents the problems of actual entities being influenced by the subjective aims of God’s primordial nature since prehension of a complete or past actual entity can only take place. Since God as an actual entity is never complete, there can be no prehension of God and the subjective aims. Thus, the entire ground of the persuasive, creating activity of God is negated. To overcome this problem, Hartshorne and Cobb see God as a society of serially ordered entities that has a continual series of past occasions which are thereby prehensible. Thereby are the subjective aims open to the ever-coming to be actual entities. Ford sees the ‘finished’ God and the subjective aims in the future acting as a lure that draws the emerging actual entities into the unknown and unformed future. The primordial nature of God as is is a questionable source for the creative activity in even persuading emerging actual entities toward congretion and being since the subjective aims cannot be prehended. It is, however, to the unformed future that a lure to a coming to be is present. The potentiality of the unknown future draws the emerging actual entities forward to creation. In short, the creative process is a mystery that is and is operative but indeed difficult to fully fathom. The unknown future is the lure that leads to who knows what (TPT).

I found this admittedly difficult and perhaps, in a fundamental sense, incomprehensible discussion important as well as suggestive because it clearly and openly discussed a difficulty in process theism and indeed in holding to a deity as a source or a central contributor to the process of creation. In many ways, the difficulty I had and have with seeing Amida Buddha in any way associated with the notion of a figure of creation is reflected in this discussion. Is God as a creator possible or even necessary? Or Is a finite, limited God as described above leading or, better, luring us to an unformed, unknown, future filled with both despair and hope all we can hope for. The process God and Amida Buddha are that and we are the better off for it.

In conjunction with this journey to the unknown that Ford holds up to us, there is one point or related question I have in regard to the process notion of God. It concerns the notion of novelty. I do not debate the fact that Whitehead sees novelty being introduced by God in the creative process. PR is filled with statements and expositions to that fact. Without God, there is no chance for qualitive growth and the chance of advance, small though it may be. However, in a very suggestive discussion of creativity, Whitehead enthuses about the ‘power’ of creativity to bring novelty to the ‘many becoming one and being increased by one’. The implication I hope to indicate is that the dynamics of creativity and pratitya-samutpada or dependent arising in and of themselves can bring about novelty without the introduction of the subjective aim. The power and the dynamics of the many can produce a novel instance sometimes. The reality that creativity and dependent arising indicate have such a power of creation. Sometimes God may not be necessary. Again, the notion of Amida Buddha being anything like a creator may be one area where Amida as the Christ must draw a line.

A Tradition within a Larger Tradition

While this last section may be unnecessary, I have come to think that the proposal of Cobb to engage in an inner traditional dialog must be consciously broadened to a dialog among the larger inner traditional partners. For my tradition of Shin Buddhism, this must include the entire history and tradition of Buddhism. For Christianity this must include not only its history but the history of the other monotheistic traditions as well. In many ways, the former task that I must undertake is much simpler than the latter task for Christianity with the many suspicions caused by a long and acrimonious history among the three monotheistic traditions. The former task is my task and the following will center upon it, but I feel, as an outsider, a strange responsibility to at least make one point about this latter task as well.

In a yet to be published paper ,“Nagarjuna, Shinran, and Whitehead” in a volume to be published by Motilal Press, I attempt to show that compassion is the primordial and central characterization of the Buddhist reality of emptiness. In short, I show that Shinran’s primordial characterization of Amida Buddha as compassionate wisdom or wise compassion was not just a sop for the spiritually slothful. Beginning with the act of Sakyamuni to step forth from the tree of enlightenment to speak of and embody the reality of enlightenment, one can see the compassionate activity of enlightenment in the entire tradition. The gathering of the early ‘home-leaving’ monks saw compassion as well as wisdom take on importance in certain tales or motifs of the scripture tradition. The Kisa-Gotami tale has multi-leveled meanings or intentions but one clear image is of the compassionate concern of Sakyamuni to see the grief stricken mother realize the real meaning of the impermanence of life. The forming of the order of nuns, again, has a multi-leveled message, but the concern and compassion of not only the Buddha but the disciple Ananda are vivid illustrations of compassionate wisdom. It also is a good tale to show how an enlightened one could still harbor gender bias, for whatever reason, in Sakyamuni’s initial refusal to allow such an order. Even Nagarjuna’s radical negative dialectic while seemingly a nihilistically absolute denial of reality is a focused and reasoned attempt to see reality in its stark suchness. Moreover, this suchness is never seen to be neutral or with no characteristics but is almost always seen as compassionate reality. Bhavaviveka, one of two central classic interpreters of Nagarjuna, clearly understands Nagarjuna as enunciating a fundamentally compassionate character to emptiness. A characterless suchness is negated. His commentaries on Nagarjuna and his own exposition of emptiness emphasizes the compassionate characterization of enlightenment and emptiness repeatedly in variously expressed forms with a deep insight into the Buddhism of his time. (TS, 158-71) In Shinran’s exposition of the compassionate character of Amida Buddha, he uses images of emptiness coming forth to actualize compassionate activity and compassion coming forth from emptiness. (CWS, 461-62; 530) Thus, we see in Shin Buddhism a tradition in which emptiness is described as compassionate and compassion as being based on emptiness. The ‘and Whitehead’ in the above title represents the philosophical basis of the paper. The incarnational emphasis of Process Theology with its refusal to have any element of its theology absolutized and made neutral was the philosophical incentive of the paper.

Beyond this doctrinal narrative, there is the historical narrative that can bring more understanding to the multiple streams in the one larger tradition. The Shin Buddhist tradition has a self-absolutizing tendency that sometime leads to seeing itself as being somehow fully formed at its inception. The point I made at the beginning of this paper that before Amida as the Christ, there was Amida as the Buddha is a case in point. The whole Buddhist tradition has had a long, vital and ever-changing and developing history that has seen it borrow freely from innumerable sources. This figure of infinite light was joined at some point with a figure of eternal life that came to be buddhicized as it made Buddhism more central Asian. Moreover, successively in China, Southeast Asia, Korea and Japan and now in the Western world we saw and are seeing Buddhism slowly but steadily changing. Western Buddhists are both Western and Buddhist and with the rise of certain vital, westernized forms of Buddhism there will be a slow and positive transformation of Buddhism. One sign that proves this is the interest in Buddhist ethics, ecology and theology initiated and encouraged by these western Buddhists. Buddhism changes and Buddhism grows. I witnessed one example of this at a forum on Buddhist ecological ethics where the German Buddhist scholar and practitioner L. Smithausen gave a clear, informed message of a simple Buddhist ecological ethic that spoke from the spirit of Buddhism but also from the analytical and ethical standpoint of western culture. This clear and simple message was responded to by one of the elders of contemporary Japanese Buddhology in an obstruse, technical response that did not see or want to see the ethical imperative behind the message. Japanese Buddhist Studies is stuck in a strange and petty scholasticism that seems to glory in being out of touch with the world. Moreover, the tragedy of Shin Buddhism in the West is that it is an ethnically centered form of Buddhism that is mainly made up of Americans, Canadians and Latin Americans of Japanese descent who still have close emotional ties with the mother temple in Japan. Relations are artifically close and efforts are being made to make them closer for the purpose of clerical hegemony in the guise of ‘doctrinal purity’ on the part of the mother temple in Kyoto. For our tradition, then, I see it central to its very life that it open itself up to the whole Buddhist tradition as well as to other traditions. We must not be afraid to have Amida as the Christ as our prescient fore-believers had Amida as the Buddha. Their example may be one way to vitalize our tradition before it is too late.

In the case of Christianity, as stated above, there is an actively negative historical background to real dialog among the people of the Book. As noted when discussing the consequent nature of God, the influence of Abraham Heschel’s insight into ‘the God of pathos’ helped me emotionally feel comfortable with Amida Buddha in terms of the consequent nature of God. The notion of ‘the God of pathos’ was and is central to my thinking on deity and what makes deity worthy of worship. The Prophets is a book that stands central for me as a work that deeply and permanently affected my personal and academic religious interests. It beautifully shows what it means to be touched by and permanently affected by the majesty of God and even more effectively shows how God is permanently affected by the activities and thoughts of all creation. What it enunciates is that God is primordially a compassionate, loving God of thoroughgoing relationality with abiding care and feeling for all existence. It is expressing a ‘christian’ God before Christianity. Looking at old film clips of the Freedom Marches in the South, you can see that tall, lanky gentlman striding along next to Martin Luther King, and you see both the Prophetic and Christian spirits actualized equally in both figures. Here, the roots of the entire tradition of the People of the Book are impressively expressed. Christians must look at this prophetic tradition and see themselves before they were themselves. Again, I have no real knowledge of Islam, but, here too, relations with this third sibbling seems to be vital for all three. As an outsider, may I be allowed to say this, you People of the Book had better get along and get to know each other sometime soon.

Where Indeed Beyond Dialog?

The inner traditional dialog that Cobb states is necessary for going beyond dialog is indeed where we should be headed. Again, I believe for this inner dialog to be truly successful that the inner dialog must be opened up to the larger tradition of one’s own specific tradition. It is in this dialog that we can hope to see a glimpse of who we really are and who we may become by looking at how we became the way we are and how much we have in common with those fellow believers in the larger tradition we find ourselves in. Personally, I must look not only to the Christianity that I have come to know but to reaquaint myself with my larger tradition my specific tradition has come from. I began my studies of religion concentrating in general Buddhist Studies and have come full circle to look upon this larger tradition as where I must start again.

References

BCS

Unno, Taitetsu “Review of Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism” Buddhist-Christian Studies 22 (2002), 211-214

Cobb, John B., Jr. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

CDTT

Ishihara, John S. Chi-tsang’s Doctrine of Two Truths. Kyoto, Ryukoku University, 1974. (unpublished Master’s thesis)

CJC1

Ishihara, John S. “Rethinking the Doctrine of Satya-dvaya,” Journal of Chikushi Jogakuen College 1 (January 1989), 63-86.

CJC3

Yokota, John S. “Amida as the Christ: An Exercise Beyond Dialogue,” Journal of Chikushi Jogakuen College 3 (January 1991), 121-148.

Nishitani, Keiji. “The Problem of Time in Shinran,” Eastern Buddhist new series xi/1 (May 1978), 13-26.

Heschel, Abraham. The Prophets, II New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1962.

Yokota, John S. “A Call to Compassion: Process Thought and the Conceptualization of Amida Buddha,” Process Studies 23/2 (Summer 1994), 87-97.

Ishihara, John S. “Sakyamuni within the Jodo Shinshu Tradition,” Pacific World 2 (1986), 31-41.

Hirota, Dennis, ed. Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000. 73-100; 199-221

TPT

Ford, Lewis S. Transforming Process Theism. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000.

Eckel, Malcolm David. To See the Buddha. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Text:

CWS

Hirota, Dennis, Hisao Inagaki, Michio Tokunaga, and Ryushin Uryuzu, trs. The Collected Works of Shinran, Volume 1: The Writings. Kyoto: Jodo Shinshu Hongwanji-ha, 1997.