Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Current Sticking Points

Abstract

To set stage for our class these next few mornings, I want to cite opening paragraph from a brochure advertising recently-founded scholarly journal URAM-standing for Ultimate Reality and Meaning. With launching of Ultimate Reality and Meaning, brochure says rather extravagantly, the future of theology has begun. It is, of course, preposterous to identify any one publishing venture as future of theology. In fact, I cite this bold consciousness of something-new-in-theology just because it is so typical of a widespread alteration that has been taking place-long before founding of this journal -in self-understanding of religious traditions in modern history. What is this alteration? The brochure continues: QuotingJ. B. Metz, Karl Rahner has remarked that theology of future cannot simply reject other universal interpretations of world and human existence. It must try to discover in them certain patterns of thought and consciousness and benefit from them for ever greater possibilities of faith. In such ideals theology may find one of its own potentialities which it has failed to discover . . . Pope Paul VI called for a of . . . and John Paul has emphasized that we cannot develop a better and deeper understanding ofJesus Christ unless we come close to magnificent heritage of human spirit and approach all cultures, all ideological concepts and all people, since humanity is 'primary and fundamental way for Church traced out by Christ himself.' Clearly, this statement comes at things from a Christian angle, but there is also remarkable interest in emerging dialogue of salvation (to use Pope Paul's phrase) with other traditions as well, a sign of rising awareness of common humanity that is an encouraging feature of our global scene today. Let us note briefly some of salient factors that force current theologizing, under whatever traditional banners, to ponder interfaith issues with unprecedented seriousness.