Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, Interreligious Dialogue, and the Academic Study of Religion

Abstract

There is tension between the study of Buddhism and Christianity, and Buddhist-Christian studies. It reflects the same tension that exists between religious studies and theology. Yet both endeavors are intertwined, and there is room in the academy for both. Since the day when I first stumbled into Masao Abe's course on Zen Buddhism, I have found Buddhist-Christian studies to be an intensely interesting arena of academic inquiry, in that it opens a space to dive deep into questions about what it means to be human on the most profound level. Whereas discourses in Christian theology and treatises on mystical practice had once left me bleary eyed, when studied in the context of dialogue the language and the symbols came alive, invoking all kinds of larger questions about the viability of an easy perennial philosophy, about the relationship of religious language and religious experience, and about the inner dynamics of the spiritual path. Teaching on Buddhist-Christian encounter, I have found the same effect of intellectual awakening prompted in my students as the vantage point of comparison and dialogue opens vistas onto limitless questions concerning selfhood and ultimacy that otherwise might remain hidden in the assumed. For both myself and my students, the comparative perspective afforded by dialogue has enabled us to look at the close and familiar in new ways-a cherished goal of any academic enterprise. Given all this, it had simply never occurred to me that there might be any tension between the field of Buddhist-Christian dialogue and the academic study of religion. There is tension, of course. After reflection it seems to me that the tension between interreligious dialogue and the academic study of religion is rooted in the conflict between normative and descriptive approaches to the study of religion, that is, in the conflict between theological studies and religious studies that characterizes the academy today. The study of religion today stands on shaky ground, especially in our public universities, mainly because of misunderstanding or ignorance about the methods and purposes of the field. As religion scholars seek to circle the wagon train in defense of the discipline, theological approaches to the study of religion are often seen as a liability, tainting the study of religion with the suspicion of confessional and evangelical interests. Security for the discipline is sought on the high ground of disinterested objectivity, so that we are seeing an ongoing shift in the practice of religious studies from a Buddhist-Christian Studies 18 (1998). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.136 on Thu, 19 May 2016 06:02:22 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms