Comments on "Christian and Buddhist Personal Transformation"

Abstract

In his paper, Professor Frederick Streng contrasts two types of religious personal transformation, justification by faith, as found in Martin Luther, and perfection of as found in the Eight ThousandLine Perfection of Wisdom Sutra. He analyzes and as elements within a context of religious intentionality, defined as This intentionality is explored in the paper by specifying two types of valuation processes (axiological structures) whereby faith and wisdom function to integrate a sense of the basic problematic in existence with an apprehension of an ideal or ultimate reality. In this paper, the basic problematic in existence is original sin for Luther and ignorance for the Prajnapdramita Sutra, and ultimate reality is God in the former and Suchness in the latter. By examining the nexus of the spiritual intentionality in each tradition, the author tries to understand the axiological presuppositions that are at the root of the different structures of personal transformation. In this way, Streng makes a comparative analysis of the axiological structures of Christianity represented by Luther, and Buddhism illustrated by the Prajiaparamita Sutra. This hermeneutical approach is quite significant and Streng's analysis is minute and provocative. My basic question regarding Streng's approach is whether his hermeneutical approach, or his notion of axiological structures, can be equally applied to Luther and the Prajnaparamita Sutra in regard to ultimate personal transformation. In other words, is it not that whereas his hermeneutical approach is well applicable to Luther, it may not, as it stands, be properly or legitimately applied to the Prajinparamita position? In order to apply the hermeneutical approach or the notion of axiological structure to the Prajnaparamita position, is it not necessary to reformulate it considerably? In Luther, a deficiency in human existence is original sin as an intrinsic