Continuing the Conversation

Abstract

Abe's rejoinder in The Emptying God(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Press, 1990) is a model. He carefully identifies many of the criticisms directed toward his thought and undertakes both to clarify his position and to develop it so as to respond to these. He shares with me the ideal of mutual transformation among the great traditions so that, rather than claiming that Buddhism-or his version thereof-already has all the answers, he is desirous of learning. Of course, he is also eager to help Christians transform Christianity. For such transformation to occur, both sides must press their concerns forcefully. Hence, I will press the one of my concerns (registered in my contribution to the The Emptying God) to which Abe chiefly responded. Although I appreciate his response, I do not find it adequate. Abe discusses my complaint that Buddhism, or at least his form of Buddhism, so emphasizes what is universal, that is, what is true everywhere and always, that it neglects to engage in concrete analysis of particulars, that is, those conditions that obtain uniquely at one time and place. For example, there is no discussion of the specific relation ofJapan to the Nazi government of Germany during the period in which the Holocaust occurred, despite the fact thatJapan and Germany were military allies. Abe is critical of my terminology of universal and particular, although he uses the terms himself at some points (see, e.g., p. 174). Certainly, they carry a great deal of philosophical baggage that is irrelevant to this usage. He prefers to speak of the vertical and the dimensions or of the ground and the In my opinion, that terminology is just as questionable. One way to understand Nagarjuna is to see that there is in fact no vertical dimension and no All that is is the horizontal dimension or the conditions. All things are empty of ground. To fully realize this is to be enlightened. Of course, Buddhists understand and emphasize that all language tends to mislead. I am commenting only on how easily Abe's preferred language can mislead the Western hearer. I am not suggesting that it misleads Abe. But, similarly, I am not sure that I was misled by my questionable use of universal and particular. My main point is that there is a difference between what char-