Skillful Means and the Interpretation of Christianity

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to reflect briefly on the significance of the Buddhist concept of skillful means in the wider interpretation of religion, with special reference to Christianity.1 Needless to say, to take a concept from one religious tradition and to consider its possible application in another is an extremely complex exercise, so that these remarks must be taken as nothing more than a few preliminary suggestions. Complex religious traditions are continuously subject to the interpretative efforts of their exponents, and in the case of Buddhism and Christianity some structural similarities are readily apparent, for example with respect to the nature and effect of such religious drives as mission and reform, and with respect to the way in which each is related to its successive environments in terms of adaptation or indigenization. Such processes often take place without a high degree of self-conscious reflection. On the other hand, reflection on these processes does occur in sophisticated traditions such as Buddhism and Christianity, so that the act of interpretation becomes self-conscious. The specific study which I call comparative hermeneutics2 is an attempt to draw comparisons with respect to these more conscious procedures of interpretation employed by exponents of the two traditions. The objectives of such study are twofold. First, it may help to bring greater clarity into our theoretical understanding of the way in which the traditions are handled by believers. A concept articulated in one tradition may be helpful in understanding a state of affairs or a process that is less explicitly understood in another tradition but that nevertheless turns out to be similar in structure. All comparative work helps us to gain a steadier theoretical perspective than would otherwise be possible. Second, such reflections may be of use to exponents of the traditions themselves whether in the further interpretation of their tradition, or in the development of dialogue with the other traditions. This second objective does not form part of the scientific study of religion, and we should be careful to observe the distinction between the study of religion in a scientific sense and the pursuit of theology or interreligious dialogue. However in the