The Role of Autobiography in the Comparison of Salvation and Nirvana

Abstract

A great deal has been written analyzing Christian salvation and Buddhist Nirvana from a science-of-religion point of view.' Even more has been written on the two concepts from within each tradition; that is, theologically and Buddhalogically.2 Both of these approaches yield rich information for the student of religion. The data from these two streams of research, however, is often difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, the student of religion is handed the fruits of historical re-creation, sociological observation, and psychological analysis. On the other hand, salvation and Nirvana are studied from the point of view of an internally coherent system and, often, evaluated from the point of view of either institutional or personal effectiveness. To be sure, in neither case is the data necessarily falsified by the differing stances of the observer/ commentators. Nor does that stance alone reduce the value of either type of commentary. Value is not at issue. What is at issue is the lack of common ground created by slightly different methodologies and more pronounced differences in presuppositions. It is as if the two are written in languages that do not always translate easily-like two computer programs written in different computer languages. In order for the two to communicate, a third program is needed which translates the finding of each into a common format that all can understand. There is, however, one point at which the two bodies of data do relate, if allowed to do so. That is in the life of the observer who lives the dual life of theologian or Buddhalogian and phenomenologist. It is possible to collect the data of history of religions at one point and do theological reflection on that data at another. Many researchers do precisely that. Is it then possible to take a third step and self-consciously reflect on both? This kind of reflection might be called autobiographical. I propose to attempt a short example of that kind of reflection in the following manner: first, I will indulge in self-conscious reflection; second, I will comment on questions that my dual role as theologian and historian of religion has