We're All Together on the Alluvial Plain

We're All Together on the Alluvial Plain
Anecdotal Accounts of the Necessity for, and Challenges to, Interreligious Dialogue

by Kenneth K. Tanaka

Our world seems to have become closer and smaller with technological advancements in communication and transportation, a state aptly described by the well-known phrase "global village." The Internet, for example, enables us to be in touch with people everywhere, exchanging large amounts of information quickly and inexpensively. More people around the globe are traveling greater distances more frequently.

In the countries of Europe and North America, we are witnessing an unprecedented level of diversity among peoples and religions. For example, Islam and Asian religions, including Buddhism, now have a much greater presence in the metropolitan areas of the United States, so much so that the U.S. can no longer be considered a "Judeo-Christian country." Even in Japan, the number of foreigners is estimated to increase in the future because of shortages in labor.

This situation is aptly captured by the metaphor of the "Alluvial Plain," which was coined by Professor John Hick, a well-known Christian theologian and religious philosopher. According to Professor Hick, each of the religious traditions has been like a company of people marching down a long valley, singing their own songs and telling their stories for centuries. However, they have been unaware that over the hill there is another valley with another great company of people marching in the same direction with their own language, songs, stories, and ideas. And over yet another hill, another group is marching. They are all unaware of one another.

But one day they all emerge onto the same plain, the plain created by modern global communications, and for the first time in history they all see one another and wonder what to make of one another.1)

We are now in full sight of one another and are living together in one global community. The need for mutual understanding and cooperation has never been greater. This is especially the case as these religious groups constitute nations that now possess nuclear weapons, which if used are capable of bringing an end to human civilization and causing irreparable damage to the natural world.

The Pope and the Day of Prayer

Though not a nuclear holocaust, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were nearly as horrific, undermining our collective sense of security. Viewing the televised images of the World Trade Center towers in New York collapsing into rubble, the whole of humanity realized concretely what hatred and ignorance can produce. Several months later, in January 2002, Pope John Paul II called upon the religious leaders of the world to gather at Assisi, Italy, the home of Saint Francis, "the man of peace," for a Day of Prayer for Peace in the World.

I was fortunate to attend the gathering as academic advisor to Rev. Chiko Iwagami, then president of the Japan Buddhist Federation. The gathering lasted several days and included a conclave for the delegates to share their views on peace. Rev. Iwagami articulated the Buddhist teachings of: (1) interdependence, (2) nonself-centered wisdom, and (3) nonviolence, concluding with the well-known Dhammapada passage from the teachings of the Buddha:

"Hatred is not overcome by hatred. Only by non-hatred can it be overcome."

I sensed that the power of that passage filled the hall and captured the undivided attention of the representatives in attendance, including Francis Cardinal Arinze, the person in charge of interreligious dialogue for the Roman Catholic Church.

On the final day, the two hundred delegates were invited to meet with the pope. As I approached him, I shook his hand and blurted out something to this effect: "By coming to this gathering I feel I want to work even harder for peace." The pope, afflicted by Parkinson's disease, tried to reply to me as he jerked our clasped hands up and then down onto his lap. His few words were not intelligible, but his firm grip and gesture conveyed his affirmation and encouragement.

This positive encounter was a reconciliation of sorts for me, as several years earlier I had joined thousands of Buddhists around the world in expressing our displeasure with the pope's misrepresentation of Buddhism in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. I felt that what seemed to us to be a caricaturing of Buddhism (for example, "nirvana" was defined as "a state of perfect indifference with regard to the world") was deeply troubling, especially since it came from someone who was positioned to help lead the world in cultivating mutual understanding among the peoples of different religions. The pope, to his credit, had made efforts to reconcile differences by holding a series of meetings with Buddhists in Asia.

I criticized the pope's book in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, saying that in my judgment the pope had not "done his homework" and instead had merely spouted off stereotypes of Buddhism. Some were aghast that I would openly criticize the pope, but I felt strongly that his portrayal of Buddhism was not only wrong, but harmful. Stereotypes may seem innocuous, but they can foster sinister views about "the other" and erupt into violent actions when conditions become ripe. This can be seen in the case of the perpetrators of 9/11, as well as in the harmful utterances of some Americans who later wanted revenge on all Muslims.

That brief encounter with the pope put my mind at ease, as I realized that, despite some of his past divisive words regarding Buddhists, he was now making greater efforts to bring people together and to foster interreligious dialogue.

Religious Dialogue Needed for Peace

No one has made the case for religious dialogue more forcefully on the international stage than Professor Hans Kung. The recipient of the 2005 Niwano Peace Prize reiterated his fundamental outlook at the symposium honoring his award:

"There will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions. There will be no peace among the religions without dialogue among religions."2)

I believe this assumption is generally correct. It is heartening, therefore, to see that such groups as the World Conference of Religions for Peace are actively working toward that aim.

Personally speaking, I have been involved in interreligious dialogue groups over the years, notably the Society for Buddhist Christian Studies and the International Buddhist-Christian Theological Encounter (IBCTE), both of which are centered in the United States. One of my initial motives for taking part was to learn more firsthand about what Christians thought about various issues. I reasoned that it would help my work as an American Buddhist scholar and priest if I learned more about the dominant religion of the United States. Well, it did help and yielded some surprising results, as will be discussed below.

Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish Trialogue

Dialogue among religions is truly needed, much more than most Buddhists realize. This was made apparent to me through a course called "Buddhist, Christian, and Jewish Trialogue," which I team-taught at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California, with two women faculty members, one a Christian and the other Jewish. I learned about the depth of mistrust and antagonism that defined some Jewish-Christian relationships.

The Jewish faculty member spoke often of the fear that she still felt as a Jew, even though the U.S. was a far more tolerant country than parts of Europe, where her ancestors had lived. The effects of persecution and isolation experienced by Jews for centuries in Europe had been deeply ingrained in her psyche, even though she had been born and raised in the U.S.

I was astounded to hear her share with the class that she still does not leave her Jewish books in her car when parking it on the street. She would either hide them in the trunk or turn the books face down so that people would not be able to see the titles from the outside! And this act was prompted by her fear that someone might damage the car or harm her if they found that the car belonged to a Jew.

She admitted that this could be considered a paranoiac over-reaction, but the class felt that her feelings and actions were understandable, and revealed for us the depth of the psychological wound that she as a member of a religiously persecuted minority had experienced. It also symbolized the division and antagonism that many members of these two religions had experienced for centuries. Our Christian colleague then said that while the vitriolic rhetoric has, by and large, been eliminated, there are still many Christian congregations in the U.S. that continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Jews, including the one about the Jews being responsible for Jesus' death.

It turned out that we Buddhists in the class served more as therapists for the Jews and the Christians, who had a lot to work out between them. This "trialogue" certainly helped me to realize that there does exist a dire need for greater mutual understanding and reconciliation among the peoples of different religions, thus confirming the need for interreligious dialogue described earlier in Professor Kung's statement.

During the trialogue, I also found myself feeling a tinge of superiority, because Buddhists have not had the same kind of conflicts with other religions. For example, I found myself thinking that we "peaceful" Buddhists have not perpetrated wars, and our "tolerant" nature has not condemned people of other faiths to hell. But upon deeper reflection and study, I realized that my impressions were not always correct, and my initial thoughts reflected my ignorance and religious hubris.

For example, many Japanese Buddhist denominations continue to struggle with the issue of facing up to their responsibility for supporting the military regime during World War II, as well as past discriminatory practices against the members of the buraku community.3) In Cambodia, though the Buddhist institutions were not direct perpetrators, a strong "Buddhist country" permitted hatred to run rampant, allowing the killing of 2 million of her own people. Thus, our Buddhist front yard may be picturesque, but the backyard has not been fully cleaned up.

A Need for Dialogue among Buddhists

As just seen, Buddhists in Japan may not outright condemn and exclude others, including other Buddhists, but we tend to have very little interaction with other groups and sects within Buddhism. We are isolated in our separate religious communities.

Many years ago, during my Ph.D. comprehensive exam, I was asked what percentage of the members of the Nishi-Honganji temple in Kyoto had visited the Higashi-Honganji temple located just one block away, and vice versa. These two branches of the same Jodo Shinshu denomination had been one institution only four hundred years earlier. I had to reply, "Extremely low." And I believe I was right, and that most people associated with these groups would agree. In Japan, this is not an isolated case among Buddhist groups.

In contrast, relatively unencumbered by the historical baggage carried by Buddhists in Asia, the Buddhist councils in the U.S. are very active. Having been a member of one such council in California for a number of years, I had the opportunity to meet and interact with Buddhists from the whole spectrum of traditions, from Thailand to Korea. Through these interactions, I had to change some of my preconceptions about other Buddhist schools. Consciously or not, many of us have been "indoctrinated" to some extent in our religious education to think in terms of a hierarchy (based, for example, on the "classifying of teachings" called banjiao or hankyo), in which one's own tradition is invariably ranked at the top as the most complete, superior, and appropriate Buddhist teaching.

I found it ironic that the "small vehicle" Theravadins were actually the most fervent supporters of the council activities compared to many of the "great vehicle" Mahayanists, some of whom were very reluctant to participate, especially those of the Japanese and Tibetan schools. As a member of the Mahayana tradition, I had to revise another of my stereotypes.

Limitations of Dialogue

While interreligious dialogue is sorely needed for mutual understanding and world peace, dialogue by itself is far from adequate. Religious leaders certainly have influence in the world, but decisions concerning war and peace among nations are decided by politicians. Numerous pleas by the Dalai Lama, the pope, and other world religious leaders could not prevent President George W. Bush from going to war in Iraq. And who controls the use of nuclear weapons? The secular leaders do. Consequently, religious leaders must make unremitting efforts to direct their message of peace and reconciliation to secular world leaders.

Another area of concern is that support for and interest in interfaith dialogue is generally weak, especially among the leaders of religious institutions, who generally serve as "defenders" of their tradition and who represent a generally conservative mindset. It seems that an attitude of "superiority" vis-a-vis other religious traditions is so prevalent that a genuine dialogue among institutional leaders is difficult to realize.

Consequently, many of the rank and file members of religious institutions feel that their path is exceptional and superior, contributing to an attitude of what I call "exceptionalism." This attitude, then, gives them little motivation to engage in dialogue with those of other religions or even other branches of the same religion.

A Call to Dialogue

Among Christian theologians, it is generally thought that there are three modes of relationship among religions: (1) "exclusivism," (2) "inclusivism," and (3) "pluralism." The exclusivist position is best represented by Karl Barth, who asserted that people can be saved only through the teachings of Christ, which are unique and ultimate. Hence, others are excluded. The inclusivist position affirms other religions but regards them to be essentially the same as Christianity. This, then, implies that non-Christians, though they may not be aware of it, are in effect "anonymous Christians." Both positions rest on the belief that Christianity is the only true religion.

On the other hand, the pluralist position advocated, for example, by John Hick, assumes that religions (limited to "great world faiths") are expressions of a common truth. Those subscribing to this position tend to seek commonality among the religions and are generally attracted to interfaith dialogue. I see myself among them, but would not go so far as to insist, as Professor Hick does, that all valid paths reflect and lead to the same truth.4) I believe that many of the religions constitute similarly valid paths to truth.

I, therefore, have a great deal of difficulty with those who adhere to the exclusivist or inclusivist positions. From my Buddhist perspective there is no universal criterion by which people of one faith can make judgments about others. If others find salvation or liberation through their paths, that does not undermine my faith. Unfortunately, however, there are plenty of people who cannot accept other religions as being similarly valid to their own.

I personally encountered such a person at an interfaith dialogue session. At this particular session, the discussion moved to the topic of the nature of "the ultimate path," which, as it turned out, began to raise some extremely sensitive issues. An unusually tense atmosphere hung over the discussion table, a rare turn of events for the usually jovial dialogue group comprising mostly liberal-minded members.

One of the Christian members gave voice to her fundamental view that Jesus was the sole path through which one can be saved. It was clearly what anyone would regard as an exclusivist position, taking all of us in the group--both Buddhist and Christian--by surprise. As I asked for clarification, she reiterated her view that her Christian faith necessitated that she take that position, and that I as a Buddhist was, therefore, not included in that soteriological scheme. I responded to her that I understood that I would not be in her scheme since I was not Christian, and asked her if I would nevertheless be saved. After some hesitation, in so many words she replied that I would not be!

Successes and Hope for Greater Dialogue

In this era of the "global village," interreligious dialogue is needed more than ever. Dialogues can take place on three levels: (1) teachings and practices, (2) religious experience, and (3) actions taken together for a common goal. It is inevitable that we find the greatest areas of disagreement on level one, for they reflect the historical and cultural conditions of the traditions.

Religious experiences, on the other hand, tend to have greater commonality. For example, William James's classic, The Varieties of Religious Experience, showed a remarkably high level of similarity in spiritual experiences across numerous traditions.

On the third level, we probably will find the greatest degree of commonality, for we are working toward the same goals. At the international level, a group such as the World Conference of Religions for Peace brings together religious leaders in common action, but I believe that there needs to be more effort made at the local level, where the positive effect of interfaith cooperation can have an impact upon a far greater number of people.

When I served for a few years as a priest at a Buddhist temple in California, I participated in a local interfaith group composed of religious professionals from the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths. The relationships fostered through the group gave my temple members a greater sense of belonging to a wider community located on the same Alluvial Plain where we all made our living regardless of our religious differences.

A similar local interfaith group in New York City made an invaluable contribution in the aftermath of 9/11, when the city was in dire need of spiritual leadership. They worked together to lead vigils and memorial services, comforted a community suffering from grief and shock, and helped to prevent divisions among religious groups in an area that included a large Muslim population.

Another exemplary event worth mentioning took place over one hundred years ago. It was the World's Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, considered to be a precursor to Religions for Peace.5) There, East met West on an equal footing. Representatives of Buddhism such as Anagarika Dharmapala of Ceylon and Soyen Shaku of Japan showed Buddhism in a positive light not only as a religious tradition of great antiquity but also as one with the capacity to meet the needs of contemporary society. In fact, the many in attendance who had little knowledge or only a stereotypical understanding of Buddhism came away with new respect and interest.

In Conclusion

Thus, interreligious efforts on both local and international levels have made a positive difference in the past, but as this essay tries to show, the need for more communication and understanding is palpable among the peoples now occupying our globally connected Alluvial Plain. As dialogues are opened, they will offer participants an opportunity to reflect on: (1) the resistance of religious institutions to participate in dialogue, (2) the need to take responsibility for their past misdeeds, and (3) their mistaken sense of exceptionalism and stereotypes about others.

In so doing, we shall take steps toward actualizing the ideals espoused by Professor Kung, as well as by the Dalai Lama, the late Nikkyo Niwano, and other Buddhist leaders past and present. I believe that the late Pope John Paul II would have been pleased, for I now think that his unintelligible words to me were something to the effect of, "Wonderful! Now go do it!"

Notes

1. John Hick, God Has Many Names (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1980), 41.
2. Hans Kung, "No Clash, but Dialogue among Religions and Nations," Dharma World, September/October 2005 (Tokyo: Kosei Publishing Company), 23-26.
3. Members of the "outcaste" social class, who experienced severe discrimination during the feudal period, with vestiges of it still felt into the modern era.
4. I depart from Hick's view on this point since there is no criterion or basis for determining if the various paths lead to the same truth. Thus, it would be more appropriate to say "similar" than "the same."
5. See http://www.wcrp.org/

Kenneth K. Tanaka is a professor at Musashino University, Tokyo. He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, in Buddhist Studies. In 1978 he was ordained a Jodo Shinshu priest and currently serves as president of the International Association of Shin Buddhist Studies. He has been an active member of the International Buddhist-Christian Theological Encounter sessions centered at Purdue University in Indiana.

This article was originally published in the October-December 2006 issue of Dharma World.


back	up

Home