A BUDDHIST-C H R I S T I A N SYMPOSIUM "Religious Experience and Language"

From February 6 ( F r i d a y ) ，1 9 7 6 ， 4 PM, till February 8 ( S u n d a y ) , 5 PM, the Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture organized and hosted its first Interreligious Dialogue S e s s i o n . The reader may know that this is not a novelty in Japan where the m u t u a l l y tolerant coexistence of many religions is a long-established r e a l i t y . Especially during the last 15 years several meanin g f u l encounters have taken p l a c e . We cannot go into 仁his history now, but it must be admitted t h a t , even in J a p a n , the interreligious dialogue is still in its pioneering stage : a groping for ends and m e a n s , a still massive indiffer­ ence on 仁he part of most authoritative p e o p l e , etc. On the w h o l e , the Na n z a n Symposium can be considered to be an effort at a dialogue i n d e p t h . T h e r e f o r e , sufficient time was a l l o t t e d ; the number of participants was strictly limited (10 persons o n l y ) ， as well as the number of represented religions (only Buddhism - specifically Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, and C h r i s tianism - m a i n s t r e a m prot e s t a n t i s m and C a t h o l i c i s m ) ; 仁he texts of the papers to be read w e r e distributed to all p a r ­ ticipants a few weeks before the m e e t i n g ; a fundamental religious pr ob l e m was chosen as the t h e m e . Of c o u r s e , the choice of the individual participants is a d etermining factor in every d i a l o g u e . Not only do their degree of religious comrnitment and their degree of openness to the other define the level of e n c o u n t e r , but also their respective interests and competences determine the angle from which the theme is tack­ led . I b e l i e v e , h o w e v e r , that the theme i t s e l f , "Religious ex­ perience and Language" ( w o r d , logos) was well c h o s e n . There a r e , indeed not so many topics which permit to plumb as deeply the structure of a religion and 仁he similarities and differences between different religious s y s t e m s . It remains to be s e e n , h o w e v e r , in how far our symposium exploited the possibilities offered by its t h e m e . The symposium consisted of 6 sessions of two hours and twenty minutes e a c h . The first five sessions all had the same s t r u c t u r e : presentation of a paper (about 厶 0 m i n u t e s ) ; commentary on 仁he paper by a participant of a different religious affiliation (about 15 m i n u t e s ) ; general discussion (about 80 m i n u t e s ) . The sixth session was devoted to a comprehensive d i s c u s s i o n . I shall now try a short presentation of each s e s s i o n . It is understood 仁h a t ， in this short space, I cannot do justice to the

29 contents especially of the p a p e r s , but it might interest the r eader to know about the general trends of the d i a l o g u e . I am happy to be able to announce the imminent publication of the full text of the symposium (in J a p a n e s e ) • In the First S e s s i o n ， professor Kajiyama Y u i c h i , member of the Buddhist True Pure Land sect and professor of Indian phi­ losophy at Kyoto University, presented the paper, Word and Si­ lence in Buddhism, P r o f .Kajiyama sketched the birth and development of early Buddhist "theology"(rational systematization of the B u d d h a 1s doctrine) in India, from its roots in the early sutras (Agama) to its eclosion, especially in the Sarvastivadin and the M a d h y a m i k a . The Sarvastivadin ontology shows a great confidence in our intellectual concepts and their expression in human words. This rationalistic conceptualistic theory brings Nirvana and the phenomena of Samsara together under the same philosophical cate­ gories : objects of intellectual cognition, s u b s t a n c e s . It is wi t h i n this rationalistic framework that then a place and a sense is sought for the B u d d h a fs religious doctrine, especially its tenet of the 11transiency of all t h i n g s " . He further sketched the strong reaction against this theory in the Greater Vehicle: over the P r a j n aparamita and the M a d h yamika up to the A p o h a - s c h o o l . This tendency discredits all the categories and words of the h u m a n i n t e l l e c t , to follow a higher reason and logic into a realm of indifferentiation: s u n y a t a ， ku, emptiness — all this under the impulse of what could be called myst i c a l e x p e r i e n c e . Here, again, N i r v a n a and Samsara are brought together into the same unity. However, this doctrine seems to provide a more radical and direct explanation of the B u d d h a 1s doctrine on the transiency and self­ lessness of all t h i n g s . The present author (catholic) then c o m m e n t e d ， mainly by a s k i n g the following q u e s t i o n s : ( 1 ) Why are the later disciples not satisfied with the f o u n d e r 1s ( B u d d h a 1s, C h r i s t ?s) original words, his own expression of his religious experience? In how far is the tendency toward a comprehensive 11theology'1 religiously motivated? (2) Do the differences between Buddha's and C h r i s t !s words (universal truth v. message centered around an historical person and event — truth to be personally experienced divine m essage to be believed) bring about an essential difference in the transmission of these wo r d s and in the relationship between these privileged words and the human word in general (especially in p h i l o s o p h y ) ? (3) Did not the 11theological" d o c t r i n e s , in their (philosophical) search for u n i t y , we a k e n B u d d h a 1s religious mes s a g e by doing away with the tension (or dualism) between N i r v a n a and Samsara? In the ensuing discussion, the existence of two, mutually o p p o s e d , tendencies in all religions was pointed o u t : the tenden-

く

30 cy to grasp the Ultimate through w o r d s , and the realization that the Ultimate is essentially be y o n d w o r d s . And the question was b roa c h e d whe t h e r there is an essential difference here between Buddhism, where the distrust towards h u m a n words in general can be seen as an integral part of the religious doctrine of the irrationality and vanity of h u m a n life, and Christianity wherein, independent of any trust or distrust towards the human word in general, the trust goes to a very special W o r d , an appeal (Anrede) from the beyond that breaks through h u m a n history. In the Second Session, Miy o s h i M i c h i ， catholic priest and specialist in N e w Testament s t u d i e s , read the p a p e r , The Jesus who addresses God a s _1A b b a 1• F r . Miyoshi explained that address­ ing God w i t h the very familiar (childishly trusting) term, Abba, is strictly peculiar to J e s u s ; and that the gospels (especially M t .11,25-26) clearly indicate that this consciousness of sonship is connected w i t h a belief in G o d ’ s special fatherly care for the "little o n e s 11 of this w o r l d (n5pioi) . Consequently, for the C hristian a l s o , a real experience of God as Abba can only be had in an attitude of empathy w i t h the actual underdog in society. In his c o m m e n t a r y , Bando Shojun, True Pure Land Buddhist and p rofessor at Kyoto*s Otani University, made four interesting p o i n t s : ( 1 ) In Pure Land d o c t r i n e , "calling to" (Amida) equals "being called by" (Ami d a ) . Can the same be said in Christianity? (2) I ， prof.Bando said, am desillusioned : up to now I have been led to understand the "poor" of the gospels as the "poor of heart'1 (irrespective of economic or social c i r c u m s t a n c e s ) ， and I find this understanding profounder, religiously speaking,and more in accordance with the Buddhist tenets of no-mind and n o - s e l f . (3) I still feel a distance between Jesus and the " p o o r " ， while Shinran identified completely with the "lowly people of base professions'1. (4) Mei s t e r E c k h a r t , for o n e , certainly understood the nepioi as the Mpoor of h e a r t " . In Buddhism, the tendency is strong to consider later interpretations as s u p e r i o r . Is there no possibility, in Christianity, to see certain later interpreta­ tions as positive developments? The discussion afterwards brought further Buddhist q u e s t i o n s : ( 1 ) What kind of religious experience makes Jesus call o u t , uA b b a n ? (2) Is the religious experience of the Christian the same as that of Jesus? (3) Is it essential for Christianity that God is called "father,1 and not " m o t h e r 11? I do not have the space to analyse the Christian answers to these very pertinent q u e s t i o n s , and shall limit myself to a few r e m a r k s . During this session it was felt very strongly (by all p a r t i c i p a n t s , I believe) how difficult it is (but, at the same time, h o w potentially enriching for its self-understanding) for one religion to be questioned w i t h the categories of another tradition, and to try to find a meaningful a n s w e r . It was pointed out that the Buddha could not call anybody f a t h e r , and that the terminology of "cal l i n g 11 and Mbeing called11 in Buddh i s m fits only the A m i d a school with its n theistic and

31 p ersonalistic tendencies11. H o w e v e r , it became apparent, at the same t i m e ， that Amidists ( o r , at l e a s t ， Amidist theologians) tend to finally reduce these alleged traits to a higher impersonal u n i t y . In this session also, the socio-economic category popped up in our discussions for the first time; and the w a y in which this category was promptly discarded in favor of the "spiritual11 by our Buddhist partners was probably very s i g n i f i c a n t . The Third Session brought a lecture by Iwamoto T a i h a ， True Pure Land Buddhist and professor at Saitama University, on The _ Fundamental-Word (Grundwort) in Shinran. As the reader k n o w s , Shinran is the founder of the Shinshu or True Pure Land sect, the strongest Amidist group in Japan. Ami d i s m w i t h its absolute reliance on the sacred i n c a n t a t i o n , MN a m u Amida B u t s u n ， certainly looks like a privileged locus to investigate the role of language in r e l i g i o n . Professor Iwamoto explained the significance of this sacred formula and the experience underlying it from the works of Shinran: how, for Shinran, this !lw o r d 1! is the foundation of every­ thing; how A m i d a and m a n (and the world) do not pre-exist to this w o r d , but exist by the grace of their encounter in this w o r d . He further explained the significance of this "Grundwort" over against ( 1 ) the Zen c o n c e p t i o n , according to w h i c h any exclamation w h a t s o ­ ever — as first utterance of a decisive religious experience — can play the role of fundamental w o r d ; and (2) over against B u b e r 1s conception of the fundamental I-Thou relationship as the speaking of a M G r u n d w o r t M by the hu m a n s u b j e c t s . I f ，in B u b e r 1s case, it is the human subject that speaks the T'GrundwortM , in S h i n r a n 1s v i e w the constitutive relationship of Amida and m a n comes about by m a n listening to the call of Amida. In his c o m m e n t a r y , Oki H i d e o , protestant and professor at the Tokyo U n i o n Theological S e m i n a r y , first pointed out that the significance of B u b e r Ts philosophy lies in its vindication of the prior i t y of personal relationships over thing r e l a t i o n s h i p s . He then referred to B u b e r ?s critique of Buddhism as a "sublime monologue", a religion without "possibility of s a y i n g , Thou". His question then was : does in S h i n r a n ?s "Namu Amida Butsu" the personal I-Thou relationship between A m i d a and man disappear? And, if so, h o w can one still speak of "calling and being called1', of "listening11 to the word of Amida? The ensuing discussion centered around a further elucidation of the real m e a n i n g of the A m i d a -believer relationship. Our B uddhist p a r t n e r s , each in his own w a y , impressed upon us that this relationship must be finally interpreted (and therefore de­ mythologized) in accordance w i t h the fundamental Buddhist tenets of Engi ("conditioned origination") and n o n - s e l f . In Buddhism, there can be no question of an "absolute other" or "personal o t h e r " . The "personalistic terminology" of A m i d i s m is only pro­ v isi o n a l . U l t i m a t e l y , it points to the undifferentiated unity of N i r v a n a and Samsara, of Amida and the believer. Only one Buddhist participant expressed his doubts w h e t h e r the standpoint of living

Amidist faith can really be identified with the standpoint of e m p t i n e s s . Here, we r e a c h e d , of course, the fundamental question of the o n t o l ogical and religious status (validity) of the p e r s o n . The Buddhist position, as intimated h e r e , seems to be that direct personal relationships are sufficiently valued in Buddhism on their own level, but that they can never be the ultimate reality. Persons can only meet in a locus of more fundamental u n i t y . In the Fourth S e s s i o n , Father Kadowaki Kakichi S .J ., P r o ­ fessor of Theology at the (catholic) Sophia University in Tokyo, offered a testimony and a reflection on the development of his personal spiritual life through his practice of zazen and Koan, in a paper entitled, Zen Koan and Under s t a n d i n g of _H.S c r i p t u r e . He testified t h a t , since he started practicing Zen, Holy Scrip­ ture discloses itself to him on a deeper l e v e l , and he defended the necessity of a s p i r i t u a l , e x p e r i e n t i a l , e x e g e s i s , different from the habi t u a l scientific o n e . In the perspective of our theme, the important question seems to be : how can a religious attitude, b a s e d on obedience to a revealed w o r d , profit from the religious practices of a tradition w h i c h reduces religion to personal experience, independent of alien words? Of K a d o w a k i 1s explanations I want to retain here the following p o i n t s : ( 1 ) In contrast w i t h most Christian m e d i t a t i o n , which is a prayer of the m i n d , Zazen is a m e d i t a t i o n of the "body", i.e., of the en­ tire person, unity of body and m i n d . Just as in the ordinary dialogue body language is prior to and deeper-reaching than word language, so too with our conversation w i t h G o d . (2) Christ is the Word become flesh : C h r i s t !s "body" speaks to those who have eyes to see, in a revelation through action. (3) True understand­ ing of Scripture (as w e l l as of Koan) can only b e obtained through religious practice, in an understanding by the "whole man" ("be­ y ond re a s o n 1’ ）. (4) We should awake to the reality that our body is "the temple of the Holy Spirit" and that G o d ’ s Kingdom is already among u s . Thus it makes sense, even in our belief in the revealed word, to "seek the truth in ourselves11. Abe M a s a o , Zen Buddhist and professor at Nara University of Education, then probed into the possible meaning of this "spirit­ ual e x e g e s i s " . Does the fact that it is supposed to go beyond 1 from "word exegesis" m e a n that here "all words are taken a w a y ’ u s ， like in the Koan? Does not it m e a n that the Christ event in its concreteness is transcended, just like in Amidism one should transcend the encounter with the personal Amida to reach the ground of that encounter? Does it m e a n that the believer relates to Christ like the practitioner of KOan relates to his master (roshi)? In the ensuing discussion, this "Zen experi e n c e 11 by a catho­ lic priest was further submitted to a critical examination. Is there any necessity to adopt the Zen practices into Christianity? Can the adoption of a part of a tradition into a fundamentally different one be authentic? What is intended : to have the same experience as Christ (and so to be able to say : I am C h r i s t ) ?

Why would such a universal experience have to limit itself to Christ? Is not there in Christianity, differently from Z e n ， a traditional frame w h i c h fixes the limits of possible interpreta­ tion? In this discussion, the pro b l e m of "experience and word" became, i n d e e d , very p o i g n a n t . A n d , at the same time, one of the fundamental questions of the d i a l o g u e , i.e., how can two different religions hope to learn from one a n o t h e r ,took very con­ crete shape. In the Fifth Session, Ueda Shizuteru, Zen Buddhist and pro­ fessor of the Science of Relig i o n at Kyoto U n i v e r s i t y , offered us a paper on Experience and Word In view o f _"Zen Words" : a very original and deeply philosophical interpretation of Zen reality w h i c h , at the same t i m e , appeared to throw light on some universal p r e s u pposita of "Eastern t h i n k i n g " . Every new experience breaks up our old world of understanding, and pushes us to a self-tran­ s c e n d e n c e . As such it can already be called r e l i g i o u s . However, b esides his everyday e x p e r i e n c e s , which bring a gradual widening and deepening of his w o r l d , m a n is capable of a fundamental expe­ rience , a sudden and basic turn-about w h e r e i n the world shows its infinite w i d t h and depth (in Zen, the moment of e n l i g h t e n m e n t ) . This experience is characterized by its absolute immediacy which guarantees its purity and situates it beyond the separation of subject and o b j e c t ，and beyond the emergence of the 11 T . In this m oment of pure experience, all words are "cut o f f " . To reach real reality (i.e., in the religious endeavor) we must reject w o r d s , the origin of illusion. N e v e r t h e l e s s , the moment of pure experi e n c e is, at the same t i m e , "the event of the U r w o r t(funda­ m e n t a l w o r d ) ". This return to the original silence under the n oise of words i s ， at the same time, the rebirth of words : a fundamental word is uttered. Religious language (e.g. ,l!Zen w o r d s 11) i s ， t h e n , a n e w speaking from and the articulation of that funda­ mental w o r d , whe r e i n the creative power of the word comes into its o w n . In Zen, this fundamental word has no fixed form. In his c o m m e n t a r y , Kumazawa Y o s h i n o r i , protestant and p r o ­ fessor at Tokyo Union Theological S e m i n a r y , did not follow the usual pattern of questioning the s p e a k e r 1s t h e s i s . I n s t e a d , in a daring conception of his o w n , he painted a picture of Christ­ ianity wherein U e d a 1s presentation of religion is valorized as m uch as possible and w h e r e i n an answer is intended to the follow­ ing questions : ( 1 ) Does it make s e n s e ， in C h r i s t i a n i s m , to speak of such an Urwort? And, if s o ， what could it be? (2) Is it possi­ b l e , in the Christian p e r s p e c t i v e , to see religion as a transcend­ ence of the subject-object dichotomy? Does not our conception of God forbid that? Taking his clue from the Zen story wherein the m o n k obtains enlightenment when he is called by his name and an­ swers , "here’ 1, Kumazawa proposes that the fundamental Christian experience=word lies in m a n 1s answer to the God who creates him by calling h i m by his n a m e . This is the creation of a relation­ ship w h e r e i n I am born and God becomes my God. It is an origina­

34 ting encounter of subject and subject without any objectification b u t , from the beginning, in an irreversible relationship of "origi­ nal calling Subject11 and "derived answering s u b j e c t ”. In that o­ riginal faith e x p e r i e n c e , I do not find God as an object or sub­ stance over against m e ，but I find myself in G o d , rny "carrying ground’ *. Speaking from this experience (or again : in confronta­ tion w i t h Z e n ) ， we are brought to a de-object i f i c a t i o n of God (to "go out o f 1* all objective language of God) and a de-sub j ectification of the I (I am only an answering relationship - from the b e g i n n i n g , I am as "going out i n t o 1’the w o r d , " h e r e 11) . In this perspective the relational and personalistic God language comes into its own (e.g. , God as "relational e x i s t e n c e 11 in the H . T r i n i t y ) . The ensuing discussion, although h e s i t a n t l y , tried to do some further spadework around these two c o n c e p t i o n s . It was first pointed out t h a t , in K u m a z a w a Ts p r e s e n t a t i o n , there still is a certain divergence b e t w e e n God as "gr o u n d ” and God as the very p ersonal caller of I as a person. Can these two be brought togeth­ er except in the b i b l i c a l w o r d , ’ ’ father ” ？ A parallel was then made between the 0 . T, notion of creation (bara) as the happening of something astoundingly new, w i t h the Zen experience as conversion of the total p e r s o n . A Zen participant explained that the Zen e x p e r i e n c e , too, is essentially nd i a l o g a l M , but that Zen shrinks from further determining or "na m i n g ” the partners of that relation­ ship , for fear that the two poles be substantified and m a d e logi­ cally prior to the relationship i t s e l f . A discussion then ensued between Zen Buddhists and Amidists about the final value and neces­ sity of calling the name of Amida. While, from the Zen s i d e , it was further intimated that calling the name is stopping at the "front of God or Amida" without pushing through to the underlying final reality, — the Amidists pointed out that transmission and communion of faith require definition of the e x p e r i e n c e , and t h a t , a n y w a y , sticking to n o n - d etermination is a determination in i t s e l f . And finally, a comparison between Ueda's and Kumazawa*s schemas brought to light a fundamental difference : in Christianity there is a basic s u b j e c t , a ground ; in Zen, the ground is emptiness or no-ground. In that s e n s e , we Christians cannot call God emptiness. The Sixth, and f i n a l , Session was entirely consecrated to a comprehensive discussion of our t h e m e . At the begin n i n g of the session, the question was asked : did we sufficiently take into account histor i c a l reality, everyday reality in our discussions? Were we not p r e o c cupied too exclusively w i t h an i d e a l i z e d , rarif i e d , kind of religious e x p e r i e n c e , thereby forgetting the actual religious feelings of the masses? What is the mea n i n g of these — far from pure — experiences? One Buddhist participant clearly stated his opinion that Zen represents a form of e l i t e - c o n s c i o u s n e s s , seeking a high-level experience away from the m a s s e s , and tends to go away from the Mahayanistic B o d h isattva ideal b a c k to the monastic Arhat ideal. F u r t h e r m o r e , since about 1 9 2 0 ， also the originally popular True Pure Land sect shows the same tendency : to concentrate on a small

35 number of !!real believers*1，of w h o m a very special religious ex­ perience is e x p e c t e d . C o n c o m i t a n t l y , a Christian participant said that, over against Christianity w i t h its tendency to meet God in the historical w o r l d , in society, Zen makes the impression of b e i n g a "U-turn religion*， ，always stopping its "going out into" w ord and world to return to the pure e x p e r i e n c e . A Zen representative answered t h a t , indeed, the Bodhisattva idea does not come to the fore as strongly in Zen as in some other s e c t s , but that the real question is that of Bodhisattva e x i s t e n c e . Zen is aware that the c o n s c i o u s n e s s , "I save the o t h e r " , is not s o u n d , and that it is extremely hard to determine w hat really benefits the o t h e r . Traditionally, Zen stresses the fact that o n e Ts own deliverance is only fulfilled in one's return to the w o r l d . So, Zen could be called the religion of the "double U - t u r n " , However, the forms which this return to the w o r l d takes are not n e c e ssarily "Zen-like" or even r e l i g i o u s . Zen words are m ostly a-religious (e.g., Mthe sun rises in the m o r n i n g " ) ; and there is no such thing as Zen politics or Zen social d o c t r i n e . But is it not better not to mix so directly in politics and social questions as Christianity did? The social significance of "not b e i n g social'1 should be re-examined. F r o m the Christian side, it was then stressed that Chr i s t i ­ anity does not know any satori as a "religious demarcation line1’ . The only criterium of the Christian life is love of neighbor, w h i c h i s ， after a l l , a social principle. C h r i s t !s revelation is not the doctrine preached by C h r i s t , but C h r i s t !s historical ex­ istence as a w h o l e , including its socio-political b a c k g r o u n d . As such, it has a socio-historical component and d i r e c t i o n . In connection w i t h the rather self-centered and m a t e r i a l i s ­ tic elements in the religious feelings of the man in the s t r e e t , the role a m a n ’ s personal problems play in his religious experi­ ence was d i s c u s s e d . Also the pro b l e m of J a p a n ’ s N e w Religions was brought up. With their adaptation to everyday life they seem to fill the gap b e t w e e n the traditional religions and the m a s s e s . How should w e judge them or h o w do they judge us? Does this stress on the this-worldly benefi ts represent a distortion of true religion? Thus our two-day Buddhist-Christian dialogue came to an e n d . What did it accomplish? It did not produce a Buddhist-Christian joint declaration, and it certainly brought more questions than a n s w e r s . Reflec t i o n can point out same flaws in the organiza­ tion : all the papers had much more to say about language than about experience ; there was a certain imbalance between the Buddhist presentations (very general and theoretical) and the Christian ones (treating two concrete points without presenting a general Christian view) ; everyday life could have been given a greater place from the b e g i n n i n g ... But all this does not touch the nature of our endeavor. Was this endeavor an "exercice in futility'1 because it cannot

show na p r o d u c e 11? The ten participants are agreed that it was a very enriching experience : to be able to seek together for the presence of the "hidden G o d 11. In i t s e l f , our symposium w a s , of c o u r s e , very limited. It demands follow-up in all kinds of f o r m s . This is up to us. " a n d the S p i r i t .

Jan Van Bragt