Transcript
OBENCHAIN: Thank you all for coming. I think we'll begin. Our timeframe, if I understand it, is from 11:00 to 12:30. My name is Diane Obenchain. I teach at Peking University in the newly established religious studies department. I've been involved with that department -- although it was founded in 1995, I've been involved with the development of the academic study of religion in China
since 1988. I would like to introduce our distinguished presenter today, Professor Kosuke Koyama. Professor Koyama just recently retired from Union Theological Seminary in New York. He was professor of world Christianity. He is a Japanese citizen and worked for many years in Southeast Asian, in Thailand and Malaysia.
KOYAMA: That area.
OBENCHAIN: That area. He will be doing the presentation today, and he has a very informative one for us on observation, revelation, and dialogue. The focus is on Christian theological approach to Buddhism. He has a very sensitive paper. I know this, because for the last two days, we've been at another conference at the Center of Theological Inquiry, where we've been working on similar issues with Professor Koyama. The
first respondent to Professor Koyama's paper will be Sang Hyun Lee, Professor Sang Hyun Lee of systematic theology and director of the Asian American program at Princeton Theological Seminary. One of his most recent books is The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. The second respondent will be Professor Sze-kar Wan, professor of New Testament studies at Andover Newton Theological School.
I must say that I've also enjoyed getting to know Sze-kar Wan also at the Center of Theological Inquiry. He's working on the dialogue between Christianity and Confucianism. So without further ado, I'd like to give the floor to Professor Koyama. He will take between 20 and 30 minutes, and then our respondents will reply.
KOYAMA: Thank you very much, Professor Obenchain of Beijing University. In advance, I'd like to say thank you to distinguished -- my two colleagues, Professor Lee and Professor Wan, for responding whatever I'm going to present. I have been asked to speak on Christian approach to
Buddhism. That was the theme I was given about a year ago for this particular conference, and we have been doing that quite seriously, studying the process. I was asked to write on Christian approach, not Christian criticism or Christian analysis, but Christian approach. Now, that is a
wonderful word there, and I particularly appreciated a Christian approach to Buddhism. I have been personally very much involved in this particular religious tradition. I was born in (inaudible) Japan, and I spent considerable time in Thailand and Southeast Asia and so on, and so I have a number of interesting personal
episodes, such as I was engaged in Buddhist monks in Chiang Mai, Thailand many years ago, and I said, "In the beginning, there was [award?]," and he said, "Well, that's pretty [nosy?] religion." He said, "I would say, in the beginning -- I would prefer to say, in the beginning was a [silence and a song?]." Or that I was walking in the street of Bangkok, he and I walking together, and he
saw some big sign, big sign over the church, says that the Bible and the [song?] that was going on, and he said, "Now, your God must be quite hard up, because you've got to do that kind of thing in order to get people." I have lived among Mahayana Buddhists, and Theravada Buddhists, and I have known a number of excellent, wonderful
Theravada monks, particularly in Thailand. Now, it is one thing to understand Buddhism. It is another to know, know personally, Buddhists. My [traffic?] is gradually -- my traffic has been changed that I look at Buddhism from my knowledge, my acquaintance with Buddhists. You can go [other way around?]. Yes, you can do that.
Where I was a student here many years ago, many, many years ago, I always thought I studied Buddhism and look at Buddhist, but now my traffic has been more or less changed. Now, the title of this paper that I'm going to present is, as Professor Obenchain's introduced it to you, observation, human observation, human observation and the
divine revelation, divine revelation, in dialogue. Now, that does not suggest that I understand there is some kind of two-way traffic, two-way speech, that human observation and the divine revelation, there are two-way traffic and connection, as it were, and water flows in both ways. Dialogue
is a conscious enterprise, but apart from conscious enterprise, there are always observation and revelation may be in the vast scale, the scale of humanity, the human awareness, scale of humanity. Without our particular awareness and analysis of that dialogue,
there must be massive communication between human observation and the divine revelation. Professor John [Beattie?], good friend of mine over many, many years, he's now here, and he told me that in Africa, when you talk about Jesus, they would say, "Oh, we knew that. You just gave me name Jesus to that. In substance, we knew already," and that kind of thing reinforces, strengthens, my understanding
that there is human observation and divine revelation, that there's tremendous, wonderful, as it were, commerce, the traffic, in between them. Now, in my part, I was 15 years old when Hiroshima was attacked by a nuclear bomb, and so I have seen great -- all my life, I have seen great deal of violence, the self-destructive violence
of humans upon this planet. Now, that is my observation. That is my fundamental observation, because I was 15 years old, and I was -- well, I'm a homo sapiens, and I hope I am a homo sapiens sapiens, I hope, but fundamentally, I would say I'm a homo [bomb?]. I don't know how to say that in Latin, but I am a homo sapiens, but I am a homo bomb. Because being a bond, that experience was so
decisive to me, and so I look at the world from the experience that March 10 of 1945, I was 15 or so, and I was bombed and bombed, and narrowly escaped death in Tokyo downtown. From that, then I became man of observation through that kind of experience. I was kicked out over that night,
March 10 of 1945. My innocence is gone, and I had experience of my (inaudible) coming off my eyes, and I began to see things as they are, as it were, good things and bad things and everything. So I was taken away my innocence. I was taken away my ecstasy, if I use Paul Tillich's expression, and I went out some very -- I learned
how to observe, and continuously I observed word always in connection with the question of violence. I think our human words, the very word that I'm speaking, is tainted, is infested with some kind of violence, potential violence. And particularly when we have some strong ideas about something we call ideology,
we may be really -- in our honest thinking, we may be sincerely -- possibly with sincerity, we may be engaged in violence. Violence is, in my mind, one of the most mysterious realities, and one must understand the violence in order to understand -- one must have acquaintance with violence, understanding with violence, in order to understand all these
great religious teachings and so forth. Now, I use some particular words, so just let me introduce one or two of those things before I lead my prepared three pages, single space. First of all, I said there are two-way traffic that I said. OK, fine. Now, I'm going to use an observation.
I put importance in observation, and so happened, in my mind, Buddhism is a classical example of giving us very honest, profound observation on human predicament, on human life. In other words, when I say Buddhism, when I come to the subject of Buddhism and Buddhist, knowing Buddhism, knowing
through -- understanding through Buddhist, I see in Buddhism universal persuasiveness. The Buddhist observation of human life has a quality of universal persuasiveness. In my mind, universality means universal persuasiveness.
It is not straight out (inaudible) the Kingdom of God, that God reigns, hallelujah. I think hallelujah, God reigns, hallelujah, the meaning of that hallelujah is, in Christ, we are encountered by universal persuasiveness, and that universal persuasiveness is very much at the center of Buddhist message.
I don't see, therefore, the Buddhist (inaudible) Christianity like this, and the fighting and conflict each other like this, because Christianity presents profound observation of human life, Buddhism presents profound observation of human life, and they have a good reason to engage dialogue. And by the way, by the way, my position is
that revelation cannot stay meaningful if it is set apart from observation. In other words, as soon as we say the word "revelation," we are already deeply in the water of observation. Observation, revelation, you cannot separate. That is my position. Another comment before I read paper. I'm going to use the word "greed,"
G-R-E-E-D. Now, I'm sure that just doesn't sound right to our ears. We are pretty greedy, but we don't want to hear -- we don't want to articulate it. Greed is maybe unwelcome vocabulary, one of those words in our life context, but Buddhism says that greed, human greed, is the, as it were, number one
human problem, and that is where I come down. In other words, what is Buddhism's analysis, observation of human life -- yes. You can say so many things. Oh, yes, Buddhism is a [spiritization?] creating religion. It's a tremendous complexity and all of that, in China, Japan, and (inaudible) Sri Lanka and so on. But I have made existential decision
that Buddhist message is our problem, our fundamental problem, is greed. Now, the whole thing boils down to that observation, and I call it that is an honest observation. That's the way I call it. Now, one more thing. Christianity, Christian approach to Buddhist, Christianity
says that what is truth, truth is, italics, Jesus Christ, and you cannot talk about true understanding of Christianity apart from the person and the work of Jesus Christ, and "is" is italicized, that the truth is Jesus Christ. Now, that's very scandalous, to use the apostle Paul's expression. Now, whereas,
in the Buddhism, truth is not Gautama Siddhartha. No, Gautama Siddhartha, anybody doesn't matter. The truth is dharma. Dharma. In the Buddhist tradition, ecce homo is not important. Ecce dharma is important. It's just like -- just when I was a student, I used to say about Einstein here, on this street,
the E=MC squared, that great equation, is free from Dr. Einstein. It can walk around by itself. You don't have to say -- once it is articulated, E=MC squared,
that equation will go out anywhere. Now, just like that, greed is a human problem that can walk by itself. You don't have to say, (inaudible) Buddha said that it's just the truth about Buddha and so forth. No, no. It can go by itself. So I would say, in Buddhism, true structure, character, is not ecce homo, but ecce dharma. That's what.
Now, thank you very much. I'm going to now -- may I read my prepared. Observation and the revelation and dialogue. For my part, the word "globalization" is a clumsy expression, indicating the universal spiritual quest of humanity. Am I doing all right here? Globalization is basically crafted,
technological, institutional concept. Setting aside the [source?] on globalization for a moment, I am fascinated with the biblical expression "ruach," spirit, ruach, that the free God breathed life into our nostrils. The ruach is a universal [free reality?] which makes human life possible, even with all of life's ambiguities. The spiritual quest is universal.
It is engaged in everywhere, wherever humans are to be found. The spiritual quest is our inner drive, the movement of ruach, searching for meaning in life. I see globalization in the light of universal ruach, not the other way around. The ruach examines the quality of human civilization. Our spiritual quest is concomitant with our observation of life.
It becomes more truthful when our observation of human life becomes more truthful. What kind of observation, an honest observation -- classically I associate the name of Gautama Siddhartha, the Enlightened One, with an honest observation of human life. On the basis of materials available to us today on Buddhism, and the way this tradition (inaudible) Gautama, it seems fairly safe to say that the
theme of human greed, tanha, is at the center of Buddhist message. The Gautama of Buddhism says greed is the number one human problem. I think this is an honest observation. Others may grasp Gautama's (inaudible) [focus?] differently. On two simple grounds, I consider my focus valid. First, this comes to me as an honest observation of human life,
and secondly, as far as my study goes, this surely touches on the core message of Buddhism. My additional comment here is that nobody knows exactly what the contents of Gautama's enlightenment was. Greed is human problem. I call this observation, not revelation. In the study of history of religion, the word "revelation" has been used in reference to the religious experiences
associated with the Near Eastern monotheistic faiths of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Buddhism, though, in the course of its long Pan-Asian and more recently global history, has come in contact with monotheistic sentiment, has remained essentially a teaching based on observation of the human predicament. In that sense, it is empirical and humanistic. It does not have to defend
a set of absolute truths. Observation can be superseded by a better observation. In this sense, the Buddhist attitude towards observation is akin to the character of scientific research, and observation such as that greed is a human problem can have a meaning independently of its source, as the famous equation E=MC squared is free from the person called
Albert Einstein. What is said, greed is a human problem, is profoundly personal in its contents, yet once articulated, it is not dependent on the Buddha who said it. It has become dharma, ecce dharma, not ecce homo. It is not in ecce homo, but in ecce dharma, that Buddhism establishes universality. My interest in the biblical ruach leads
me to suggest that universality means universal persuasiveness. Universality is not statistical comprehensiveness. It must be measured by its power of persuasiveness. Is the thought that greed is a human problem universally persuasive? Does it make us, all of us, most of us, or some of us examine the violent state of the world today? How universally does it throw light upon our self-understanding
to the extent that it is persuasive, it is universal? In the ecumenical sphere of the ruach, universality and the persuasiveness go together. I find that greed is a human problem is persuasive, and to that extent, it is, for me, universal. What I am saying here is that in reference to the ruach, the speech of universality becomes confessional.
It will be qualified by the subjective phrase "for me." Universality, as honest persuasiveness, frees itself from imperialism. I find the biblical thought that humans are created in the image of God persuasive. I [confided?] to myself, this is meaningful, this is persuasive. This offers relevant critique to our life today. I can see, without
much difficulty, a possibility for profitable dialogue between this biblical teaching and the Buddhist observation that greed is a human problem. I do not have to initiate such dialogue self-consciously. When these two words touch my ruach, immediately my ruach is agitated, feeling their power within me and within my community. In my ruach life, these two words have
come so often together. With particular force and relevance, they came together when I was bombed by the American B-29s in Tokyo during World War II, and again when I observed American civil rights struggle in 1960s. Revelation, isolated from observation, will eventually lose vitality. It matters little whether one categorizes greed
is a human problem to be an observation or a revelation. Whichever it is classified, it touches my life with the sharp edge of relevance. At a critical moment of His ministry, Jesus declares, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father in heaven." This is revelation, not observation. The Christian truth is ecce
homo, not ecce dharma. The truth and the person of Jesus Christ is one. This is scandalous, as the apostle Paul says. In the Christian faith, all human observations point ultimately to this scandalous truth, and in turn, receive illumination from it. I decided to know nothing among you, except Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
The validity of revelation does not invalidate the Buddhist observation that greed is a human problem. I hesitate to suggest a contradiction or hostility between human observation and divine revelation. In my view, observation and revelation are in a multi-directional dialogue in the ruach [full world?]. No revelation can sustain its impact upon
humanity apart from the collaboration of human observation. There is a two-way traffic between God is truth, and the truth is God -- Mahatma Gandhi. Now a few comments to conclude this presentation. First, greed is a human problem. I find this observation honest. I recognize that there are dishonest observations, such as, for instance, to be greedy is virtuous,
in the world. That Jesus Christ crucified challenges us to prove, examine, both the honest and the dishonest observations. This is a mystery of every-expanding persuasiveness of Jesus Christ. Second, history demonstrates that misuse of transcendence, revelation, has been far more damaging to the welfare of humanity
than that of observation. Observation has, from time to time, been instrumental in restoring some measure of health to society from the effect of misuse of revelation. Third, if speech about observation is accompanied by the subjective word for me, so too must the speech about revelation. In the sphere of ruach,
there is no such thing as objective mathematical universality. This is a Protestant principle. If we mask the speak of universality, it must be the elusive universality of the ruach of the free God given to us. Fourth, generally, we understand religion as a packaged unit, calling it Buddhism, Islam, and so on.
The ruach orientation challenges this. We are challenged to pay more attention to content of the message, such as greed is a human problem, than to the conveniently packaged religion. When we package others, we package ourselves. Imperialism works in both directions. The inter-religious dialogue we practiced today is too often inter-packaged dialogue.
Thank you very much.
OBENCHAIN: Professor Lee.
LEE: As soon as he sits down. My remarks, by the way, are based upon the first and the earlier version of Dr. Koyama's paper, which was 14-pages long, double spaced, and in which he dealt quite a bit in detail
with the Buddhist teaching on dharma and a number of other issues. I think he omitted a lot of that stuff in the short presentation here. So I want you to know that, in a sense, I'm not directly speaking to what he said just now. The other disclaimer I want to register is that Dr. Koyama is personally one that I respect
a great deal, and one who I believe is a role model for me in many ways. But most importantly, from Asian perspective, he's older than me. If I followed the Asian way, I could just say to Dr. Koyama, "Your wise words are very thoughtful, and I'll go home and think about them."
But I'm also professor of systematic theology here at Princeton Seminary, and we have this American Academy of Religion format here, and I'm going to respond to his paper raising questions and all that, as if I'm going to get somewhere by doing these things. But here we are, calling the format -- forgive me, Dr. Koyama, I'm going to play the Western scholar for a second.
Professor Koyama's discussions in his paper, as usual, are pungent, provocative, and thoughtful. As a distinguished theologian, a former missionary, and one who is intimately, personally acquainted with the Asian religious traditions, Dr. Koyama writes on the topic at hand with authenticity and authority. It is also refreshing to see Dr. Koyama delve right into the material content of the dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, rather than linger on
methodological issues. I say this in spite of the fact that I'm, in a minute, going to raise a methodological question in my response. My questions are more -- and I say this sincerely -- are more requests for further clarification than criticism. I'm not an expert in this area, by the way. As you'll notice from my publication, my expertise is Jonathan Edwards. My first and primary concern has to do with the question of
what kind of a theology of inter-religious dialogue, what kind of a theology of inter-religious dialogue is functioning in Dr. Koyama's paper? Obviously, what is going on here is dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism, but what kind of dialogue is involved here is not always clear. I see at least two kinds. There may be more. I see at least two kinds of theological approaches to the inter-religious dialogue at work.
A, the first is the approach whereby Dr. Koyama's Christian and Buddhist's own ultimate commitments are acknowledged, respected, and preserved. In other words, a theology where the ultimate commitments are appreciated. Dr. Koyama, the Christian, then, studies Buddhism to find insights in other religions that help the Christians understand
more fully the meaning of the Christian God's self-revelation in Jesus Christ. [Sure what I mean?]? Look at Buddhism and try to find things that help us, the Christians, understand Jesus Christ more fully. Dr. Koyama's critique of the abstract, dry-bones God of the classical [theism?] that was in the longer paper, in light of Buddhism's emphasis on the visible and more tangible
dharma, is a case in point. Such a critique in light of Buddhism, according to Dr. Koyama, helps the Christians highlight the biblical God of pathos, over against the classical God that he critiques, and thus achieve, in this way, a more correct understanding of the Christian's own ultimate faith commitment. Another theology of inter-religious dialogue that
seems to be at work in Dr. Koyama's longer version of the paper is one where a trans -- or, I should say, inter-traditional, inter-religious criterion, or trans-religious criterion, or inter-religious criterion, above both the Christian and Buddhist traditions is positive, and then in light of that criterion, both religious traditions are evaluated. In other words, the third
or more universal norm is positive, and then particular religions are evaluated. Contrasting Buddhism against Christianity, in terms of observation and revelation, -- respectively, Buddhism observation, Christianity revelation -- Dr. Koyama writes, and I quote page seven of the longer paper, "The value" -- these are his words. "The value of both observation and revelation is found in their power to create
wholesomeness in human life. If observation speaks more inspiringly -- Buddhism namely -- speaks more inspiringly and compellingly the humanity, and brings more healing to human community than revelation -- presumably Christianity -- then, eventually, revelation -- namely Christianity -- will be discredit. It is truth that creates wholesomeness in the human community," end quote. Dr. Koyama says
this in the context of his argument that the revelation of Christianity is more prone to produce fanaticism and fundamentalism than the Buddhist observation. Presumably, Christianity, to this extent, is discredited. Here, the criterion of the wholesomeness in human life -- in quotes, "wholesomeness in human life" -- is posited as a third criterion, or universal criterion, in terms of which both religions are evaluated.
Besides the question of how such a conception -- besides the question, now, of how such a conception of inter-traditional criterion can be justified, there's another issue, namely whether or not such a revelation of -- excuse me -- whether or not such -- oh yeah -- such a -- excuse me -- such a relativization -- yeah, that's it -- whether or not such a relativization of particular religious traditions would be being true to the very nature of
those particular traditions themselves. If such a third criterion is to be used, it seems to me, it certainly would have to be used, at least in a dialectical relationship, with the ultimate or absolute commitments of the particular traditions themselves. At any rate, the paper cries out for a clarification of what exactly is Dr. Koyama's theology of dialogue. Maybe here I'm going against the
basic grains of Dr. Koyama. Maybe why he's so creative and why he's so -- maybe he just doesn't want to clarify these kind of things. Maybe I'm fighting against something that Dr. Koyama just doesn't want to get into. I acknowledged earlier that if Dr. Koyama just gave a paper on the methodology as to how to get at this, then I would have been bored,
too, by that. When I do my -- I'm, right now, trying to formulate my own theological reflection about the Asian-American marginality in this country. It's been interesting to discover that I am not worried about the methodology at all. My feeling is I don't care what they say; I'm just going to say what I want to say. Right? Maybe, at the end, I might add a
methodological postscript. I say all this with -- well, anyway. B, now turning to the material content of the paper, I will briefly list just a few -- among many -- just a few issues or questions that may be worth further discussion. One, Dr. Koyama tends to draw a sharp distinction between revelation and observation as the approaches of Christianity and Buddhism
respectively, and then maintains that Christianity's revelation must dialogue with the observation of Buddhism, quote, "in order to find its place in human life," end quote, page 14. I just wonder how true the dichotomy really is. Does not the event of Christian God's self-revelation, if understood as historically mediated, precisely involve what Dr. Koyama calls observation within its own event, within itself?
In other words, doesn't Christian revelation itself include observation if the revelation is conceived of as historically mediated, as I say? On the other hand, is there not, in the Buddhist experience of nirvana, much more than observation than Dr. Koyama indicates? Doesn't what especially (inaudible) Buddhism refers to as nirvana have something, a lot something, a little more than what Dr. Koyama seems to mean by -- appears to mean by observation?
I'm not sure. So that's a question. Number two. Is Dr. Koyama correct in describing Buddhism as a diagnosis of human ills and a therapy for the elimination of those ills? Granted that these are involved -- certainly these are involved -- but wouldn't the Buddhist of all stripes also want to insist that the goal of their religion is also a participation in the ultimate reality that transcends human
problems? Number three. Is Dr. Koyama correct in concluding that the Christian emphasis on the revelation of a transcendent God -- is he correct in saying that this Christian emphasis on the revelation of a transcendent God is more prone to produce idolatry, fanaticism, and destructive fundamentalism? Is he really correct on that? Isn't it possible also to argue
that the transcendent principle in Christianity has at times guarded, helped guard against, idolatry, and empowered the human community, Christian community, to resist against idolatrous and totalitarian political regimes, precisely in the name of the transcendent God, thereby function as a force against idolatry? Isn't that also true that Buddhism has historically, at least in the history of Korean Buddhism anyway, historically shown a
kind of, quote, "weakness" in face of political regimes that will use it for its own purposes? For instance, at the end of the nineteenth century, when Christianity came into Korea, the Buddhism was so corrupt because the political power had just absorbed the Buddhism for its own use. In face of political regimes, they're using (inaudible) purpose. This, of course, is not to deny
that the Christian revelation has also been so often abused for self-righteous, egotistic purposes. Empirically speaking, I tend to agree. Although I'm a Christian theologian, empirically speaking, I tend to agree with Dr. Koyama, that Buddhism is probably less prone to self-righteousness and destructive fundamentalism. I think I agree with him. But I just wanted to
point out that Buddhism has a problem there also, perhaps because of absence of some personalistic transcendent principle of criticism. Perhaps Buddhism has been more prone to -- more easy prey, in a sense, to political regimes that wanted to use Buddhism for its own purposes. At the end of
the day, I suppose both Buddhism and Christianity have been abused in this way. I don't think Dr. Koyama would disagree with that. I just wonder, in other words, whether Christianity is any more prey to such abuses than any other religious traditions. It was a refreshing experience to read Dr. Koyama. As my older [brother?], please forgive me for these [AR?]-type remarks, and I'll think about your words
in the future (inaudible).
OBENCHAIN: We'll move on to the second respondent, and he also will have about 10 minutes, Professor Sze-kar --
KOYAMA: Now I'm done, they're bringing TV camera. How do you like that? Who cares?
WAN: I also want to thank Professor Koyama for a very provocative presentation on the two different modes of comprehending reality in both Christianity and in Buddhism. In fact, two religious discourses that have come into increasing contact with each other, especially in this country. If I may add a personal note, also [two?] signal factors in my own identity formation. Of course, growing up Chinese, I simply could not help
being somewhat Buddhist. It's in our language, it's in our culture. I also want to thank my other senior colleague, Professor Sang Lee, for a masterful methodological description. I [think?] this description, if I may borrow a term of the paper, and it's really helped clarify it in my own thinking. I, too, have to apologize to Professor Koyama ahead of time
for carrying on sort of this American habit of --
KOYAMA: There he goes again.
WAN: -- responding and not critiquing, however, my senior Professor Koyama. You look at the color, the color difference in our hair, I think you can tell that I am very apologetic, and I'm really not worthy to be in this position. I think Professor Koyama has proposed a way of comparing two religious ways of looking at
religious phenomena, and I think he really wants to do it by means of the Spirit, "ruach" in Hebrew, and somehow, I think from other contexts, I have also gotten the hint that he is very much interested in using life as a kind of human common denominator in globalization. How we approach things as human beings, that being
our common denominator, as we look at the whole phenomenon of globalization. Here, I would simply want to extend that comparison, and to look at something more structural. Christianity, if I may push Professor Koyama's typology a little bit, centers around the singular act of revelation. Therefore, by implication, it highlights the central role played by the revealer.
Whether we believe in a certain revelation depends on whether we believe in the revealer. Buddhism, on the other hand, again pushing a limit, which Professor Koyama may wish that I wouldn't do, and most likely would resist, is based on the observation of life. To say greed is evil requires no personal speaker. You don't need Einstein or Buddha to tell you that this is in fact
true. It is self-evident (inaudible). Sayings such as this are, in fact, keen observations of life, no matter who utters them. Of course, I think this contrast between observation and revelation is only a suggestive guide for our understanding, and I don't want to dichotomize those two things, but I think those are important logical distinctions for us to make, because I think we'll see, at the end, it is how
we propose a way of bringing them together. Here, I want to use the occasion to construe, perhaps, a topic of discussion for Christians. Of course, here I speak as a Christian. The topic, I think, is especially urgent in what I call the winter of the present millennium, namely the strange notion, the biblical notion no less, of the apocalyptic.
The image of the apocalyptic has become a topic of choice as we speed towards the end of the millennium and to the year 2000. The topic has filled people's imagination with horrific portents about the end of the world, with prophesies of doom and dread, destruction and pestilence, judgment and fears, visions of finality, and I'm sad to say even reports of mass suicides,
self-annihilations. But in the biblical vocabulary, the apocalyptic is in fact an analytic tool to talk about the transient nature of the here and now. In the interlocking time-space continuum between the other worldly and this worldly, between the age to come and this present age, between the hope of the future and a disillusionment of the present,
between these competing yet complementary visions, stands the transient moment of the present, the instability of the ground we stand on, the temporariness of a waiting room in an airport. I've been traveling in and out of airports quite a bit these past few months, and I know what the transient nature of a waiting room could be like. We peek over the precipice
and stare long and deep into the abyss that's in front of us. That, however, is not the end of the story, not according to the New Testament. What saves this scenario from dark, hopeless pessimism is that we, as Christian folks, will say we believe in the fundamental goodness of the lordship, who oversees that abyss. The lordship who, in spite of all appearance to the contrary,
and in spite of the momentary fogginess that clouds our spiritual myopia, stands on the yet-to-be-visible other side. We have such confidence, such hope -- not wishful thinking, but hope -- because we know this same Lord has once gone into the same abyss, slid down to the same despairing hope, but -- and this is the crucial point -- emerged
victorious on the other side. I think this is the basis for Christian hope, the basis for courage to move bravely onward into the future, and not to be encumbered by the transient present. To act with firm conviction, and not be unnerved by the shifting, unstable ground. We have faith because Christ has accomplished the same feat.
So this is the apocalyptic analysis of the transient. The present moment is caught between the already accomplished and the not yet. The present moment is like the quicksand on which we stand, but which, in hope, in faith, will, in due time, turn into firm rocks. Why? Because it has been done before. Now, I submit this is the Christian analog to the Buddhist notion of transience.
Buddhism observes that greed is evil because it is based on a craving of the transitory to the neglect of the eternal and the permanent. It is an important message for us to hear, but a Christian message, I would say, is equally insistent. The present age is passing away, but with Christ's victory over death, we can face the future with confidence, and we no longer
need to put our faith in the transience of the present. Now, the convergence of these two religions should not surprise us, and here I go back to Professor Koyama's imagery and his usage of ruach, the Spirit, because it is the ruach that tells us instinctively that eternal values cannot be reduced to the transience of the temporary.
But of course, if we call this ruach, Spirit, the Holy, divine Spirit, of course there's revelation. On the other hand, if we call this ruach a human spirit, it is observation. This is, in fact, the common basis for both revelation and observation. Paul does talk about that we, the human spirit, has a way of understanding the eternal
Spirit, because both are Spirit. Only like knows the like. I submit this is perhaps one of the biblical ways of putting these two things together. Professor Koyama, once again, you have given us a lot of food for thought, but the most important is perhaps the occasion in which you have helped Christians, among whom you would count yourself as well, to understand our own apocalyptic
heritage. Thank you very much.
OBENCHAIN: Thank you very much, Professor Sze-kar Wan. Procedurally, what I would like to suggest is that Professor Koyama take five minutes, at the most, to respond to these two respondents, and then I want to urge the floor to be open to discussion generally. But I think Professor Koyama may have a few remarks to make in response to the two very thoughtful presentations that have been made. Just five minutes, so we can talk.
KOYAMA: I do appreciate very, very much these two comments I have received. It's really wonderful, and it challenges me a great deal. Now, I'd like to say, first of all, that, as a working thesis, as a working thesis, I made idea of universal persuasiveness a methodological principle. When
I say that I was fully aware of what the tradition of Protestant principle says, but I thought that bridge between divine revelation and the human observation, there must be this traffic, and that traffic must be called the traffic of universal persuasiveness. When I said that, I am reacting against 500 years of imperialistic "You don't
know anything, we've got to come and teach you" kind of thing, which I personally experienced on a number of occasions. Not that kind of thing, but, OK, you have a gospel; fine. Does it have persuasiveness? I think that is an honest discussion. Then, secondly, theology of
dialogue, yes, my theology of dialogue is universal persuasiveness, whatever it means. That is a general approach. I find God in terms -- I must confess that I have been very much here influenced by Abraham Heschel, and Abraham Heschel has been with me the last 30, 40 years, and he guided me from
some critical moment of my theological pilgrimage. His understanding of pathos, pathos of God, and God has this burning [hotness?] that pathos and commitment and [hesid?] and all that. My mind is, God said through (inaudible), my mind
is turning over inside me, my emotions are agitated all together. Now, I'd like to make this as a methodology of theology, but how can you make this kind of thing as a methodology of theology? These are some of the comments that I'd like to -- this is my
critique, that (inaudible) inter-religious dialogue is inter-packaged dialogue, which is sort of [criticism?] suffocated with a lack of oxygen. Now, may I tell you, I do not see revelation and observation as conflicting two ideas. I see -- I can say almost revelation cannot really become meaningful
unless human observation participates in it. I just cannot see revelation by itself. As soon as we say revelation, human observation is already in there, so it is not dichotomy language at all. Nirvana has a transcendental quality. Professor Lee is quite right. But it is sort of moderate,
moderated transcendental aspect compared to some of the Judeo-Christian and the Islamic pronouncements about the transcendence of God. Now, my experience in Japan is that BC 587, that Jerusalem was destroyed, and AD 1945, Tokyo was destroyed. Jerusalem was destroyed --
with lots of theology, Jerusalem was destroyed, and without theology, Tokyo was destroyed by Americans, by this side, by Americans, this side by Babylonians. And this one got lots of theology, but it was destroyed. This one got no theology, but destroyed. This one is American (inaudible). Now, that is to say that idolatry may not be consciously engaged, but you
harvest, you harvest the devastation out of that. I am still working what happened between that sixth-century BC Jerusalem and 1945 Tokyo, and result two destructions of capital cities. In between is about 25 centuries. But some kind of same principle must have worked there,
and that exegesis, I am still working on it. But Professor [Newsna?] of Judaic study has given me some kind of insight about how to go at this kind of connection. But I think there is quality -- when the true God appears, that provokes
fanaticism. That's what strange thing about human history is. When the "thus says the Lord" appears, then "thus says the Lord" become -- somebody controls that and says that God is absolute. That comment is, I name, I designate, when and where
God is absolute, and therefore, actually, absoluteness of God is transferred under my authority, and therefore absoluteness, or transcendence, I say, misuse of transcendence, is a very dangerous thing, and then I think that a place like Japan, we don't have much transcendence. It's sort of free from that kind of (inaudible). Namely, it is
one thing to say, "I don't like you." It is another to say, "I think God doesn't like you." And that one go up and down. That one is sinister, more sinister, than (inaudible). "I don't like you." I think, theologically, "I think God doesn't like you" is another story. I think that temptation is a Western temptation, and we have more or less this temptation, and
when transcendent religion came, then it came (inaudible) shaped instead of horizontal shaped. Now, transient. Greed is transient, to stick yourself to transient thing. Transience is a great doctrine of Buddhism, and I very much thank you to Professor Wan about this dimension of
it. Namely, I spoke about greediness, greed, but he said you know greediness is attachment, to attach yourself to something, transient thing. After all, you may have millions of dollars. You may have this, and this, and this. But don't forget that's all transient. That is Buddhism. That is very much Buddhism. He says that there's
ruach that I spoke about, the ruach, the spirit, the universal -- the potential that engages us, universal quest of human meaning, meaning of human life. That is that component, ruach, and that ruach, human ruach, has a potential to combine observation and revelation. I think that that comment is something
that I'd really like to think about carefully, and it's a very emancipating and very theologically instructive point. I thank you very much. And also, I'd like to say that [I do like?] the question that you raised, that misuse of transcendence, how dangerous is misuse of transcendence? I appreciate that to Professor Lee. Thank you very much.
OBENCHAIN: Thank you very much. I'm very grateful for all of your remarks and responses. Procedurally, I would like, for the sake of the record, when somebody has a question, would you please state your name and brief affiliation. I'll keep a record of that. I think what I'd like to do is move to one or two questions at a time, and then bring a response, in order to save time and get as many voices coming forward as possible.
Yes?
M: (inaudible)
OBENCHAIN: That would be helpful if you like.
NEWTON: My name is Len Newton. I'm a citizen of the world, and a citizen of Princeton, New Jersey. The theme of greed was brought forward by Professor Koyama repeatedly, and although I think it was Professor Wan said it didn't need explanation, I myself would like some definition of what he has in mind. For example, is it in any way an extreme form of self-interest?
Are they connected? I just think that he's probably right, that this is a very important force. I think it's so important, and we need to know more about how greed works and what he means when he talks about greed. I have just one footnote. He returned several times to the area of the bombing of Tokyo, and I have to tell him that although I was only a couple years older than he was at that moment,
I could see where I was. I was part of a team that sent B-29s over Tokyo to bomb it. So I'm one of the people you need to talk to if you want to understand what happened. I didn't hear any mention of Honolulu, of course, in your discussion. I'm not bringing up the war to repeat it, because I have as much concern about the world of violence. I have fought against our position, our country's position, with the use of that bomb
for the last 45 years. Happens to be a member of my family helped to create it. Of course, Princeton was very forceful in the creation of that bomb. People all around here, both during and after the war, were involved in creating it, including a member of my family. But I certainly think we did make a huge mistake in using it, but nevertheless, it was used, and there was reason for using it. We thought at the time it was going to save a lot of lives. But I do come back
to the greed issue, because we seem to be using, in our culture and economy today, the principle of self-interest: take care of what you need first, and other people will take care of what they need, and maybe we can help each other. Are we leading the world to destruction by that concept? If you think so, you better say it, because the world is following us right now.
OBENCHAIN: Do you want to respond to that, or shall we take another question? Let's take one more question, or one or two, and then I think I'll ask Professor Koyama to respond to those. Yes?
M: I'll try to (inaudible) Biblical Seminary. You talked about observation and revelation, and developed the Buddhist concept of greed, and then you related it to the Christian understanding of the image of God in man or in humankind. How would you relate the Buddhist understanding of greed to Paul's teaching where he says covetousness is idolatry, or just the whole biblical concept of greed, or of
covetousness? Maybe you can tie into what's been said.
OBENCHAIN: Does someone else have another question in the area of greed? Because we could pool these several concerns together and bring a unified response in that way. Is there another question in regard to greed? I have one, if you'd permit me at this point. The Buddhist Four Noble Truths go like this. Life is suffering. There's a cause of suffering. The cause of suffering is
greed. Then there can be an end to suffering. Then, number four, the eight-fold path is the end to that suffering, which is putting an end to greed. But I think the first truth is something worthy of attention, and that is life is suffering, and then greed is the explanation for that suffering. Now, I think the Christian might have a slightly different tack on the
cause -- the reason for suffering. It may not totally be explained by greed. I don't know if you want to address that or not, but those are some concerns about greed you might want to address.
KOYAMA: Thank you very much. The Buddha used the word -- well, the tradition of Buddhism uses a word, "tanha," for greed, craving, possess -- the whole idea is sort of, I'd like to possess more and more kind of thing. Now, Buddha was asked, "What do you mean by greed?" He said -- well, this is tradition. Tradition says that he
not against ordinary greed. We need ordinary greed. That is to say, you have to protect your life, you have to take care of yourself, and so forth. That is more or less normal acquisitiveness. That is acceptable for ordinary people, not for the monks. Monks are nirvana specialists. Nirvana specialists have different
standard, but for the world, for the ordinary people, that acceptable degree -- there is such thing as acceptable degree of greed, or self-centeredness, and so on. That is quite clearly the tradition states. But for the nirvana specialists, the monks who goes into monastery, they are different, subject to different rule. Now, OK. Now,
I think that there would be no conflict, really, as a matter between biblical understanding of greed, such as, "I have so much, and I'm going to build a bigger barn, and put it and say to my spirit that, oh, spirit, I have everything now. Let us enjoy," and the Lord said, "Tonight, your soul will be required of you" kind of parable, will tell
you that your attachment to transient thing, or attachment to that kind of self-aggrandizement, is not so meaningful in the eyes of the eternal God. I find, as a matter of fact, my study of Buddhism, and also other religions, religion of Islam and others, Hindus, those religions have really helped my understanding of all the Bible.
So that is simply part of my personal confession. I think it will give sort of globalized -- I come from Buddhist, Eastern [Buddhadom?] (inaudible), Buddhadom (inaudible). I come from there, and I speak the language there. I become just Near Eastern monotheistic tradition of the Bible and biblical
tradition and the Islamic tradition is a very interesting, tremendous encounter that has taken [with?] me. I think that Buddhism's observations are one with classical examples that Bible and Buddhists (inaudible) such an observation can come very, very nicely. I just don't see any conflict. I see biblical teaching more unpacked, and
it becomes helpful. It is true that Buddhism says that the life is suffering. It starts very narrative. Well, narrative? Is it narrative, or is it one of the observation? It is fundamental observation, according to tradition of Buddhism. It's not twentieth century in the United States, eastern part of the United States or whatever. It was 25 centuries ago, and it is really amazing,
25 centuries ago, he talked about greed. I just can't imagine what kind of greed was possible 25 centuries ago in Paul, that era. But anyway. I think that "life is suffering" must have had some very relevant basis, because people died so easily, and suffered so much, and so forth.
There are three things. Suffering, and why suffering? Greed. And if you eliminate greed, you'll be emancipated. That is a diagnosis and therapy. I think that must have had powerful enough message to create
sangha, the group of people, and then even all kinds of language and the liturgy and the symbolisms and the civilization. It moves around that. Now, about just one more. I was just telling you that I had -- when I was 15 years old, every night I was bombed in Tokyo, about for three months. OK, I am
not accusing anybody. I had that kind of experience. That's all I'm telling you. I had that kind of experience, just as somebody had the experience of being brought up in Dubuque, Iowa or Seattle, Washington. It just so happened I was Tokyo, and I was bombed. Now, if we go further discussion, that will be another set of discussion, and I have spent a great
deal of time in reading on that subject also. But you see, I'm just telling you that -- the experience of violence came into my life when I was 12, 13, 14, 15 years old, and I was hungry for three years. Every single moment, I was hungry, and that kind of thing came into when I was a teen. That's just all.
OBENCHAIN: Thank you very much. There is one -- a couple here, and then I would like to -- yes, I would like to come back to Professor Lee. Let me do this person here, and then this person here, and I'll keep a list. Please, go ahead.
M: My name is (inaudible). I come from India. (inaudible) I have two (inaudible). One is that
one point (inaudible) agree that there is partial included revelation in other religions that find hard to accept the possibility of (inaudible)
And secondly, I'm a little disappointed that the discussion around facing (inaudible). I come from India, where Hinduism is so
dominant. (inaudible) Most of the issues that we talk about (inaudible). Thank you.
OBENCHAIN: Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Yes, sir, you had another question?
GREENE: I am Stanley [Greene?] from [Mennonite Missions?]. I want to address the question not from the context of inter-religious dialogue [evolution?]. I wonder if, in fact, the -- what you have now described as polarities of human revelation and divine revelation and human observation, if those aren't brought together in the discipline and contextualization,
I read with interest your water buffalo theology and many other pieces, and [having?] impressed that when the church delivers divine revelation without observation, then oftentimes that creates a travesty. Similarly, I think in recent times, where we simply reflect on
human observation, we lose our sense of calling in the world. I wondered if you would have a comment on (inaudible).
KOYAMA: Thank you very much. I take that suggestion that the relationship between revelation and observation, and actually people's quest is more observation and so forth. I think that is very well taken, and I'd like to think about it. Thank you very much. I think that is one possible way to
widen this discussion. Now, second point is that I was asked to take care of Buddhism, and as a scholar, we have three more scholars who are taking care of Islam and -- excuse me, not taking care of. Excuse me. Their subject. Their subjects are Islam and Hinduism and Confucianism. Professor Wan is Confucian tradition, and Professor Obenchain is a professor of comparative
study and Confucian specialist in the University of Beijing. So we have that. But so happened that I was asked to write on Buddhism, so please, we have -- you know. Now, I -- yeah, that's right. You need a sense of calling that Jeremiah was called, and Saint Paul was
called, and this call, the sense of call, is something that sparks inside of you and start new orientation right, that calling. I think you are right. I'd like to think about it. In other words, only from the basis of human observation (inaudible) one can get that stirring insight fire of
calling, whether that is possible or not. I appreciate your comment. That's a really important point, yes.
OBENCHAIN: Thank you. We have time for maybe one or two final remarks. What I'd like to do is move to Professor Lee, and Sze-kar, do you have something you would like to close with also? Professor Lee.
LEE: I have a quick question that I think Dr. Koyama probably can answer very quickly. Dr. Koyama clarified himself, I think quite a bit, when he said that, quote, "universal persuasiveness is the methodological criterion" that he's working with. Now, as a Christian theologian, I have a question for you. The Christian tradition, historic Christian tradition, has always also said that what human beings
in general may find persuasive, what human beings in general may find persuasive, is not always the truth. Therefore, God's grace in revelation needs to correct and transform the question that people are asking, precisely. In other words, people, they themselves do not know
even how to ask the right question. Now, if we have this kind of a -- if you allow for this kind of a grace and nature, nature/grace dialectic, do you, as a Christian theologian -- are you satisfied with universal persuasiveness as a criterion? I don't mean to just pick on it, but.
KOYAMA: Honest observation is -- I said there are dishonest ones, but honest observation is something that we should take it up seriously. Maybe I was wrong, but I said greed is a human problem, I thought is pretty honest observation.
There are other observations that have, in good sense, persuasiveness. I see something like United Nations. Don't you think that nations get together and talk about before we shoot each other? Obviously, it had universal persuasiveness to a certain extent, to a certain significant extent, and we do
have not perfect, but imperfect. Yes, but we do have United Nations today. That is one example, for instance. It worked. That universal persuasiveness worked in a certain way.
LEE: Worked in a certain way. It seems to me that what you call honesty itself has to be corrected and transformed. You know, Republicans think that they're honest; Democrats think that they're honest. Anyway.
OBENCHAIN: I think in this place, I think Professor --
M: They're both dishonest.
OBENCHAIN: I think here, Professor Wan's comment, focus on the Spirit as a way of linking human observation and divine revelation in relation to this concern for honesty, I think the role of the Spirit is possibly in play there. The Holy Spirit as we understand it in a Christian sense. Are there any other pressing questions before we finish for the day? Professor Wan, did you have anything else?
WAN: Oh, just some general comments about globalization. I think I was deeply impressed by Professor [Roland's?] comments this morning, namely that globalization really does not mean the emergence of sameness, but rather really globalization of differences. It seems to me that in the area of religious conversation, dialogues, there has to be a chance for mutual enrichment, as well as changes.
In terms of the question of mission, I'm a firm believer in Professor [Walls?], Professor [Mission?] at Edinburgh, whose comment that Christianity cannot go in the new culture without being changed, without somehow taking on a new accent and flavors. I do mean those literally. If that's the case, then I think we as Christians need
to bring our Christian faith at ready to a conversation, and also be ready to be changed in our observations and in our package. I think packaging is necessary, but perhaps there may be different ways of packaging one's own faith. So simply a general comment in that direction.
M: Thank you all very much. It's a very instructive panel, and thank you for the contributions from the floor.
(unrelated material, not transcribed)