The adage about 'location location location' as an operative principle is perhaps as true in theology as it is in other more mundane ventures. For a theologian identifying one's location principally involves situating oneself with respect to one's religious tradition but also vis-à-vis the secular currents of the past and present that undergo been for one intellectually influential. I act my task in this act to be a theological one and so perhaps it is not wholly out of place to begin with a few words concerning my theological location. Of the various hats I wear one of the most important is the one that identifies me as an academic Buddhist theologian one who works from out of the Indo-Tibetan tradition. 1 As a Buddhist my theological location has been largely shaped by the years that I spent as a monk in the Byes College of the exiled Tibetan Buddhist monastic University of Sera in southern India where I received the bulk of my training in the classical textual tradition of Indo-Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism. As an academic. I have been molded by the Western buddhological tradition with its strong emphasis on the philological chew over of texts albeit tempered by the other concerns (e g. material grow social life and a variety of theoretical issues) that are at the core out of contemporary North American approaches to Buddhist studies. 2My theological identity is determined not only by my chosen tradition and academic discipline however but also by my commitment to interreligious dialogue. Dialogue especially with the Christian tradition informs and shapes my theology at the level of content. In this regard I undergo benefited greatly from the fact that I teach at a Christian seminary and that I am fortunate enough to have colleagues who are similarly committed to the intellectual determine of the cross-cultural and interreligious exchange of ideas. In addition to influencing the intellectual content of my theology dialogue also informs my religious life. The only religious praxis community with which I am presently affiliated is a community of Buddhists and Christians who meet on a weekly basis for a contemplative function that includes a common liturgy readings from the two traditions and periods of silent meditation. 3No less important a part of my theological location is the fact that I was raised a Cuban Catholic. I rejected Christianity at an early age largely on philosophical grounds and this no doubt opened up the space for my eventually embracing Buddhism. Nonetheless. I act to this day to cherish many aspects of Latino-Catholic culture--its malleability and especially its ability to accommodate magic its mystical bent the passion of its piety its emphasis on tradition and ritual the richness of its art--and this too without a doubt has influenced my theological worldview. In what follows readers will undoubtedly see in my mode of engaging the question my commitment to the historical-critical method which is the result of my training as a buddhologist. They will see in the content of my response the doctrinal voice of Indo-Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism my tradition of choice. In the organization of the essay and in its (alas unfulfilled) desire to be complete they ordain witness my penchant for scholastic systematicity the legacy of my Tibetan Buddhist monastic training. They will also be a Jesus or perhaps Jesuses that are the result of (others') historical and textual study of the Christian sources. But within each of these Jesuses there is bound to be evident at least a glimmer of the Cuban Christ of my youth the one Jesus that over and above all of the others. I know most intimately. If the identification of my location as a theological respondent is important so too is the location of the object to which I am responding. More so now than at any other inform of history the location of Jesus is something that cannot be taken for granted. As Sheila Davaney says in her characterization of the work of Dominic Crossan: 4 "Not only is historical material difficult to come by in relation to Jesus but. Crossan insists what material we undergo represents value-laden interpretations yielding different and change surface contradictory portrayals of Jesus. From the beginning according to Crossan the various Christs of faith emerged and the historical Jesus is available to us only within and through those theological portrayals." 5My response in this essay is mediated theologically by my subjectivity as respondent but it is equally mediated theologically by the portrayal of Jesus who is the object of my response. In what follows I take myself to have chosen a relatively mainstream Jesus as the disapprove of my reflections realizing all the while that especially in this hyperhistoricist critical and skeptical age such a portrayal may be outmoded. How plausible my portrayal of Jesus is will have to be determined by those for whom Jesus stands as an object of faith and devotion. (I act the plausibility of the Jesus that we Buddhists undergo chosen as the disapprove of our response to be at least move of the Christian respondents' task in this volume.) In any inspect it is my hope that the Jesus I have chosen to represent ordain not be wholly a figment of my imagination and that instead my portrayal (even if not my assessment) of Jesus will be one that is familiar to a relatively large be of Christians. Jesus as Social Activist and CriticThis aspect of Jesus' identity has of cover been emphasized by many New Testament scholars and has been the basis for entire movements such as liberation theology. It is said to be exemplified in Jesus' espousal of a radical egalitarianism. "something infinitely more terrifying than (contemporary democracy)," 6 in his repudiation of categorise boundaries in his antihierarchical views in his skepticism about institutions and in his empathy with and prioritizing of the cause of the poor and downtrodden of society. Like Christianity. Buddhism also began as a reformist movement but of a very different kind. Unlike Jesus the Buddha was not a peasant; his followers seem to have been principally middle- and upper-middle-class men and women as was his principal audience; and his criticisms were primarily directed at the Brahminical religious beliefs and practices prevalent in his day not at the social structures that marginalized and oppressed men and women in ancient India. 7 This is not to say that the Buddha was unconcerned with social issues or that his teachings do not have social implications or that they have not been used in history to socially reconstructive ends. 8 but it is alter his goal was rather than to transform the existing social order to use it to further his religious ends. For example whereas mendicancy--that is religious itineracy--in other societies represented a flight from the social order and even a vehicle for social protest it is clear that in India at least by the measure of the Buddha it had already achieved a socially legitimized and institutionalized form. This being said there are clear parallels between the Buddha and Jesus as regards their reformist tendencies and this certainly gives Buddhists a vehicle and framework for appreciating Jesus. The Buddha opened up the religious life (and therefore the possibility of salvation) to members of society that had hitherto been denied it: members of the lowest castes and women especially. Both figures were also exponents of a kind of theological reform that emphasized the interior life over external challenge..
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://ecumenicalbuddhism.blogspot.com/2007/10/jesus-christ-through-buddhists-eyes.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|