Buddhist-Christian Musings at the Parliament of the World's Religions

Contributed by: Julius-Kei Kato, King’s College-Western University, London, Canada / September 22, 2023

I attended the Parliament of the World's Religions ("Parliament" for short) this past summer. It was held in Chicago, August 14~18. This year, the Parliament "moved back" to Chicago, the place where it was first held in 1893. Hence, Chicago was touted as the place where the modern movement for interreligious dialogue and collaboration for a better world was launched in a major way. 

According to the Parliament's official website, the event had 7000+ attendees from 95+ countries representing over 200 religious-spiritual traditions, quite an impressive feat for an interreligious event.

This year, the theme of the Parliament was "A Call to Conscience: Defending Freedom & Human Rights." This was chosen--I presumed--because of the many crises happening today that diminish and impede freedom and human rights around the world.

Above everything else, I truly experienced the overwhelming richness of interreligious fellowship at the Parliament! It’s not everyday that one gets to join a huge gathering of representatives from virtually all religious traditions, spiritualities, and philosophical systems with one big common denominator: The attendees (let's call them "parliamentarians") are fundamentally open and friendly to the religious-spiritual "other." If that were not so, they would not be at the Parliament in the first place! Hence, parliamentarians are all enthusiastic and passionate about harnessing the power of the religious-spiritual traditions to build a world of peace, justice, equality, and ecological sustainability for all. 

***

One of my main interests as a scholar of religion lies in the area of the relationship between religion/faith and the phenomenon of hybridity. Naturally, I found myself reflecting at some point: What might be the dominant form of faith for the majority of parliamentarians? Is it still mono-religious? Or might it be a faith that is prepared to adopt elements from other traditions, a kind of hybrid spirituality, so to say? 

A "mono-religious" kind of faith (perhaps not the best category) could be described thus: One is firmly immersed in one's own religious world and, from there, access the positive, wholesome, and inclusive elements within one's own tradition to reach out, be open and friendly to others who belong to different spiritual-religious communities. That would be the normal worldview and attitude of devout and strongly committed adherents of religions who nevertheless want to harness the power of their own religious tradition to build a more peaceful and harmonious world. While attending the parliament, I did feel at times that this form of faith is still the predominant one among attendees of the parliament.

In the broader, secularized world though, such an exclusive devotion and commitment to one's own religious tradition seems (at least to me ) to be becoming less prominent, especially among middle-age and younger cohorts of people. This is the trend that many sociology of religion studies show us. Frequently, people can still identify as belonging to or coming from a specific tradition (say, Roman Catholicism in my case), but they feel ambivalent and conflicted about their mother-spiritual tradition in various ways. One can even say that many have a love/hate relationship with their own tradition.

Moreover, attitudes that range from "not totally into" to "couldn't care less" toward one's traditional religious faith are on the rise. Here in the West, the object of that ambivalent attitude is toward Christianity in most cases. In fact, (although this observation is very anecdotal) I was struck by the presence of these ambivalent attitudes in statements coming from a number of parliamentarians in several of the sessions I participated in, particularly, those that dealt specifically with searching for a more relevant spirituality for today.

I reflected therefore that there is also a need to be able to, as it were,  "stand apart" from one's own religious tradition at times in order to view the phenomenon of religion more objectively. I did feel that there might be a greater role for a more eclectic ... yes, "hybrid" kind of spirituality today.

Apropos these matters, I am reminded of the Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh's (TNH) first two (out of 14) mindfulness trainings. These are the principles/practices of those who would like to follow TNH's way of socially-engaged Buddhism. In the first two trainings, TNH emphasizes that those who seek to build a truly peaceful world should avoid being "idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones(!)" (#1|). In effect, that could be accomplished by--what is often expressed in Buddhism as--"non-attachment" to views, which in turn enables the practitioner to realize "compassionate listening, deep looking, and letting go of notions" (#2).

Julius-Kei Kato at the Parliament in Chicago

Reflecting on my 2023 Parliament of the World's Religions experience from a Buddhist-Christian comparative perspective, I asked myself: What is the big difference between Christianity and Buddhism with regard to this issue of attachment to and affection for one's own tradition? 

I am inclined to conclude (and I might very well be wrong here) the following: Traditional/conventional Christianity generally encourages its adherents to love and be attached to their own tradition because--as Christianity's self-perception implies--it is the highest truth. More modestly put, Christianity embodies the Truth. And what is the Truth, to echo Pilate's question to Jesus? Conventional Christianity proclaims: Jesus Christ is the Truth! Christians are therefore encouraged, nay, actually required to accept this tenet as the foundation of their lives "on faith." At least, that's how it was presented to me growing up.

If we go to Buddhism, going beyond its devotional forms, I think it is fair to say that Buddhists on the other hand are encouraged to treasure the Dharma (the Buddhist teachings), not because of any a priori claim that therein lies the truth. Instead, it is as if the tradition proclaims, "You don't have to accept anything on faith. Instead, practice the teaching and you will see for yourself that it is true ... because it works! When you see that the Dharma works (i.e., when you experience that practicing the teaching produces a greater freedom from suffering and a greater degree of happiness and peace), then, you will truly know how precious it is. 

This is clearly reflected the teachings of prominent Buddhist teachers such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh. 

The above comments might have been too harsh toward Christianity. To be fair, I know my own Christian tradition well enough to say that it definitely has remarkable resources to lead someone experientially and practically into a greater state of wholeness. But that is not emphasized enough in its conventional forms.

I left the Parliament reflecting that, for today's contemporary world steeped in a practical mentality that favors accepting and treasuring "what actually works," conventional Christianity can learn a thing or two from Buddhism's non-attachment to itself and its praxis-centered character.