Buddhist Practical Theology?

A Literature Review

Monica Sanford

LIS 4014 practical theology Seminar

May 12, 2014

1

Introduction

A famous parable from the Buddhist scripture’s Pali cannon is offered by the Buddha to help his monks

understand why different people made different metaphysical and philosophical claims. The Buddha tells the

story of a king who showed an elephant to blind people. The king asked “Now tell me, blind people, what the

elephant is like,” and they replied:

The blind people who had been shown the elephant's head said, “The elephant, your majesty, is

just like a jar … the elephant's ear … is just like a winnowing basket … the elephant's tusk … is

just like plowshare … the elephant's trunk … is just like the pole of a plow … the elephant's body

… is just like a granary … the elephant's foot … is just like a post … the elephant's hindquarters …

is just like a mortar … the elephant's tail … is just like a pestle … the tuft at the end of the

elephant's tail … is just like a broom.” Saying, “The elephant is like this, it's not like that. The

elephant's not like that, it's like this,” they struck one another with their fists.1

While no single blind person could know the whole elephant, neither was any wrong in their assertion about the

part of the elephant they had felt, only in their belief in the exclusive nature of their understanding.

Buddhist practical theology can be explored in the same way, bit by bit. Practical theology has thus far

been the purview of Christian scholars. It may seem an odd fit to Buddhism. Nevertheless, Buddhist theologians

have begun to write about topics normally considered part of practical and/or pastoral theology, including

Buddhist practical theological methods and methodologies. This literature review is to discover the state of

Buddhist practical theology as it exists so that it may be given careful consideration by the Buddhist community,

particularly for Buddhist spiritual caregivers and clergy in the United States. It also attempts to define Buddhist

theology and Buddhist practical theology in order to serve as a basis for future discourse. This review is intended

mostly for ‘professional’ Buddhists. That is, scholars, monastics, clergy, Dharma teachers, chaplains, counselors,

activists, and others for whom Buddhism integral to their vocation and, as such, could benefit from the guidance

of a Buddhist practical theology. It is assumed that readers are familiar with basic Buddhist terms and concepts,

but footnotes have been included to guide unfamiliar readers to more information.

1 “Tittha Sutta: Sectarians” (Ud 6.4)

2

We must first come to terms with the very notion of doing theology in a non-theistic religion before we

can move on to what kind of theology it might be, practical or otherwise. Some scholars are hesitant to apply

the term theology to Buddhism, as we shall see. Therefore, the first section includes a review of portions from

three books and a short article on the topic. For the purposes of this paper, I shall attempt a tentative definition

of Buddhist theology before proceeding to an exploration of Buddhist practical theology.

The exploration of Buddhist practical theology takes two forms. First, I critically review two articles by

Bhikshuni Lozang Trinlae that attempt to adapt practical theological methods and methodologies to Buddhist

purposes. These are the only works of their kind to deal directly with the concept of a Buddhist practical

theology.2 This review includes an analytical dialogue between Bhikkshuni’s articles and two of the scholars from

the previous section. Second, I review the work of two trained practical theologians who, though Christian, are

applying practical theological methods to Buddhist topics. Finally, I offer a tentative definition of Buddhist

practical theology, not as a definitive statement, but as a starting place.

Two approaches to practical theology will be helpful during this literature review, those of Bonnie

Miller-McLemore and Richard Osmer. Miller-McLemore defines practical theology for the Encyclopedia of

Religion in America as “a term commonly used in Christian theology for a general way of doing theology

concerned with the embodiment of religious belief in the day-to-day lives of individuals and communities.”3 In

her introduction to her edited volume The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology (2012), she

considers practical theology in relation to four “distinct enterprises with different audiences and objectives.”

First, practical theology is a scholarly discipline. I shall consider it as such in this paper. Second, it represents the

“activity of believers,”4 a Christian turn of phrase that can be understood as the actions of members of a

particular religious community or tradition. Third, it is also provides “method[s] for studying theology in

practice,” such as Osmer’s four-task method. Fourth, it is a curricular area studied by clergy and scholars during

2 So far as I am aware.

3 Miller-McLemore, 2010, p. 1740

4 Buddhists tend to refer to themselves as “practitioners” or simply “Buddhist” and rarely refer to the importance

of ‘belief.’

3

their seminary education.5 The key difference between it and other types of theology is that practical theology

questions not only “how theology … takes shape in everyday life,” but also “how everyday life influences

theology.”6 Lived experience can and should change our theology as much as theology can and should change

how we live our lives.

In his 2008 book, Practical Theology: An Introduction, Osmer summarizes a four-task method of discrete

but cyclical phases for use primarily by students during and after Christian divinity programs.7 The first task is the

descriptive-empirical task, which involves gathering information to describe “What is going on?” Second is the

interpretive task that draws on theories from the social sciences to understand “Why is this going on?” Third is

the normative task and involves using theology to determine “What ought to be going on?” The fourth task is

the pragmatic task, which determines strategies of action for “How might we respond?” followed by appropriate

reflection to learn from our responses, at which point the cycle may begin anew.8 Methods of doing practical

theology become particularly important in the application and adaptation of this discipline to Buddhism.

My approach is grounded within my own context. I am a Buddhist chaplain. I graduated from University

of the West (UWest) in 2013 with a Master of Divinity in Buddhist Chaplaincy, where I continue to work at and

also practice as a chaplain intern engaged in Clinical Pastoral Education (CPE). I am finishing my first year in the

PhD program for Practical Theology at Claremont School of Theology. My own Buddhist practice is best

described as Mahayana with strong Theravada leanings. I have no official sangha (community) or teacher, a

legacy of growing up in Nebraska, where there are very few Buddhists. As a result, my practice is more

intellectual, academic, and eclectic and less ritualized, traditional, or communal than most Buddhists.

Nevertheless, it supports my work as a chaplain and my interest in Buddhist practical theology.

5 Miller-McLemore, 2012, p. 5

6 Miller-McLemore, 2010, p. 1740

7 Osmer, p. x

8 Osmer, p. 4

4

Buddhist Theology

Buddhist ‘theology’ is not yet a fully recognized field within the Buddhist world, largely because the term

‘theology’ itself is not completely accepted. Given this, Buddhist practical theology may seem premature.

However, use of the term ‘Buddhist theology’ is increasing,9 although publications remain slim. Only three

scholarly books on the topic10 are considered in this section. The first is Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by

Contemporary Buddhist Scholars, an anthology edited by Roger Jackson and John Makransky and published first

in 2000, then reissued in 2003. Its authors represent a group known as ‘scholar-practitioners.’11 As scholars, they

are trained primarily in Buddhist studies as a sub-discipline of religious studies. As practitioners they represent

many diverse traditions with diverse methods (and rigor) of theological education. The lack of formal, systematic

education in theological methodologies is a critical problem in the academic field of Buddhist theology today. All

of these ‘theologians’ are religious studies scholars by training, and collectively have little experience in practical

topics such as pastoral care, liturgy, homiletics, psychology, or spiritual formation. Unsurprisingly, none of the

essays in the work deal with practical or pastoral theology. Makransky, himself a Vajrayana practitioner,12 has

written several more theological articles and essays on the basis of his own contemplative practice, including

one presented to the Association of Practical Theology meeting at AAR in 2007 (although not discussed here as it

does not appear to utilize practical theological methods, purposes, or language).

The second scholarly work is Essays in Buddhist Theology, a slim volume by Musashi Tachikawa originally

published in Japanese in 1998,13 then English in 2012. Tachikawa is also a scholar-practitioner, specializing on

9 Google books Ngram Viewer shows the earliest use of the ‘Buddhist theology’ in 1848, with a peak in 1953

followed by a gradual decline until a second, much sharper, rise began in 1996, leading to its current peak usage. ‘Buddhist practical theology,’ in contrast, returns no results. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Buddhist+theology&year_start=1840&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CBuddhist%20theology%3B%2Cc0

10 WorldCat search results for “Buddhist theology” returned 22 books. Others were either not dedicated to the

topic (only a passing reference, pre-contemporary (such as work by Paul Carus and Edward Conze;), or almost exclusively concerned with specific denominational practices lacking broader theological reflection (i.e. liturgical manuals).

11 The term ‘scholar-practitioner’ is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 “The Silent Sangha: Buddhism in the

Academy” in Luminous Passage: the practice and study of Buddhism in America by Charles Prebish, Berkeley : University of California Press, 1999.

12 Jackson and Makransky, p. 408-409

13 As Budda no Tetsugaku – Gendai Shisō to shite no Bukkyō, published by Hōzōkan

5

the one hand in esoteric (Vajrayana) Buddhism and, on the other, an ordained priest in the Jodo Shinshu order

of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. A classmate currently traveling in Japan reports that books on Buddhist

theology, including practical and pastoral topics, abound in Japanese, but little to none of this work has been

translated into English.14 Of these few translations, Tachikawa’s volume was the only one suitable for this

literature review. In addition to more theoretical topics, it includes reflections on more traditionally pastoral

concepts such as the self, nature, and death. Most importantly, it includes a potential model for and action-

based Buddhist practical theology that will be discussed further in the next section.

Finally, Rita Gross’s book Soaring and Settling: Buddhist Perspectives on Contemporary Social and

Religious Issues is part autobiography and part analysis of contemporary issues through the lens of Buddhist

feminist theology. Gross also fits the scholar-practitioner mold, as a graduate of the University of Chicago’s

History of Religions program. However, Gross boldly defines herself as a Buddhist feminist theologian and

“refuses to buy the false dichotomy between descriptive scholarship and reflective world construction.”15 She is

also a teacher (lopӧn) in the Tibetan Buddhist lineage of Chӧgyam Trungpa.16 The book is divided into three

sections. The first is autobiographical and reflects on her path to becoming a Buddhist feminist theologian and

all the contradictions that implies. The second deals with contemporary social issues such as authority in

western Buddhism, environmental ethics, consumerism, raising children, and death. The final section is a

sampling of perspectives in feminist theology on Buddhist topics such as women’s religious experience, goddess

experiences, body, and rituals.17

These three works help us understand the meaning of ‘theology’ for Buddhists and the impact that the

academic divide between religious studies and theology has had on Buddhism. The position of each author

within their respective fields and religious worlds is deeply relevant to this endeavor. According to Richard

Osmer, context is one of the “focal points of practical theological interpretation.” Context is the interrelated

14

Email from Nathan Michon to Monica Sanford dated 4/25/2014. 15

Gross, p. 20 16

http://www.ritamgross.com/ 17

Gross, p. vii-viii

6

positioning within natural and social systems that influences how a viewpoint develops.18 In Buddhist parlance, it

is the causes and conditions that give rise to phenomena. Gross suggests that, although objectivity is an

important tool, its perfection is “impossible” and must be balanced by “the scholar’s own methodological self-

awareness. She declares her methodologies and interests clearly, rather than hiding behind a façade of being

value-free.”19 Defining one’s own context is part of the methodology of practical theology. I attempt to define

the context of each of the authors in this review.

Meaning of Theology

The literal meaning of ‘theology’ is discourse about or study of ‘God’ or ‘the divine.’20 Therefore, how

could a nontheistic religion even be said to have a ‘theology?’ Gross calls Buddhist theology an “oxymoron.”21

According to Jackson, the entire idea is Christian in origin. He claims that even other deific religions, such as

Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism have no equivalent term for ‘theology’ in their own lexicons.22 Gross goes so far as

to declare that it’s importance to “Western religions” will ensure that any Buddhist theology will naturally be a

“hybrid Western enterprise.” Jackson quotes David Tracy’s assertion that theology is merely a convenient term

“to indicate the more strictly intellectual interpretations of any religious tradition, whether that tradition is

theistic of not.”23 Given this, we need not adhere to the literal meaning.

Tachikawa defines theology as “the systematic delineation of the confrontation with the conditions of

the time while carrying on the engagement between the divine and oneself.” He solves the trouble of the

‘divine’ in this definition by equating it not with God, per se, but with “the existence of the sacred as personal.”

Therefore, “’Buddhist theological research’ is a matter of researchers confronting contemporary conditions

18

Osmer, p. 11-12 19

Gross, p. 31 20

Jackson, p. 1 21

Gross, p. 155 22

Jackson, p. 1 23

Tracy, p. 446 in Jackson, p. 1

7

while based in Buddhist traditions belonging to diverse social and cultural conditions.” He acknowledges that

such theology is only just being “born.”24

Buddhists may object to such intellectualism on the basis that the proliferation of conceptual thought is

contrary to the Buddhist goal of direct experience of reality.25 Tachikawa acknowledges the suspicion of

language throughout Buddhism and the its various approaches to this problem.26 Jackson notes that “Buddhists

seldom have been willing to rest content merely with intellectual reflection on their tradition.”27 This will be

discussed in more detail in the following section on Buddhist practical theology. Briefly, Buddhists, in the

phenomenological sense, hold that certain ‘truths’ can only be learned experientially, not intellectually.

Therefore, the intellectual task of ‘making up stories’ to explain one’s experience can also be viewed as a

hindrance to progression on the path to enlightenment.28 It imposes an unnecessary conceptual filter on one’s

perceptions that inhibits direct experience.

Religious/Buddhist Studies vs. Theology

Accepting for a moment the applicability of the term theology to Buddhism, we find that western

academia has recreated the divide between religious studies scholars who approach religion as an object of

study and theologians who approach religion as a subject with which to dialogue about the world. The

separation of religious studies from theology in Western academia has inarguably benefited the area of Buddhist

studies by freeing it “from the presumption of their normative inferiority to Christianity,” according to

Makransky,29 though Gross’s view is not so rosy.30 However, the same cannot be said for Buddhist theology.

Jackson notes that Jews and Christians possess seminaries in which to both study and “profess” their religions,

24

Tachikawa, p. vii-viii 25

Jackson, p. 2 26

Tachikawa, p. 8 27

Jackson, p. 2 28

Tachikawa, p. 8 29

Makransky, p. 14 30

Gross, p. 224; specifically, see Note 7 from Chapter 4

8

while Buddhists in North America do not.31 In fact, the study of Buddhist doctrine in any normative sense

became taboo in American higher education institutions where Buddhism, as object but not subject, was

otherwise studied in great detail. Ironically, this may have been precisely because of the normative pressures of

a Christian hegemony that was comfortable viewing Buddhism as an exotic ‘other’ along the lines of Greek or

Roman mythology, but not an equally acceptable and philosophically rich religious alternative. Nevertheless, as

scholars began to study their own traditions from within, it “triggered, in some, a natural impulse to apply such

knowledge to the theological needs of their traditions.”32 These scholars were, on the one hand, empowered by

their critical religious studies training and, on the other hand, hindered by a lack of theological training.

Therefore, while it is not uncommon for Buddhist studies scholars to dabble (or even make great forward

strides) in Buddhist theology, there are precious few fully trained Buddhist theologians.

This is not to say there was no Buddhist theology. Jackson lists “works that, intentionally or not, were

the charter texts of Western Buddhist theology.” His short summary is worth quoting here in its entirety:

They ranged from the existential demythologization of Stephen Batchelor, to the scientific

musing of Jeremy Hayward and B. Alan Wallace, the cybernetic Madhyamaka of Peter Fenner,

the engagement of Ken Jones and Bernard Glassman, the ecological vision of Joanna Macy and

Gary Snyder, the feminist perspective of Rita Gross and Karma Lekshe Tsomo, the meditative

prescriptions of Jack Kornfield and Surya Das, the ethical inquiries of Robert Aitken, Roshi.

It was only somewhat tardily – in most cases after they received tenure – that Buddhist

scholars of the academy began to contribute to the emerging Western Buddhist theology.33

Thirteen of the seventeen contributors to Jackson and Makransky’s volume, despite similar credentials, eschew

the label ‘theologian,’34 regardless of training or tenure. John Makransky and Rita Gross are notable

31

Jackson, p. 11; Note: this is changing due to the work of institutions like Naropa University in Colorado, University of the West and the Insitute of Buddhist Studies in California, and Mairtripa University in Oregon. It is unclear whether or not Jackson is aware of or believes these institutions comparable to the Christian or Jewish seminary.

32 Makransky, p. 14

33 Jackson, p. 12

34 Some self-identified Buddhist theologians whose main academic and professional work is outside of the field of

theology or outside of North America have been omitted from this literature review, including: Masao Abe, deceased but influential Zen philosopher and scholar of comparative religion who participated in many Buddhist-Christian dialogues; Channarong Boonnoon, Professor of Buddhist theology at Silpakorn University in Thailand; Chung Hyun Kyung of Union Theological Seminary who incorporates Buddhism as part of Korean cultural history into Christian theology; Stephanie Kaza, Professor for the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at the University of Vermont; Todd Murphy, a Canadian neuroscientist; Raimon Panikkar, Catholic priest with a plural religious identity as a Christian-Hindu-Buddhist.

9

exceptions.35 Another is José Cabezón, whose doctorate is in Buddhist Studies from the University of Wisconsin

and currently teaches in the Religious Studies department at the University of California at Santa Barbara.36

In a 1998 article for Buddhist-Christian Studies, Christopher Ives describes this split as one between

‘Buddhologists,’ “a scholar who engages in philological, philosophical, ethnographic, or historical study of

Buddhism,”37 and ‘Buddhalogians,’ who are “engaged in interpreting, expanding, and/or applying Buddhist

ideas, in most cases from within the Buddhist tradition.”38 The former is “detached and analytical” while the

latter is not. When we engage in interfaith dialogue, Ives notes, Buddhist participants are more likely to be

Buddhist studies scholars (read: objective historians) speaking as theologians (read: constructive practitioners).

They “are hardly representative of most Buddhists and Buddhisms.”39 When we do this, Ives warns, we must be

careful not to represent our Buddhism as the Buddhism or conflate theological truth claims with statements

about what most Buddhists believe to be true.

It is important in understanding the contexts and viewpoints of such scholars, to know whether or not

they choose to identify themselves as ‘theologians.’ This determines both where they stand and where they are

perceived as standing by others. For example, Ives has pointed out that Buddhist-Christian dialogue to date has

largely centered on doctrinal or philosophical questions, which he partially attributes to the scholastic

sensibilities of the Buddhist participants.40 If this is the state of the field today, is it any wonder that Buddhist

practical theology is thin on the ground?

Tentative Definition of Buddhist Theology

Before continuing to practical theology, I should attempt to define Buddhist theology. Gross defines

Buddhist theology as “the self-conscious reflections of recent Western converts to Buddhism who also have

professional training and interest in the construction of religious thought.” This definition owns the necessity of

35

Makransky, John. “Buddhist Reflections on Theological Learning and Spiritual Discipline.” AAR Religious Studies News. March 2010. Accessed at http://rsnonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=112.

36 Curriculum Vitae for Jose Cabezon, http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/Jose_Cabezon_CV.pdf

37 Ives, p. 96

38 Ives, p. 97; The two terms that have since fallen out of favor or were never widely adopted.

39 Ives, p. 98

40 Ives, p. 99

10

coming up with a term for the constructive acts of Buddhists within their own religious tradition as particularly

important for those of us who wish to discuss these topics with others of western religious traditions. When we

call it ‘theology,’ western religious professionals know what we mean, even if our fellow Buddhists may not.41

The term may hardly be necessary in certain eastern contexts. It certainly doesn’t mean that Asians cannot

‘construct religious thought’ or engage in theology, as Tachikawa demonstrates. Therefore, it is not yet a

sufficient definition of Buddhist theology.

Tachikawa and Gross share many of the same terms in their call for a Buddhist theology, including “self-

conscious” and “constructed.” Buddhist theology must engage religious practice with contemporary issues. It

must also “possess a method communicable to others,”42 which is also why Gross proposes use of ‘theology’

over alternatives like ‘dharma-discourse,’ ‘dharmology,’ or ‘buddhology.’ Both Gross and Tachikawa also point

out that Buddhist theology must work from within and engage the tradition. This is not merely ‘philosophy,’

which Gross regards as personal and open to being idiosyncratic, but an endeavor in which “one considers

oneself to be working within a given system and under its authority.”43 Tachikawa characterizes this difference

as part of what is “recognized from the outset,” such as the existence of the Buddha, which the religious

philosopher is free to discard, but the Buddhist theologian is not.44

Cabezón, in contributing the Jackson and Makransky’s anthology, defines theology as “roughly, a

normative discourse, self-avowedly rooted in tradition, with certain formal properties.” This would seem to fit

both Gross and Tachikawa’s description. From here, Cabezón claims that “’theology’ can be meaningfully

modified by the adjective ‘Buddhist,’”45 rendering Buddhist theology as: normative, reflective, and constructive

discourse self-consciously rooted in the Buddhist traditions with formal properties defined by the systematic

study of those traditions. This definition is, speculative and insufficient, as it is not widely shared or understood.

41

Gross, p. 155-156 42

Tachikawa, p. 8 43

Gross, p. 156-157 44

Tachikawa, p. 8 45

Cabezón, p. 25

11

Buddhist Practical Theology

Like Buddhist theology, literature on ‘practical’ and ‘pastoral’ topics abounds,46 but is not often

undertaken by trained practical theologians using the methods, theories, and language of the discipline. Only

one Buddhist theologian has published works on the topic to date, Bhikshuni Lozang Trinlae, an American

Buddhist nun. Bhikshuni47 refers to herself as “an ordained Buddhist clergy, scientist, educator, practitioner, and

researcher of traditional formal Vajrayana Buddhist liturgies and meditation techniques.”48 According to her

blog,49 Bhikshuni was ordained as a novice in 1991, became a fully ordained nun in 1998 in the Drukpa Kagyu

and Gelug lineages of Tibetan Buddhism, and has completed ten years of cloistered retreat practice in Nepal.

Her undergraduate degree is in physics she has a master’s degree in education from Harvard University. She is

currently pursuing a PhD at Claremont School of Theology in California.50

Bhikshuni’s articles reference Christian sources of practical theological methods and are primarily

interested in the demonstrating the beneficial application of these methods to Buddhism. I believe it is

important to place her work in dialogue with that of other Buddhist theologians in order to determine the

applicability of these methods for Buddhism. I use the work of Tachikawa and Gross to analyze the

appropriateness of Bhikshuni’s methodology. I then explore ‘neighboring’ works, such as those of two Christian

practical theologians on Buddhist topics. These theologians are both ordained Presbyterian ministers and their

work reflects the influence of their home traditions, but serves as an important experiment in the development

of Buddhist practical theology and a potential proof of practice for Bhiksuni’s thesis. Finally, as in the last

section, I suggest a tentative definition of Buddhist practical theology.

46

See Jackson’s summary in the prior section. Many of the works listed are on ‘pastoral’ and ‘practical’ topics. 47

It is more acceptable in Buddhist circles to refer to a monastic by his or her title, i.e. Venerable or Bhikhu/Bhikshuni rather than last name alone, as per academic convention. In this case, I favor Buddhist convention.

48 Trinlae, 2014, p. 3

49 http://www.stateofformation.org/author/bhikshuni-trinlae/

50 I am also pursuing my PhD at Claremont School of Theology. Bhikshuni and I have met but have not discussed

the content of these articles or her work in Buddhist theology.

12

Application of Practical Theology to Buddhism

Bhikshuni’s articles are quite recent, 2013 and 2014 (forthcoming), and the only published articles on

explicitly about Buddhist practical theology to date. In her first article, Bhikshuni accepts the definition of

practical theology as “empirically descriptive and critically constructive theory of religious practice.”51 She

combines this with David Tracy’s definition of praxis as “the critical relationship between theory and practice

whereby each is dialectically influenced and transformed by the other”52 to create her understanding of

Buddhist “practical theology praxis.” Bhikshuni favors “practical theology praxis” due to its resonance with

Buddhist theories of karma, which she describes as “the locus of practical dynamic processes by which

intentions are transformed into executed results.”53 She maintains this formulation in her second article and

claims it is “Reminiscent of Buddhist ontology” as “a ‘middle-way’54 practical theology of sorts” standing

between “speculative thinking” and “radical, positivistic ‘empiricism.’”55

Her first article briefly presents practical theology in order to consider its implications for Buddhism in

inter-religious dialogue. The second article focuses more directly on practical theological methods and

frameworks. She begins by explaining that Buddhism needs a practical theology “…because Buddhist

congregations, clergy, religion teachers, etc., have the right to benefit from critical, normative, and pragmatic

reflection on praxis.” Her use of the term “right” is an allusion to the previously discussed divide between

religious studies and theology that makes it “presently not feasible to do Buddhist practical theology research in

academic religious studies departments.” This work, she claims, will benefit “full spiritual formation of their

congregants.”56 Those who have this interest, like Bhikshuni and I, have found refuge in Christian seminaries.57

51

Quoted from the shared definition by Browning, Fowler, Schweitzer, and van der Ven found in the foreword of Heitnik’s work Practical Theology, p. xvi; in Trinlae, 2013, p. 52

52 Quoted from David Tracy’s book Blessed Rage of Order, 2

nd ed.; in Trinlae, 2013, p. 52

53 Trinlae, 2013, p. 52

54 The Buddha’s ‘Middle Way’ was classically characterized as between the extremes of his luxuriant, hedonistic

lifestyle as a prince and his austere self-denial (and near starvation) as an ascetic. Neither were as conducive to enlightenment as the ‘Middle Way.’ For more information, see the "Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion" (SN 56.11), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

55 Trinlae, 2014, p. 7

56 Trinlae, 2014, p. 5

13

Bhikshuni maintains that practical theological methods are eminently suitable to Buddhism and upholds

this claim by describing several such methods and providing examples of how they might be applied. The

methods include those of Richard Osmer, Don Browning, Gerben Heitink, and Johannes van der Ven. Rather

than exploring her descriptions and examples in detail, I will summarize by saying that Bhikshuni appears to

favor adopting each of these methods as they are, making only the most basic substitution of Buddhist

normativity for Christian normativity, Buddhist ethics for Christian ethics, Buddhist theology for Christian

theology, and so on. These she describes as “theologically-specific modifications” (in relation to Browning’s

framework) 58 or “theologically-relevant alterations”59 (in relation to Heitink’s ‘currents’). Bhikshuni offers no

adaptation or critique of the methods or frameworks themselves. While it is clear that practical theological

methods can be applied to Buddhism, I believe further consideration is necessary to determine whether they

ought to be and, if so, how might they be best applied before we can call them a Buddhist practical theology.

Applicability of Practical Theology to Buddhism

Here, I explore some implications of this article in relation to theological work by Tachikawa and Gross.

In particular, the question of objective description and the conditional nature of language within Buddhist

theology will be considered. In order to do this, I summarize Bhikshuni’s description of how Osmer’s four-task

framework could be adopted and then apply Tachikawa as a critic and Gross as a supporter. This could be done

with any of the practical theologians Bhikshuni discusses. I chose Osmer because, among all those covered in her

two articles, she spends the most time describing the adoption of his method and because his framework is

relevant to later analysis of the ‘neighboring’ works.

Bhikshuni bluntly states that there is “no obvious reason” why Osmer’s framework could not be adopted

wholesale, with the normative task simply being “informed by Buddhist theology and Buddhist ethics” rather

than Christian ones.60 The article then provides three examples of this framework applied in a contexts ranging

57

Trinlae, 2014, p. 7 58

Trinlae, 2014, p. 13 59

Trinlae, 2013, p. 54 and 2014, p. 14 60

Trinlae, 2013, p. 53

14

from simple to formal. Bhikshuni asserts that it is important to separate the descriptive and interpretive tasks

and create “a safety-net of awareness” to prevent errors in either interpretation or description. The formal

context is the academic one, which draws on the methods of practical theology, the expertise of cognate social

sciences, and utilizes statistically sound research methods.

Tachikawa points to the central problem in adapting Osmer’s method to Buddhism: language. For

Christianity, “language is regarded as trustworthy” and the vehicle of revelation.61 “In the beginning was the

Word (logos)62, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” (John 1:1, KJV) Therefore, description or

conceptualization through language may generally be regarded as a straightforward endeavor. In this case,

objective description can then be followed by the interpretive and normative tasks in discrete stages, as

Bhikksuni suggests. Buddhism, on the other hand, has always held language in suspicion because “fundamentally

language is delusional and cannot transmit truth.”63 The Buddhist theologian then must recognize that

interpretation, normativity, and the pragmatic task begin with description. The very words we use to describe

what is happening (and what we decide to focus on in that description) colors our interpretation of why it is

happening, our normative judgment of what ought to be happening, and our pragmatic action in response to

the situation. This influence may be very subtle, but it is nonetheless present.

In response, Tachikawa describes a process in his book that, although he does not call it practical

theology, he uses to theologically guide and understand action. Tachikawa characterizes Buddhist theology as

concerned with four issues: the world, human life, the Buddha, and action.64 The last category is closest to

practical theology. Here, Tachikawa creates a critical theological framework reminiscent of Osmer, but where

there is no distinction between description and interpretation:

The structure of theology follows that of an act. All aspects possess the three moments of (a)

recognition of the present conditions, (b) aim or goal, and (c) means, and similarly, teleology also

61

As characterized by Tachikawa, but I know of nothing from within Christianity to refute this claim, although post-modern philosophy did yield some similar critiques of language.

62 Whether logos is translated as ‘word’ or ‘reason’ does not alter the critique. Conceptual thoughts, as products of

and dependent on language, are equally suspect in Buddhist literature and scripture. 63

Tachikawa, p. 8 64

Tachikawa, p. 9

15

assumes the existence of acts in which one seeks to go from present conditions to an intended

destination.65

Tachikawa’s theology of action may, in fact, be a ‘home

grown’ form of Buddhist practical theology that merits further

investigation. He describes it as “a critical stance” on how

people seek to fulfil their desires actions in the world.66 However, his current presentation of it is highly

theoretical and based in esoteric Vajrayana concepts with which this author is not fully versed. It is certainly not

grounded in the ‘thick description’ that Christian practical theology holds to be necessary to the discipline.

Tachikawa believes this action-aspect of Buddhist theology must be “reborn in the present to be effective.”67

Perhaps dialogue with Christian practical theology is just the way to do so, despite this apparent disagreement

over the reliability of language.

Gross presents a counterpoint to Tachikawa. Her experience as a feminist historian of religions and the

androcentrism she encountered in that discipline convinced here that “the history of religions is willy-nilly a

world-constructive discipline in any case.” Objectivity is imperative, she maintains, but “the limits of objectivity

must be clearly conceded” and balanced by a second skill – empathy. Gross’s definition of objectivity is critical to

this understanding. It is neither “value-free” nor uninvolved, but rather has “methodological self-awareness”

that allows for “using the same standards to describe all positions and points of view, whether or not one finds

them palatable.” Gross argues that while pure objectivity is impossible, neutrality must be sought in order to

prevent “doctrinal and cultural chauvinism and imperialism.” Empathy, Gross explains, allows us to enter into

“symbol systems” and understand them as an “insider” might so that the scholar of religion can speak from

many positions in order to represent them fairly and accurately.68 For Gross, those who would undertake

theology of any kind ought to ground themselves in these scholarly skills.

65

Tachikawa, p. 18 66

Tachikawa, p. 14 67

Tachikawa, p. 15 68

Gross, p. 30-31

Osmer Tachikawa

Descriptive-Empirical Recognition of Present Conditions Interpretive

Normative Aim/Goal/Purpose

Pragmatic Means

16

The great fear and danger are that many give themselves permission to engage in critical world

construction [as in theology] without first engaging in objective and empathetic cross-cultural

study [as in religious studies]. That problem is not remedied by disallowing or discouraging those

who continuously pursue objective and empathetic study of the many competing worldviews

from critical world construction, for the world remains quite unfinished and incomplete without

their input.69

In short, theologians and religious studies scholars need one another and each need to cultivate some measure

of the other’s skillset. In this light, Bhikshuni’s insistence on a separate descriptive-empirical task is well taken.

Of course, both Bhikshuni and Gross share a base of operations within western academia that supports just such

a position, while Tachikawa is based in Japan, where it is unclear to what extent the western approach to

academia prevails. To illuminate this debate further, we can review existing work on Buddhist topics by western

practical theologians to see how it relates to Bhikshuni, Tachikawa, and Gross’s viewpoints.

Experiments in Buddhist Practical Theology

Christians, including a few practical theologians, have begun exploring and applying Buddhist teachings

to their own lives and a few have even adopted hybrid Buddhist identities. This section explores the work of

Insook Lee of the New York Theological Seminary and Duane Bidwell70 of Claremont School of Theology. Both

are ordained by the Presbyterian church, specialize in pastoral care and counseling, and are interested in hybrid

religious, spiritual, or cultural identities. Lee is a Korean woman who practices Zen meditation,71 while Bidwell is

a white, American male who practices vipassana meditation in the Theravada tradition.72

Let us first consider Lee’s 2011 article “Zen and Pastoral Psychotherapy: A Reflection on the Concept of

No-I.” Lee contextualizes herself through appropriate self-disclosure as a Christian in the Presbyterian church

who was introduced to Zen meditation during college in Korea and returned to the practice later in life following

“a spiritual dead end.”73 She does not describe herself as a Buddhist, but rather as someone who has integrated

69

Gross, p. 33 70

In full disclosure, Dr. Bidwell is also the academic advisor for my doctoral program at CST. 71

Dr. Insook Lee bio, http://www.nyts.edu/academic-resources/faculty/dr-insook-lee/ 72

Dr. Duane Bidwell bio, http://www.cst.edu/academics/faculty/profile/duane-bidwell/ 73

Lee, p. 3-2

17

Zen into her “daily spiritual practice, a practice that nourishes my Christian life.”74 In this work, Lee places

Buddhism in dialogue with western psychology, particularly Freud and Jung, and references brain wave studies

on Zen meditators. Once she has provided a sufficient basis for understanding the Zen concept of “no-I” and

how meditation provides access to a state of consciousness that “disrupts the habituated, conditioned

consciousness and then restructures it,”75 she relates this to Jewish and Christian theologies of self. Curiously,

she does not use the term ‘theology’ to refer to Zen. Instead, she attempts to construct “Theologies of No-I” by

relating Christian and Jewish thinkers to Zen ideas. Nor does she refer to Zen as a ‘religion,’76 but rather a “way

of life” whose pragmatic aim is “relaxation and attaining a peaceful mind” on the way to the final goal of

enlightenment.77 In fact, her entire discussion of Zen is largely psychological and she makes no effort to

reconcile the soteriological goals of Zen Buddhism with the salvific goals of Christianity. Although I cannot judge

her analysis of Christian theology, I believe many Buddhists theologians would question statements such as “Zen

targets this I-ness in order to strengthen self.”78 Overall, Lee’s paper seems to land in the area of Miller-

McLemore’s use of practical theology as a “method for studying theology in practice”79 by placing it in dialogue

with other disciplines, such as psychology and, in this case, Zen Buddhism, which is treated more like a cognate

discipline than a fellow religion with spiritual goals of its own.

In his 2002 work, Bidwell seems just as willing as Lee to use Buddhist teaching as an interpretive tool for

understanding Christian teleology. In the article “Developing an Adequate ‘Pneumatraumatology’:

Understanding the Spiritual Impacts of Traumatic Injury,” Bidwell explains the Buddhist concepts of Two Truths

and paticca samupada. The first is a pedagogical concept that explains that ‘ultimate’ and ‘mundane’ reality

abide simultaneously and interdependently. The second is sometimes called ‘interbeing’ and explains the

existence of all phenomena according to co-dependent cause and condition. In the middle of the second

paragraph of a three paragraph section on ‘Buddhist Doctrine and the Trauma Experience,’ Bidwell slips

74

Lee, p. 3-2 75

Lee, p. 3-6 76

Although she does call Buddhism the national religion of Korea. Lee, p. 3-1 and 3-2 77

Lee, p. 3-2 and 3-3 78

Lee, p. 3-10 79

Miller-McLemore, p. 5

18

seamlessly from a neutral description of these two concepts into a normative statement: “Our task is to help

people turn toward God and grow in awareness of”80 the relationship of the ultimate and conventional and the

doctrine of interbeing.

As a Buddhist, I was more than a little surprised by this turn because, from a Buddhist perspective, this is

not the purpose of the Two Truths or paticca samupada. These teachings have traditionally been used to help

Buddhist students understand the nature of reality, their own karma, and the path to liberation from suffering,

without any reference to a deity. This is not to say that Bidwell’s appropriation makes no sense within a Christian

context. That is for Christian theologians to judge. However, as Buddhist theologians, I think we must ask

ourselves if it is accepted for Buddhist concepts and practices be instrumentalized in service of Christian ends?

The same question could be asked of Lee’s use of Zen meditation practices.

If I were sitting with a trauma victim, as Bidwell describes, and I explained a Buddhist doctrine or

practice to them because I felt it may be helpful, and they took that doctrine to mean that “It is not sufficient,

for example, to say that a shooting happened because it was God’s will,”81 would that interpretation be

acceptable because the careseeker made that leap for themselves? If it brought them some comfort and

spiritual growth in a difficult moment, could I object? How then, is it different when Bidwell or Lee does the

same in an academic paper? These questions must be grappled with by Buddhist practical theologians.

Bidwell’s next article dealing with Buddhist topics, following six years after later, is very different. It

displays a careful unfolding of Osmer’s four-task method that fully engages Buddhist theology alongside

Christian. “Practicing the Religious Self: Buddhist-Christian Identity as Social Artifact,” published in 2008,

engages in thick description, followed by interpretation, normativity, and pragmatic application. Bidwell also

practices appropriate self-disclosure and contextualization, claiming a hybrid “Buddhist-Christian identity”82

missing from his earlier work.

80

Bidwell, 2002, p. 141 81

Bidwell, 2002, p. 141 82

Bidwell, 2008, p. 4

19

Bidwell relates two stories of being with sick and dying patient and their families, one in which his

Buddhist identity was most prominent, and another in which his Christian identity came to the foreground, both

in relation to the needs of the family and also as spontaneous and authentic expressions of his own spiritual

practice. He interprets this reactions using identity theory, then considers them in light of both Buddhist and

Christian theological normativity. From Buddhism, he again uses the concept of pattica samupada and also the

image of Indra’s Net. From Christianity, he refers to perichoresis, the Trinity, and “self-emptying of the Christ.”83

He considers how these two theologies relate to one another and draws on scriptural and modern scholarship

from both traditions.84 Bidwell concludes by considering how the skillful use of identity can benefit others.85 In

this article, I see a more complete and satisfactory integration of Buddhism in a practical theology framework as

an equal partner, source for wisdom in its own right, and also critical dialogue partner with Christianity and

contemporary cognate disciplines. This is a clear use of Osmer’s four-task framework involving Buddhist

theology on par with what Bhikshuni advocates.

Tentative Definition of Buddhist Practical Theology

Many Christian works on practical theology appear to define it by what it does or how it works.

Bhikshuni has, however, offered one of few succinct and yet accurate definitions available, from Browning,

Fowler, Schweitzer, and van der Ven: “Practical theology should be understood as an empirically descriptive and

critically constructive theory of religious practice.” Bhikshuni stresses that this must ultimately be “theology of

transformation.”86 Tachikawa’s Buddhist theology of action also stresses this transformative aspect, seeking the

“sacralization” of human activity.87 I believe it is also important to incorporate Miller-McLemore’s assertion that

“Theology emerges out of experience, and practical theology has content not derived solely from historical and

philosophical theology.”88 This statement has deep affinity with Buddhist doctrine and practice, which takes a

83

Bidwell, 2008, p. 7 84

Bidwell, 2008, p. 9 85

Bidwell, 2008, p. 10-11 86

Quoted from the forward of Gerben Heitink’s book Practical Theology; Trinlae, 2014, p. 7 87

Tachikawa, p. 14; though it should be said that Tachikawa accomplishes this through radically different means and for different ends than I previously understood ‘sacralization’ in Christian parlance.

88 Miller-McLemore, 2010, p. 1741

20

phenomenological approach to experience and emphasizes contemplative practices for their direct experience

of ‘truth’ unmediated by concepts.89 Therefore, I offer the following as a tentative definition for Buddhist

practical theology: a theological discipline within Buddhism that uses empirical description and normative

construction in a dialogical relationship with lived experience to study, understand, and beneficially transform

human activity.

Conclusion

Although not too many years ago, the very notion of a Buddhist ‘theology’ was rather like a chimera, a

mythical beast made of many different parts of which no one ever quite caught a clear glimpse. Today it is

looking more like an elephant, strange in many ways, but recognizable. The next task for this strange beast is to

discover to how it may be used. Although I do not expect Buddhist theology to do circus tricks, I suspect it can

be put to many purposes, including practical ones.

Buddhist theology can be understood as normative, reflective, and constructive discourse self-

consciously rooted in the Buddhist traditions with formal properties defined by the systematic study of those

traditions. Within that, Buddhist practical theology is a discipline that uses empirical description and normative

construction in a dialogical relationship with lived experience to study, understand, and beneficially transform

human activity. There is a small but growing formal literature in each of these fields, and a rich tradition of

informal literature from which to draw upon. The Buddhist community has a lot of work to do. I do not believe it

is sufficient to adopt wholesale the methods of Christian practical theology, but we have much to learn from our

religious brothers and sisters. In the end, Buddhist and Christian practical theology may look much the same, but

since it is, according to Miller-McLemore, a disciple concerned with the specific, contextual, and local,90 the

small nuances that set them apart may make a major difference in the individual lives of their respective

members.

89

As an example, see Story, Francis. 2013. "Buddhist Meditation.” (The Anagarika Sugatananda). Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 24 November 2013,http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/story/bl015.html or de Silva, Lily. 2013. "Nibbana as Living Experience / The Buddha and The Arahant: Two Studies from the Pali Canon.” Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html

90 Miller-McLemore, 2010, p. 1740

21

Bibliography

Bidwell, Duane R. 2002. "Developing an Adequate "Pneumatraumatology": Understanding the Spiritual Impacts

of Traumatic Injury." Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling 56, no. 2: 135-143.

Bidwell, Duane R. 2008. "Practicing the Religious Self: Buddhist-Christian Identity as Social Artifact." Buddhist -

Christian Studies 28: 3-12

Cabezón, Jose Ignacio. 2003. “Buddhist Theology in the Academy.” In Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by

Contemporary Buddhist Scholars edited by Roger R. Jackson and John J. Makransky, 25-52. London:

RoutledgeCurzon.

Gross, Rita M. 1998. Soaring and settling: Buddhist perspectives on contemporary social and religious issues.

New York: Continuum.

Ives, Christopher. "What are we, Anyway? Buddhists, Buddhologists, Or Buddhologians?" Buddhist - Christian

Studies 18, (1998): 96-100.

Jackson, Roger R. 2003. “Buddhist Theology: Its Historical Context.” In Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by

Contemporary Buddhist Scholars edited by Roger R. Jackson and John J. Makransky, 1-13. London:

RoutledgeCurzon.

Lee, Insook. 2011. “Zen Meditation and Pastoral Psychotherapy.” The Journal of Pastoral Theology 21, no. 1

(Summer 2011): 3-1 to 3-12.

Makransky, John J. 2003. “Contemporary Academic Buddhist Theology: Its Emergence and Rational.” In Buddhist

Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars edited by Roger R. Jackson and John J.

Makransky, 14-21. London: RoutledgeCurzon.

Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. 2010. “Practical Theology.” In Lippy, Charles H., and Peter W. Williams. 2010.

Encyclopedia of Religion in America Vol. 3. Washington, DC: CQ Press: 1739-1743.

Miller-McLemore, Bonnie J. 2012. “Introduction.” The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Practical Theology.

Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell: 1-17

Tachikawa, Musashi. 2012. Essays in Buddhist theology. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

“Tittha Sutta: Sectarians” (Ud 6.4) trans. Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 3 September

2012, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.6.04.than.html

Trinlae, Bhikshuni Lozang. 2013. “Leveraging Inter-religious Dialogue into Transformative Action Using practical

theology's Reflexive Frameworks.” Journal of Inter-Religious Studies, issue 11 (January 27, 2013): 51-60

Trinlae, Bhikshuni Lozang. 2014. “Prospects for a Buddhist Practical Theology.” International Journal of Practical

Theology. Forthcoming issue. Draft hardcopy obtained via Dr. Kathleen Greider at the Claremont School of

Theology.