Two Contrasting Dissertations on Buddhist-Christian Dialogue in Sri Lanka

Christ and Buddha in Contrast

By Bp. Joseph Boyd (Ancient Church of the West)

CONTENTS:

1. Introduction 
2. The Overall Quality of the Dissertation as Compared with the Turabian Guidelines (Turabian 2018, 53)
3. The Overall Quality of the Abstract and Structure (Turabian 2018, 108-109) 
4. The Overall Quality of the English Language and Use of References (Turabian 2018, 76-77) 
5. The Overall Quality or Presence of Methodology and Literature Review (Turabian 2018, 54-65) 
6. The Overall Quality of Argumentation (Turabian 2018, 61-62) 
7. The Overall Quality of Recommendations and Conclusions (Turabian 2018, 7) 
8. The Overall Quality of Bibliography (Turabian 2018, 155-156) 
9. Conclusion

1) INTRODUCTION 

I chose two doctoral dissertations for the subject of this response paper that I believe will be helpful in my quest to write about Orthodox Christian-Buddhist relations in the future. The first is entitled “Buddhist-Christian Dialogue and Action in the Theravada Countries of Modern Asia: A Comparative Analysis of the Radical Orthopraxis of Bhikku Buddhadasa and Aloysius Pieris” by In-gun Kang. The second is “Christian – Buddhist Dialogue in the Writings of Lynn A. De Silva” by Tissa Brian de Alwis. Both are works written by Christians, one Roman Catholic and the other a Seventh Day Adventist Protestant, to better understand the process of philosophical and cultural exchange between Christianity and Buddhism in Southeast Asia. Fr. Kang’s work is an ethnographic history, a literary overview, and a contemporary survey of Buddhist-Christian relations, focusing on the scholarship of Fr. Aloysius Pieris, a Sri Lankan Jesuit Priest (Kang 1992, 11). 

Similarly, Dr. Alwis’ dissertation is a detailed overview of the comparative theology of the Christian theologian and translator De Silva, a Sri Lankan Methodist minister and ecumenist. De Silva focused much of his life on philosophical bridge-building between the new Christian community in Sri Lanka and the indigenous Buddhist community that had rooted itself on the island since pre-Christian times. Both dissertations focus on roughly the same geographic location, the same historical school of Buddhism, and similarly try to compare two different Christian communities. While Kang’s work attempts a more appreciative tone, insisting on what Christians can learn from Buddhists (Kang 1992, 201), Alwis’ technique is more contrastive and more focused on helping Christians understand Buddhism without equating the two Faiths (Alwis 1982, 281). Kang sees Buddhism as an equal and a teacher, whereas Alwis tries to facilitate Buddhist learning more about Christianity (Alwis 1982, 171, 282-299). 

2) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE DISSERTATION AS COMPARED WITH THE TURABIAN GUIDELINES 

Both dissertations reflect the process of stating a central problem, researching potential answers from multiple perspectives, and crafting a tapestry of different opinions into a useful document that continually keeps the questions of the readership in mind (Turabian 2018, 53). The “problem” identified by Kang and Alwis is very similar but stated through different motivational lenses – Kang asks (Kang 1992, 2), “How can Buddhism and Christianity act as a source of hope to the people who suffer socio-economic injustice?” Whereas Alwis asks (Alwis 1982, 3), “How does De Silva’s dialogical approach relate to the contact between Buddhism and Christianity and the emergence of a Sri Lankan expression of Christianity?” Both the Kang and Alwis dissertations are high-quality studies that follow the spirit of Turabian’s recommendations, if not the letter. Kang’s writing also follows the best of the qualitative research procedures set forth by Bloomberg and Vulpe, clearly stating underlying biases and purposes, clearly sampling the situation in the local community, measured against the writings of Pieris. Kang gets bogged down, however, by making too broad of an inquiry and attempting to “give a voice” to a very sweeping demographic of the “poor and oppressed” in Sri Lanka, which leads to a problem of application (Curry 2015, Module 2). Tinges of “Liberation Theology” color the whole structure of the dissertation as the concern of the Christian Church is assumed to be the elevation of temporal suffering (Kang 1992, 206-222). It comes across as impractical and full of social platitudes, exhorting the reader to “remember” and to use the research as an inspiration for “doing better” (Kang 1992, 258-261). This “Liberation Christology” undermines the scientific usefulness of the study and makes it more of a political statement on how social justice should redefine the purpose of the Catholic Church (Kang 1992, 206). The Alwis dissertation is much simpler in scope, and much more practical in concern, attempting only to further mutual comprehension between communities and facilitate a realistic dialogue as a new Christian identity organically grows and develops in a traditionally Buddhist land. Alwis believes social change is difficult - we should not expect it through mere dialogue (Alwis 1982, 132-134), but that the communal transformation experienced by the Protestant community in Sri Lanka has a supernatural origin. Even with its less polished format and more personable notes, the dissertation is much more practical and easily implemented as a study for missionaries and anthropologists. It does not attempt to preach about how things should be. Still, it sees them realistically for what they are and documents the spontaneous changes due to the religious beliefs of those involved in the dialogue. The difference between the two dissertations can be summed up in the seriousness with which the newer work by Kang takes issues of formatting. Kang’s adherence to Turabian’s recommendations on italicizing titles for hardcopy books and newspaper and journal names for articles and extremely fastidious sentence structures that are short and precise (Turabian 2018, 174, 183, 188). Kang is an excellent editor and strict wordsmith. In contrast, Alwis is in love with his subject, tends to ramble, and perhaps knows it better than the intrepid Methodist minister he is claiming to study for dissertational focus. 

3) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE ABSTRACT AND STRUCTURE 

Kang’s abstract is short, but it is also full of jargon from both the Buddhist and Christian worlds. “Orthopraxy” is the overall purpose of the dissertation. Still, the definition of this word in its Buddhist and Christian context is not clear, so it must be assumed to come from the academic community in which Kang was involved (Kang 1992, 222-231, 252-253, Turabian 2018, 108-109). From the last sentence of the abstract, Kang subscribes to the “Transformative” school of research (Bloomberg & Volpe 2019, 138, 150, 488 & 641) because he identifies the poor and disenfranchised within the Sri Lankan Buddhist community as the locus of concern for those interacting with his writing (Kang 1992, 2). The dissertation by Alwis focuses on what the author sees as De Silva’s pragmatic approach, his translational technique, and how Christian theological concepts are like those addressed within the Theravada Buddhist tradition. He also describes the natural boundaries, barriers, and reactions to De Silva’s dialectical approach within the two communities (Alwis 1982, 3). 

4) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND USE OF REFERENCES 

Kang’s use of footnotes and references conform to more modern usage, mainly used to explain Buddhist philosophical terms, and are concise. Kang follows Turabian’s recommendations that footnotes do not clutter the page or interrupt the flow of the reader’s interaction with the text (Turabian 2018, 76-77). Alwis’ footnotes are jauntier, romping, personal, and eclectic. They are much more extensive than Kang’s footnotes and much more fun, chiming in with personal experience and cultural explanations. I would say that the different personalities of the scholars and their difference in style come through clearly in the footnotes. Reading Alwis made me realize how much is lost in contemporary research by an overly format-minded mentality. 

5) THE OVERALL QUALITY OR PRESENCE OF METHODOLOGY AND LITERATURE REVIEW 

Kang does not address his methodology transparently but relies on convention and the assumptions of his educated readership to “fill in the blanks” after he discloses the purpose of the paper and his personal biases (Turabian 2018, 54-65). Alwis does have an extensive introduction to his methodology that deals with his aims concerning the question of religious pluralism, how Buddhists are “saved,” and how to maintain the claim of Christianity’s universality (Alwis 1982, 9-12). Both Kang and Alwis chose not to do on-the-ground studies, surveys, or questionaries, which leads me to believe that both decided to study an aspect of a single writer’s work to screen away from the necessity of qualitative fieldwork. This methodology requires no fieldwork or personal experience, although Kang references his studies in Thailand, the center of Southeast Asian Catholic formation (Kang 1992, 22-23). Both studies were, essentially, literary reviews of another scholar’s work filled in with cross-references from other expert sources, some of which were shared (Aloysius Pieris is quoted by both authors extensively), but most separated by the force of denominational commitments. 

6) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF ARGUMENTATION 

Kang’s argumentation is more expansive and pulls on areas of theory, personal interaction with Thai Buddhist communities, the writings of Aloysius Pieris on Sri Lankan Buddhism, other well-respected ethnographies, and recent demographic and qualitative studies. His writing tends to be more in line with the recommendations of Turabian regarding the use of multiple sources to construct an argument and allows the authoritative voices of those recognized scholars within their field of expertise to speak for the writer regarding commitments the dissertation is arguing that the reader makes (Turabian 2018, 54-65). Thus, on the surface, it does not appear that Kang is overly biased or directing his readers to make certain conclusions; he presents the experts as arguing for these perspectives and maintains a neutral tone as to their correctness. Once the structure is analyzed, however, it becomes abundantly clear that Kang has structured the dissertation from the beginning to sway readers towards a social justice interpretation of the Gospel and a “reappropriation” of the “Spirit of Vatican II” (Kang 1992, 192). 

Alwis focuses on the comparative and ecumenical writings of De Silva, the local community’s response, and associated problems considered by the World Council of Churches in Sri Lanka. This approach is much narrower, and while there are many well-researched footnotes and complementary ideas presented by experts in their fields, Alwis tone is notable for arguing for the perceptual grid that he offers in the first person. This style makes Alwis’ arguments and personal commitments to them abundantly transparent. It slightly undercuts his authority in the process since he shows how his ideas are at odds with the Buddhist response to ecumenical dialogue and the Christian approach to these same areas of inquiry (Alwis 1982, 51-61). However, Alwis’s self-effacing transparency and commitment to his subject allow for a much less “inevitable outcome” for the reader, who has complete freedom to see the good and bad of the inter-religious dialogue approach that De Silva championed. The results are literally “left up to the Holy Spirit” (Alwis 1982, 299). 

7) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 

Between the two authors, I found that the only dissertation that asked the “so what?” question and tried to make the conclusions clear was Kang’s hierarchical writing structure (Kang 1992, 239-251, 263-269, Turabian 2018, 7). Alwis wants his readers to become Christians if they are not already living within the Faith. He wants to help those who are already Christians to have meaningful, respectful, “led by Protestants” and “fruitful” interaction with the Buddhist community that does not create “superficial converts” (Alwis 1982, 9, 51, 79-82). This commitment clashes with his scholarly insistence that the purpose of dialogue should not be to convert the other side (Alwis 1982, 79). In contrast to this evangelistic fervor, Kang presents a “Buddhist-Christian Orthopraxy” (Kang 1992, 252) which is a vision for a universally actionable platform for social justice within both religions (Kang 1992, 235-238). This approach enables both groups to work together for the common good and deepens mutual appreciation without religious conversion (Kang 1992, 240), exerting a positive influence on local politics in Southeast Asia for peace and stability. 

8) THE OVERALL QUALITY OF BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Kang states, “This bibliography is divided into four sections: (1) Bhikkhu Buddhadsa; (2) Buddhist Studies; (3) Aloysius Pieris; (4) Theology, Religious Studies and Others (Kang 1992, 272).” Three pages of Bhikkhu Buddhadsa translational work in Bangkok for the “Sublime Life Mission and the Bhikkhu Buddhadsa Foundation” outline most of the opinions on Buddhism that Kang reflects in his writing. Following this section are two and a half pages of articles by Buddhadsa. Then there are five pages devoted to works related to Buddhadsa from other Buddhist writers. Supporting this section are thirteen pages of selected bibliography for Buddhist Studies consisting of most of the Buddhist Scriptures in the Pali Canon and the Theravada Tradition. Kang then outlines one page of Fr. Aloysius Pieris books, followed by a twelve-page selected bibliography of his theological articles. Three pages of book reviews of Aloysius Pieris’ work, three pages of books related to Aloysius Pieris, and following this is fifteen pages of a selected bibliography for theology, religious studies, and others. The bibliography organization follows Turabian’s precedents as outlined in Chapter 16 regarding permissible non-alphabetical listings (Turabian 2018, 155-156). 

Alwis’ bibliography is presented in three sections, a three-page selected bibliography of the works of De Silva, organized around published books, articles, letters and unpublished manuscripts. Following this section are two pages of secondary sources, which are quotes or analyses of De Silva’s work from other authors, which are extensive. Thirteen pages of general secondary sources follow this section and consist of all the other quoted texts Alwis used to support his other arguments and interpretations of De Silva’s works. Alwis’ bibliography consists of far more denominational material and general studies than Kang’s bibliography, which is heavy on primary sources and expert theological tomes. The difference in bibliographies also highlights the difference in access between university libraries, as Kang’s dissertation was written at the University of London and reflects the resources of the Roman Catholic Church, and Alwis’ dissertation took shape at the minor Seventh Day Adventist seminary, Andrews University. 

9) CONCLUSION 

I found Kang and Alwis’ dissertations to be of great value for my study of Buddhist-Christian relations, Sri Lankan and Thai ethnography, and helpfully contextualized the dialogue between the two great faith traditions in Southeast Asia over the last two centuries. It gave me a greater appreciation for the theological problems of colonialism, the injustices of social discrimination based upon religion, and the pre-existing history of successful and unsuccessful dialogue occurring in both Catholic-Buddhist and Protestant-Buddhist contexts. It also deepened my appreciation for the work of Fr. Aloysius Pieris. He inspired productive conversations in various communities due to his ability to see socio-economic injustice wrapped in the silken sheen of religious affiliation and his repentance for the damage Christian colonialism did to the indigenous population of Sri Lanka. His humility and ability to publicly express repentance for the actions of the Church did much to repair the relationship between these two similar, albeit entirely different, religious traditions of East and West. 

REFERENCES

Alwis, Tissa Brian De. 1982. “Christian-Buddhist Dialogue in the Writings of Lynn A. De Silva.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University, Michigan. 

Bloomberg, Linda Dale, and Marie Volpe. 2019. Completing Your Qualitative Dissertation: A Road Map from Beginning to End. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. 

Curry, Leslie & Yale University. 2015. “Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: Developing a Qualitative Research Question (Module 2).” YouTube video. Accessed May 15, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0HxMpJsm0I. 

Kang, In-gun. 1992. “Buddhist-Christian Dialogue and Action in the Theravada Countries of Modern Asia: A Comparative Analysis of the Radical Orthopraxis of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa and Aloysius Pieris.” Ph.D. diss., University of London, England. 

Turabian, Kate. 2018. A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations 9th Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.