A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation ( A must read)

A excellent discussion on the Merging of Multi-practices into one intergal Whole

A Chinese Illustration of Multuple Religious Participation
By Chen Li

International Review of Chinese Religion & Philosophy
Vol. 1, MARCH 1996. pp.29-66

P.29

Abstract

For many people in the West, a person’s religious
affiliation is a matter of total commitment; choosing
one religion implies one’s being excluded from other
religions. People in the West may think this
characteristic is one of being religious itself.

Can a person integrate two or more distinct religions
into his life? This essay aims to enhance a dialogue
and hence mutual understanding between the West and
East on this matter by showing how the Chinese
practice of religion is different from that of most
Westerners. My task is not merely to point out a fact
or to present historical examples in this matter. It
is rather to help Westerners at least make some sense
of the practice of Chinese multiple religious
participation by putting my case in words most
accessible to lay persons. I will show that in the
Chinese culture there is a fairly harmonious
interplay between these three religions, not only in
society as a whole, but in individuals as well.

P.30

1.The Question

For many people in the West, a person’s religious
affiliation is a matter of total commitment; choosing
one religion implies one’s being excluded from other
religions. A religious person is either affiliated
with religion A or religion non-A, not both. One is
either a Christian or a non-Christian, e.g., a
Judaist. Within the Christian tradition, one is
either Catholic or Protestant. If you, of one
affiliation, want to be affiliated with another, you
need to be converted to another. Although there are
ecumenical conferences and organizations mainly
within Christianity , few people are ecumenical or
interfaithful across different religions. People in
the West may think this characteristic is one of
being religious itself.

Can a person integrate two or more distinct religions
into one’s life?

Our exploration into multiculturalism and religious pluralism must answer
this question. The issue is not whether one can
integrate or combine elements of various religions
together to make up a new religion, which is
certainly possible and has been done.(note 1) It is
rather a matter of subscribing to different religions
by the same individual without being converted from
one religion to another. The renowned theologian Hans
King called this question that of “dual citizenship
in faith,(Note 2) or, as I will discuss in this
essay, more appropriately, it is “multi-citizenship
in faith.”

In recent years, along with the multiculturalism
movement there have been Louder voices among Western
theologians talking about religious pluralism and
religious diversity. For example, in support of his
position of religious pluralism John Hick, one of the
most prominent contempo-rary

P.31

rary Western theologians, recently quoted from the Chinese
Taoist Classic Dao De Jing (Tao Te Ching) and
embraced the idea that “the Tao that can be expressed
is not the eternal Tao.” For him, it means that the
Ultimate Reality or Truth can never be adequately
expressed and grasped by humans. Hick proposes that a
distinction be made between, on the one hand, the
transcendent Ultimate and, on the other, a plurality
of masks or faces or manifestations of this Ultimate
“as Jahweh, as God the Father, as the Qur’anic Allah,
as Brahman, as the dharmakaya, and so on.(Note 3)
The transcendent Ultimate (the Tao? ) cannot be
directly expressed or grasped in any particular
religion. For Hick this distinction is analogous to
the one “between the kantian noumenal Transcendent or
Real or Ultimate, and its plurality of phenomenal
manifestations within human consciousness.”(Note 4)
Accordingly, every one of the (major) religious
traditions can be true, yet no one has the ultimate
truth. While this understanding appears to open a
door for multiple religious participation, Hick shows
a distaste:

“we have to ask concerning these primary
affirmations whether they conflict with each
other. They conflict in the sense that they are
different and one can only centre one’s religious
life wholeheartedly and unambiguously upon one of
them… but not more than one at once.”
(Note 5)
John Hick’s distaste for multiple religious
participation is, of course, not untypical among
Western theologians. Hans Kung maintains that one can
hold multi-citizenship culturally and ethically, but
not religiously. He claims that “even with every
cultural and ethical possibility for integration, the
truth of every religion extends to a depth that

P.32

ultimately challenges every person to a yes or no, to
an either-or… Therefore, … a religious dual
citizenship in the deepest, strictest sense of faith
should be excluded–by all the great religions.”
(Note 6)

One might be able to find support for this kind
of exclusionism from the scriptures. In the Holy
Bible, for instance, the first of the Ten
Commandments is that “You must have no other god
besides me.” In Exodus 20 it states:

“God spoke all these words: I am the Lord your
God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land
of slavery. You must have no other god besides me.
You must not make a carved image for yourself,
nor the likeness of anything in the heavens
above, or on the earth below, or in the waters
under the earth. You must not bow down to them in
worship; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous
God, punishing the children for the sins of the
parents to the third and fourth generation of
those who reject me.”(Note 7)

This passage clearly demands a total devotion from the
worshippers. If a worshipper of this god is to follow
these words, he or she cannot but reject all other
gods. Of course, for such a person, this god is not
just a god; it is the god, or simply, God. Therefore,
it is no surprise that the idea of multiple religious
participation has been rejected almost entirely in
the Western Christian circle. As John H. Berthrong
observed, “For most Christians, that people can
belong to more than one community of faith seems at
best confusing and at worst, damning.”(Note 8)

But exclusionism certainly is not characteristic
of religion per se. For example, a recent article on
Buddhism in USA Today specifically points out that
“Buddhists can be involved in other religions.”(Note 9)
As a matter of fact, as I will show in this essay,
“multi-citizenship” in religion for the Chinese is
nothing new but a part of everyday life.

My purpose here is to enhance a dialogue and hence
mutual understanding between the West and East on
this matter by showing how the Chinese practice of
religion is different from that of most Westerners.
For this purpose, my task is not merely to point out
a fact or to present a historical example in this
matter. It is rather to help Westerners at least make
some sense the practice of Chinese multiple religious
participation. Therefore I will have to put my case
in words most accessible to lay persons; I will have
to avoid as much as possible technical language,
which may be more accurate but not easily accessible
to most Western readers. Since Kung has listed
Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism as religions,(Note 10)
I will show that, in the Chinese culture there is a
fairly harmonious interplay between these three
religions, not only in society as a whole, but in
individuals as well. The question I attempt to answer
here, then, is, how multi-citizenship across these
religions is possible; namely, “How can a person be a
Taoist-Confucian? ” “How can a person be a
Buddhist-Confucian? ” “How can a person be a
Taoist-Buddhist?” or even “How can a person be a
Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian? ” Here I do not
differentiate between being a Taoist-Confucian and a
Confucian-Taoist, etc., even though there might be
some differences. My concern is rather how the two or
three can come together in one person. For the sake
of simplicity, I will discuss these questions under
one title: “How can a person be a Taoist-Buddhist-
Confucian?”

2.The Religiousness of Chinese Religions

At the outset it must be pointed out that the term
“Taoism” has two but closely related denotations. It
refers both to an organized religion and a
religio-philosophic tradition which can be traced
back to the canon Dao De Jing. Whereas the
latter is characterized by the ideal way of life as
wu-wei (non-contention, non-striving) the former puts
paramount value on longevity and immortality through
wu-wei and other means. The two are closely connected
though. Taoism as a religio-philosophy is the
theologic source of religious Taoism. Lao Zi, the
author of Dao De Jing, is also believed to be the
founder of religious Taoism. Dao De Jing is the
scripture of religious Taoism. They both take the Tao
to be the Ultimate.In this essay I treat them as a
single value system.(Note 11)

In order to make my discussion in the rest of the
essay relevant, I need also to address the issue of
the religiousness of all three Chinese religions.
Even though Taoism and Buddhism do not embrace a god
in the strict sense, their resemblance to Western
religions in institution and societal function has
convinced most religious scholars that the two are
indeed religions. Litttle concern has been expressed
in regard to the religiousness of Buddhism and
Taoism. Therefore there is no need for me to argue
for the religiousness of Taoism and Buddhism here.

There have been much discussion and even debates
about the religiousness of Confucianism. Confucianism
in many ways appears too secular to be a religion. It
does not have a god, nor an organized way of
worshipping in the way in which many other religions
do. Nevertheless, today a major-

P.35

ity of scholars have accepted Confucianism as a religion.
Then, what is its religiousness?

Tu Wei-ming, a new-Confucian at Harvard University
writes: “We can define the Confucian way of being
religious as ultimate self-transformation as communal
act and as a faithful dialogical response to the
transcendent.”(Note 12) According to Tu, being religious,
for the Confucian, means being engaged in the process
of learning to be fully human. Tu’s definition is in
accord with John Hick’s statement about religion:

“the function of religion in each case is to
provide contexts for salvation/liberation, which
consists in various forms of the transformation
of human existence from self-centredness to
Reality-centredness.”(Note 13)

Religion bears a fundamental concern for the ultimate
in life. It is this ultimate, which is transcendent,
that defines value in life and provides the direction
for one to strive for in life, which in turn makes
life meaningful.

Specifically, I think the religiousness of
Confucianism can be seen in two ways. First,
Confucianism, as any other religion in the world,
establishes the ultimate through a leap of faith.
Confucianism as an ethical system provides guidelines
of a moral life. The foundation of Confucian ethics
is its belief in the Tao (Way) or Heaven. The
Doctrine of the Mean, a canon in Confucianism, starts
by stating:

“What Heaven imparts to man is called human
nature. To follow our nature is called the Tao.
Cultivating the Tao is called education.”
(Chapter 1)

Human nature, or the destiny of human life is given
here without a demonstration of any form. The
Confucian would

P.36

argue that human nature requires that one be moral or
to endeavor to transform oneself in accordance with
the Tao. But why not something other than the Tao?
The Confucian does not offer a further argument or
demonstration.(Note 14)
The Tao is both an “is” (i.e., a given from Heaven in
unfixed form) and “ought” (i.e., a moral prescription
or decree by Heaven). No rational argumentation is
offered in this regard. And not surprisingly so. As
Kierkegaard has persuasively argued, in religion (he
meant specifically Christianity), such a rational
“proof” is impossible. There one can always ask the
unanswerable question “Why God (or Why Tao)?” The
only thing to which we can appeal here is “a leap of
faith.” Confucianism is no exception in this regard.
The Tao is taken as a given in the first place and
the rest is ordered accordingly. This leap of faith
puts Confucianism into the same category with many
other world religions.

Second, a primary function of religion is to give
meaning to people’s life and Confucianism provides an
answer to the question of the meaning of life. Unlike
believers in many religions, Confucians do not
believe that the meaning of life lies in another
world. Confucius himself refused to speculate about
afterlife and gods. His concern was almost
exclusively in this life. Confucians in general are
very this-worldly and believe that a this-worldly
life alone can be meaningful. The meaning of life,
according to the Confucian, lies in one’s
self-transformation through building human
relationships with one’s fellow human beings. Among
these relations, one can be a good son/daughter, a
good brother/sister, a good father/mother, a good
friend, a good partner, etc. Confucius once defined
his central idea

P.37

Jen or humanity as “to love people Analects, 17:22).”
The value of human life lies in the creation of a
community in which one loves, and is loved by, other
people. Love by others is a source, if not the only
source, of the meaning of life. Life cannot be
meaningful without this kind of love. Since this kind
of love is most likely found in the family, the
Confucian takes the family life to be the most basic
and meaningful way of life. Through one’s
self-transformation into being fully human, one earns
the love in the family and the enlarged family–the
community. When one dies, one will be remembered with
love by others. In the family as in the community,
one takes over the heritage that the ancestors have
passed down and carries it on and then passes it over
to later generations. By doing this one joins one’s
own life, which is finite and temporary, into the
stream of the (hopefully) infinite and eternal.

That which gives a person’s life meaning may not
be necessarily religious. But the Confucian’s
meaningful life has an important dimension which
extends into religiousness. Common people by nature
have an unconscious wish for immortality and in
immortality we find life meaningful. In some
religions this wish is expressed in the form of an
eternal afterlife or an eternal cycle of
reincarnations. One may say that in Confucianism the
wish for immortality is expressed in the family and
communal life. In this sense, one can understand the
Confucian religiousness by following Herbert
Fingarette in characterizing it as “the secular as
sacred.”(Note 15) That is, taking one’s daily secular
experience such as family life and social dealings as
religious experience. One can equally understand it
by putting it the other way around: “the sacred as
the secular.” For if

P.38

the meaning of life is a sacred matter, the
Confucians only find it in the secular everyday life,
not in a Sunday church or anywhere else. Because the
Confucians can find the sacred in the secular, they
can, following their Master, afford to not talk about
afterlife and immortality. Like Blaise Pascal, the
Confucians may wager on this issue, but in the
opposite way: If there is no afterlife, this life is
the only life we have; If there is afterlife, this
life would be an extra bonus if we take it seriously.
So, either way we must take this life very seriously.

Some people may still question the religiousness
or spirituality of the Confucian life. Being
religious, they may think, consists in possessing in
a person’s mind some belief in a certain deity or
deities, the belief that such a deity must indeed
exist somewhere in the world, or for that matter,
beyond the world. This understanding of religion, I
contend, is too narrow. Religion primarily has to do
with grand principles or ways of life. These
principles may not be ultimately justified anywhere
other than a transcendent belief system. In other
words, even though one can justify some general
principles in life, the ultimate principle itself is
not justifiable by other principles. It has to land
in a transcendent realm. In this way, religion is a
belief system that connects us to the transcendent
realm. Understood this way, Confucianism, as well as
Taoism and Buddhism, is indeed religious.

3.The Distinctiveness of Three Religions

Needless to say, the idea of multiple religious
participa-
p.39

tion presupposes the existence of different religions.
The distinctiveness of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism
as three different value systems can be seen in their
different attitudes toward life.

The Confucian model of personhood is “jun zi”
(chun tzu, “gentleman”). A jun zi is a person of Jen,
who is conscientious (“zhong”-loyal to one’s cause)
and considerate (“shu”-altruistic) (Confucius,
Analects, 4:15). Such a person is devoted to her
person-making commitment and holds a persevering
determination toward her goal. She would take every
step in her life seriously and work very hard to make
steady progress in order to make her dream come true.
Such a person is seldom relaxed; she is cautious and
watchful over herself even when she is alone ( Great
Learning: Chapter VI). She is also considerate of
other people. She would not do to others what she
would not want others to do unto her ( Analects,
12:2); and she would think about and bear in mind
what others would like when she is pursuing her own
advancement (Analects, 6:28). She would take rules
and rituals seriously and insist on them. While she
likes good people, she would overtly express her
disapproval of bad actions and bad people (e.g.,
Analects, 4:3). In this way, a Confucian will be able
to make good progress in her endeavors and achieve
success through hardworking. She may get along well
with other people because she is considerate. Devoted
to her goal, she would evaluate her life almost
solely on the progress she has made toward the goal.
She would feel splendid happiness by sharing her
success with her family and friends. At an extreme,
she might prefer death to fruitlessness. Such a
person rarely lives at ease. She may have too much
tension, too little

p.40

relaxation in life. She rarely feels self-content.
Because she works hard and also likes others to work
hard, people may feel pressured around her.

In the eyes of the Taoist, the Confucian is too
desire-driven. The Taoist would feel that one should
follow the flow of nature. He would follow the notion
of “non-contention.” His attitude towards things in
the world is one of “either-way” (liang xing,
“walking two roads”)(Note 16)
In Chinese it is called “wu ke wu buke” (“it’s
okay if okay, and it’s okay if not okay”). His life
philosophy is being “Water-like.” water, being
shapeless and soft, can fit itself into and put up
with almost any environment. More importantly he can
have things accomplished this way. The Taoist Zhuang
Zi’s (Chuang Tzu, between 399-295 B.C.) narrative
character cook Ding can preserve his knife like new
after cutting up thousands of oxen because he follows
the natural way by only inserting his knife at the
joints.(Note 17)
Cook Ding would laugh at the Confucian when she cuts
up the ox by trying harder (i.e., using more
strength) instead of following the way of nature. For
the Taoist, tactics is more important than strength.
Or to put it in a different way, real strength can
only result from good tactics. Like Zhuang Zi, the
Taoist would not take personal goals so seriously as
the Confucian does. After all, we can never be so
sure about the goal we choose. If he has a goal, it
would be a realistic one, one that takes into
consideration his particular circumstances. The ideal
of “non-contention” always reminds him to take one
step back in a situation, and by doing so he is able
to find ample room for him to maneuver. He would
never push hard, but in achieving his goal he would
always find forces in his opposites or the

p.41

environment to work to his advancement. However, in
focusing this way, a less than mature Taoist may not
establish himself on a solid ground. The idea of
“non-contention” may cause him to miss opportunities
in life; believing tactics is all that matters, he
may not work hard to acquire positive knowledge. He
may waste his youth and end up accomplishing nothing.
Hence, he may not find such a life as fulfilling as
he would wish. Seeing all others as being misled, a
Taoist from the religious group may concentrate on
longevity. But by doing so he may not be as
productive as the Confucian.

The Buddhist would stick to his conviction that
the world is empty (sunyata). In his eyes, even the
Taoist is too this-worldly. After all, there is not
anything in the world that is substantial enough for
us to fight for, one way or another. Because of the
empty nature of the world, he has no reason to feel
joy or sorrow for things in our daily life. All we
should have is peace of mind. In the mind, he finds
everything he needs. He may have a good sense of
humor which Confucians and Taoists usually lack.
While the self-disciplined Confucian is working hard,
the Taoist is speculating on tactics or contemplating
the usefulness of the useless,(Note 18) the Buddhist
would feel very much content with doing nothing. The
Buddhist finds Contentment by reducing his desires to
the minimum. His slogan would be “Less desires, less
striving, more contentment.” But in real life a
normal person can hardly maintain a Buddhist mind all
the time. People often feel the need to be happy and
they can only obtain happiness through fruitful
hard-working or intelligent and successful
business-dealings. Unless a person has a very broad
(open) mind, he cannot

p.42

find the good life in Buddhism.

The above three are idealized stereotypes. In
real life few people are exclusiely Confucian,
Taoist, or Buddhist in such a typical way. The point
is that the three religions exemplify three clearly
different attitudes towards life.

4.Tension and Complementarity

4.1. As different religions coexisting in the same
land, the relationships between them are twofold:
conflicting and complementing. Conflicts can be seen
mainly between Confucianism and Taoism and between
Confucianism and Buddhism, probably because
Confucianism has been mostly the dominating among the
three. As early as in the pre-Qin era (before 221
B.C.), conflicts between Confucianism and Taoism were
already evident. As two philosophies, Confucianism
values “being” (you) whereas Taoism values “nothing”
or “non-being” (wu). This difference has resulted in
a direct conflict in their political philosophies.
While Confucianism advocated positive moral
construction in society by stressing the concepts of
Jen and Yi (benevolence and righteousness), Taoism
opposed this kind of moral construction. The Dao De
Jing states:

“When Tao is obliterated, we have benevolence and
righteousness. Prudence and circumspection
appear, and we have much hypocrisy. When family
relations no longer harmonize, we have filial
piety and paternal devotion. When the country and
the clans decay through disorder, we hav loyalty
and allegiance.” (Section 18)

The Taoist believed that the Confucian’s advocacy for
benevo-
P.43
lence and righteousness indicated that these virtures
were already lost in society, and the talk about these
virtues merely made them hypocritical labels. Against
Confucianism, the Taoist’s solution is to return to
simplicity:

“Abandon your saintliness; put away you prudence;
and the people will gain a hundredfold! Abandon
your benevolence; put away your righteousness;
and the people will return to filial piety and
paternal devotion. Abandon smartness; give up
greed; and thieves and robbers will no longer
exist.” ( Dao De Jing, Section 19)

The direct conflict between Confucianism and
Taoism in this regard is whether, as a solution to an
allegedly demoralized society, we should enforce
moral rules or turn people back to simplicity through
laisser faire government. The Confucian was for the
former whereas the Taoist the latter.

After Buddhism was introduced into China, there
was a prolonged battle between Confucianism and
Buddhism. The battle was primarily centered on three
issues. First, whether monks living a monastery away
from home, hence away from their parents, violated
the traditional (Confucian) belief in filial piety.
Second, whether monks should kowtow to the emperor.
In the Confucian tradition the emperor symbolized the
highest power on earth and kowtowing to him was the
necessary ritual to recognize this symbolization.
While the monk as a religious symbol was supposed to
stand for a religious power (the Buddha?) which is
supposedly higher than the secular, including the
emperor. Thirdly, whether human spirit survives our
physical death. Confucius himself refused to talk
about spirit or soul after death. Confucian scholars
such as Wang Chong (Wang Chung, 27-100 A.D.)
explicitly denied that the spirit could

P.44

survive the physical death. While the Buddhist,
particularly of the Pure Land school, relied
substantially on the idea of human spirit after
death. These conflicts clearly indicate the
difference between Buddhism and Confucianism.

4.2 On the other hand, these three religions also
complemented each other. In the pre-Qin era there was
the so-called “Confucianism-Taoism complementarity”
(ru dao hu bu), which can be seen in that, while
Confucianism provides an active and positive attitude
toward life, Taoism provides a largely passive and
even perhaps negative attitude. Because of this
difference, a person can retreat from the former to
the latter. One may follow the idea of “In office a
Confucian, in retirement a Taoist.”(Note 19) That is,
as a participating citizen, one should contribute
one’s part to the country and be Conscientious with
one’s social duties. Once retired, one should not
keep worrying about official business, instead one
should follow and enjoy nature.

The complementarity between Confucianism and
Buddhism is evident in that, whereas Confucianism
encourages a person’s success in life, both
economical and intellectual, Buddhism encourages a
life which values neither but internal peace. Also,
whereas Confucianism offers little help or
consolation for human desire for afterlife, some
versions of Buddhism do. As H.G. Greel observed,
“traditional Chinese thought had been almost silent
on life after death. Buddhism offered at least a
hope, and at times when men were living in a hell on
earth it was much to be able to hope for heaven after
death.”(Note 20) In fact, the complementarity between
Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism partly explains why
Buddhism, a foreign religion to start with, has found
roots in the largely foreign-resistant

P.45

Chinese culture. It is this kind of complementarity
between Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism that
provides a foundation for their harmonious
coexistence in China. In practice, efforts were made
to reconciliate different faiths, particularly by
Buddhists during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.) when
Buddhism flourished. The efforts were to show the
commonalities and common grounds between the three
religions. For example, the Buddhist Zong-mi
(Tsung-mi, 780-841 A.D.) stated that:

“Confucius, Lao Zi, and Sakyamuni all attained
Sainthood. They preached the teaching in
different ways in accordance with their time and
place. However, they mutually helped and
benefitted the people by their teachings.”(Note 21)

Chi-chung, another Buddhist, stated:

“All of three teachings are good. All the ways
taught by saints are right—-The good and right
teaching is not only Buddhism, not only
Confucianism, not only this, not only that.
Buddhism and Confucianism are only offshoots of
the original truth.”(Note 22)

According to Hajime Nakamura, till the Five Dynasties
(907-960 A.D.) and Sung Dynasty (960-1279 A.D.), the
theory that “the three religions were the same was
widely believed and supported by the general public.”
(Note 23) This belief and the pragmatic philosophy
along with it greatly facilitated the commoners in
accepting all three religions.

While these reconciliating remarks sound similar
to John Hick’s view of the Ultimate-many
manifestations, unlike in Hick, the Chinese view has
led directly to multiple religious participation. The
co-existence of Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism is
not merely an existence side

P.46

by side in the same land, they also have co-existed
in the same mind. That is, the same individual may
subscribe to all three value systems at the same
time. The Taoist Ko Hung (Ge Hong, 283-363 A.D.), in
his classic work Bao-pu Zi (Pao-pu Tzu), advocated
the view that while Confucianism is to be used for
social affairs, Taoist method of body-maintenance
should be used for personal internal needs. Zhao
Shen, the emperor Xiao Zong of South Song (1163-1189
A.D.), proposed that one should use “Buddhism for the
mind, Taoism for the body, and Confucianism for
organizing society.” (Note 24) As a symbol of this
integration, today there are at least seven temples
in Taiwan where incense is offered to Confucius, Lao
Zi, and the Buddha.(Note 25)

Today it is no longer new to many Westerners that
the Chinese practice multiple religious participation.
Henrik Kraemer, for example, observes that:

“(In China) The religious allegiance of the average
man is not related to one of the three religions.
He does not belong to a confession or creed. He
participates unconcerned as to any apparent lack
of consistency, alternatively in Buddhist,
Taoist, or Confucian rites. He is by nature a
religious pragmatist.”(Note 26)

4.3 It should be noted that “multiple religious
participation” must not be confused with syncretism.
“Syncretism” may be defined as “the borrowing,
affirmation, or integration of concepts, symbols, or
practices of one religious tradition into another by
a process of selection and reconciliation.”(Note 27)
There certainly has been syncretism in China as has
been in any major tradition. But multiple religious
participation is different from syncretism in that
multiple religious participation practices more than
one reli-
P.47

gion with a recognition that they are different
religions, and does it without making an effort to
integrate them into one single religion. John
Berthrong is right as he writes: “(In China) A person
can be a Taoist, Confucian and Buddhist more or less
at the same time. But this is a question slightly
different from syncretism per se. It is more properly
the question of dual or multiple membership.”(Note 28)
Here Berthrong of course is using “membership”
metaphorically for none of the three religions in
China is strictly a membership religion. To this
multiple “membership” of Chinese way of being
religious now we turn.

5. A Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian

Now, how can the same person be a Taoist-Buddhist-
Confucian today? The question here is not merely
whether the same individual can pay tribute to a
Taoist temple today and participate in a Buddhist
ceremony tomorrow. It is rather how the same
individual can subscribe to three different value
systems in a persistent and sensible way.

5.1. We can understand this practice in two ways.
The first is basing multiple religious participation
on one’s multiple dimensions of existence. The second
is dialectical co-existence within the same dimension
of one’s existence. First, as discussed earlier, the
three religions occupy different dimensions of a
person’s life and perform different functions. Since
a person has more than one dimension in life, one can
incorporate different religions. By Zhao Shen’s
model, a person can have the peace of mind of a
Buddhist, take good care of his body like a Taoist,
and be a good citi-

P.48

zen as a Confucian. A person may go on pilgrimage to
the Guanyin at a Buddhist monastery for having an
heir, invite a Taoist master to help get evil spirit
out of his home, and ask Confucius to bless his loved
one to get into a top university.

The Chinese historian Chen Yinke (1890-1969)
observed that, “those who outwardly observe Confucian
norms may inwardly follow the principles of Buddhism
or cultivate themselves according to the way of
Taoism; there is no conflict between them.”(Note 29)
A contemporary exemplar of ” Buddhist-Confucian ” was
Liang Shuming (1893-1988). Liang was a major
Confucian in this century, spending most of his life
practicing and reviving Confucianism’, but he himself
also claimed that “(my whole) life belongs to
Buddhism.”(Note 30) In Liang’s final years he maintained
that he was still a Buddhist while also accepted the
title “the Last Confucian.”(Note 31) Many have been
perplexed by this apparent discrepancy. How is this
possible? Liang was after two different issues in his
life. One was the ideal of life, a question of
personal existence; the other was the problem of
China’s future, which demands a social solution to
its modern predicaments. These two problems were
intertwined in Liang and he was so troubled that he
attempted suicide at the age of nineteen.(Note 32)
As an individual, he found meaning of life in
Buddhism; as a citizen he found that the only
solution to China’s modern predicaments was
Confucianism.(Note 33)

5.2. But the first way of multiple religious
participation in one’s
multiple dimensions of existence is not the whole picture.
Different religions do come into the same dimension and thus
create tensions between each other. I

P.49

suggest that in the second way there is a dialectical
tension-complementary relation between these
religions, which is far more important in
understanding the complementarity of Taoism,
Buddhism, and Confucianism. A Confucian scholar has
said that Buddhism is like floating on the water,
drifting wherever the current takes you, Confucianism
is like having a rudder in the boat to guide it in a
cretain direction.(Note 34) This simile was meant to
show the advantage or superiority of Confucianism
over Buddhism. But if we read it from a different
perspective with an open mind, we can find new
meanings. Is it always so bad drifting along the
current? Perhaps it is better to drift for a while
before using the rudder again. Sometimes it may be
better to follow both ways alternately. Reading the
simile this way may help us understand how one can
employ both Confucianism and Buddhism. How can Taoism
fit into this simile? Taoism may be best understood
in this picture as using the force of the current to
determine and get to the desired direction. For the
Taoist, it would be foolish to fight the current
head-on. He should make the current work to his
advantage; in this case, moving him towards his
destiny. Similarly, for a person, even though it is
hard to act like a Taoist, a Buddhist, and a
Confucian simultaneously at every moment, the three
can work in the same person. One example is the
famous Chinese poet Tao Qian (Tao Yuanming, 365-427).
Tao was a Confucian, but his Taoist conviction made
it possible for him to quit the post of the
magistrate of Pengze county for a simple life close
to nature and to write the poetry that few of his
contemporaries could really appreciated. As Donald
Holzman points out, Tao Qian’s great achievement
describes a complex but

P.50

original attitude towards life and towards the world
in general “that enabled him to remain faithful to
traditional values of loyalty and respect for the
social order while realizing, thanks to his poetic
imagination, a new kind of fulfillment of his
ambitions in retirement.” (Note 35) The traditional
values of loyalty and respect for social order were
undoubtedly Confucian values, while the Taoist
attitude in him made it possible for Tao Qian to
fulfill life away from society. Zhang Longxi
comments:

“Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism.. are not
incompatible with one another in Chinese culture,
and it would be pointless to argue that Tao
Qian’s thinking is exclusively Confucian or
Taoist. He never had to choose between those
different schools of thought but was able to
incorporate, as so many Chinese intellectuals
have done throughout the centuries, the various
elements into a healthy eclectic outlook. In that
very eclecticism the Chinese mind is able to keep
itself open to the different possiblities of
thinking.”(Note 36)

Without entering Tao Qian’s mind or having a personal
account from himself, it may be still difficult for a
Westerner to see how Confucianism and Taoism were
incorporated in him. I will offer another way, much
closer to home to Westerners, to illustrate how this
may take place in a modern person. Suppose you are
the coach of a basketball team. You want to win. You
take the job of coaching seriously. You inspire your
players to be confident of winning and give them a
strong desire to win. You make your players practice
hard. But that is not enough. You need to study not
only the strength of your team, but perhaps more
importantly the weaknesses of your oppo-

P.51

nents.By applying the Taoist idea of wu-wei, you may
be able to turn their strength into a weakness and
make it work to your advantage. You may also want to
give individual players more room for their own
growth, let them find their unique place in following
the flow of the world. After the game is over, either
win or lose, your Buddhist mind (and perhaps Taoist
mind as well) would remind you that you should not
make a big deal of it. If you lose, you should not
feel too bad about it. If you win, it is not a big
deal either. After all, it is only a game.

I must not be misunderstood as meaning in the
above that as long as a person uses alternately the
three life attitudes he or she must be a
Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian. No. Not so simple. Whether
a person practices a way of life religiously does not
depend on individual actions. It depends on the
larger picture in which a person lives his or her
life. It depends on the significance a person makes
of his or her actions. Specifically, it depends on
the connections one makes between one’s chosen
attitudes and actions on the one hand and fundamental
values in life on the other. Just as one can eat
bread with wine without being a holy communionist,
one can do things in ways similar to the Taoist
without being a Taoist, similar to the Buddhist
without being a Buddhist, and similar to the
Confucian without being a Confucian. But, if one
makes the fundamental connections and thereby makes
one’s actions a consciously religious practice, one
is being religious. If one consciously chooses to
follow the Taoist, the Buddhist, and the Confucian
ways of life alternately or even simultaneously, one
is a Taoist-Buddhist-Confucian.

I am not suggesting this is the only way for the three

p.52

to come together. They can be at play everyday. On
the one hand, you need to take things seriously and
work hard, i.e., to be conscientious. On the other it
is important not to go against the current. And it is
also important to relax and enjoy peace of mind. In
my opinion, when a person is growing up, she should
probably practice more Confucianism. It will give her
the motivation and driving force to learn and develop
her potentials fully. After she is ready for and
enters the real life in society, she should have more
Taoism. Together with her skills and knowledge learnt
in her early years, Taoist strategies will enhance
her career. After she becomes old, she should have
more Buddhism. In order to have a good older life,
she should not be overburdened by her success or
failure in her early years. With a mind of emptiness,
she will be able to have peace with herself.

Clearly, a good combination of all three is most
desirable. Of course, all three cannot interplay in a
harmonious and beneficial way unless one masters some
kind of practical wisdom (phronesis), to borrow
Aristotle’s terminology, unless one knows when and
how to choose which. The issue of practical wisdom,
however, is beyond our present concern in this essay.

6. Some Philosophical Considerations

6.1. Then, what is the philosophical foundation
for Chinese multiple
religious participation? I think the foundation can be found in all three
religions. One psychological obstacle for multiple religious
participation is a strong hold-

P.53

ing to the self, which is lacking in all three
religions. The Buddhist believes that the self is
unreal and non-substantial. The Taoist advocates a
“water-like” attitude. Lao Tzu said “the sage does
not have a constant mind.” ( Dao De Jing, Ch. 49)
Confucius said that “the gentleman is not an
implement (qi/chi) ( Analects , 2:12).” An
implement is something fixed, unchanging, and
inflexible. The idea of not being an implement leaves
room for flexibility to incorporate other things,
including Taoism and Buddhism.

Human psychology is not a unitary process. It may
need different things and take different courses
under different circumstances and at different times.
This characteristic of the Chinese mind is
well-illustrated in Archie J. Bahm’s comparison of
the Western, Indian, and Chinese attitudes towards
activity and passivity. Bahm observes that while
Europeans encourage activity, Hindus encourage
passivity, Chinese accept the need for both activity
and passivity, each in turn. He explicates:

“Why accept both activity and passivity, each in
turn? Observe everyday experience. There is a
time to arise and a time to go to bed, a time to
work and a time to rest. The sun rises, and the
sun sets. Initiation of activity is symbolized by
yang. Completion of activity or rather achieving
of passivity is symbolized by yin. Every being
(tao) consists of both yang and yin… Being and
doing are equally important, equally natural,
equally good.”(Note 37)

The Chinese have a tendency to strive for a balance
by harmonizing different aspects of things. They tend
to let each aspect have its turn and thus, instead of
mixing them together, let them alternately work
together. In the

P.54

Chinese mind, since different religions have
different strengths and weaknesses, they may play
respective roles in the same persons’s life.

Conceptually and philosophically, both Confucianism
and Taoism believe in the Way as the Tai Chi (Great
Ultimate), which literally means the highest or
greatest utmost. The highest utmost cannot be
exhausted by a single teaching. When Buddhism was
first introduced to China, it was put in the language
familiar and congenial to Confucianism and
Taoism.(Note 38) Therefore, regardless of the
apparent discrepancies between the three religious
doctrines, scholars could bring all three under the
Way with relatively little difficulty. After all, no
one can claim to have exhausted the Way.

6.2. Now one may want to ask: How can one believe
in different things? What about truth? The rationale
here seems to be that, if A is true, then non-A has
to be false. If you believe in A, you cannot at the
same time rationally believe in non-A. Here perhaps
lies one of the greatest differences between the
Chinese and the Western mind. The Chinese do not
regard epistemic/semantic tructh as highly as
Westerners. As Chad Hansen put it, Chinese moral
theories have “the requirement that our utterance be
appropriate as opposed to being true.”(Note 39) The
Chinese have never assigned an unconditional value to
truth as has been done in the West.

In Chinese culture the problem of epistemic/semantic
truth has not traditionally been an issue of philosophical
significance.(Note 40) In Chinese classics, the word
“true/truth” (“zhen”) was used to express the meaning of
“cheng” (“sincerity” or “being truthful to what you are
destined to

P.55

be”). It is primarily a metaphysical as well as an
ethical concept (See Tao De Jing, and The Doctrine of
the Mean ). The term for truth is “zhen li.” “Li” can
be translated as “principles,” “laws,” or “patterns.”
They are the manifestations of the Tao/Way. In this
sens, to live truthfully is to live an authentic
life, to follow the Tao, and hence to manifest the
Tao throught one’s own way of being. The message from
the Chinese is similar to the one R.C. Zaehner has
read from Hinduism. It is worthwhile to quote in full
what Zaehner writes at the end of his remarkable book
Hinduism:

“What, then is the message of Hinduism? If it has
a message at all, it would seem to be this: to
live out your dharma which is embedded in the
conscience, to do what is instinctively you know
to be right, and thereby to live in harmony with
the dharma of all things, so that in the end you
may see all things in yourself and yourself in
all things and thereby enter into the eternal and
timeless peace which is the dharma of moksha, the
‘law’ of ‘freedom’ that has its being outside
space and time yet comprises and hallows both.”(Note 41)

If one can see all things (including people) in oneself
and oneself in all things, then one has become one
with the Tao or dharma. All distinctions are
distinctions within one’s being, not without. This,
then, is the truth of life.

Therefore, unlike Aristotle, a Chinese philosopher
would not say “Although I love my teacher, I love
truth more than I love my teacher.” For the Chinese,
the most important thing is to participate in
creating a better world for everyone, not to find out
something objectively true. So to questions like “Who
is smarter, Lao Zi or Confucius?” the

P.56

Chinese may answer “They are both very smart.” Is
that not enough? Does it really matter that much if
we have an either-or answer? Not at all. This
non-obsession with truth partly explains why the
Chinese have no problem having in them the “trinity”
of Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.
6.3. Another reason for embracing different
religions is that “breadth” has been a traditional
Chinese virtue. Breadth is not merely tolerance. To
be tolerant means to be able to put up with different
things. Breadth requires more than tolerance. It
means being tolerant with a genuine understanding.
Therefore, with this attitude, even if one finds
discrepancies between different religions one may
reserve them and concentrate on what is important in
these ways of life. In Chinese this is called “qiu
tong cun yi” or “seeking common grounds while
reserving differences.” It is an important aspect of
Chinese wisdom.

Finally, one most important Chinese value is harmony
(he/ho). The Chinese believe that harmony is a value
in itself and is preferable to conflict. In the
Chinese view of dialectic harmonization, the Tao or
Way is a process of harmonizing differences of
things. The Tao is one and is the source of all
polarities. It has two complementary elements or
aspects, yang and yin. A harmonious interplay of yang
and yin is most desirable. The world is full of
polarities. When we find ourselves at one of the
polarities and at the edge of a conflict, we can and
should, through understanding and re-understanding of
reality and ourselves, “project ourselves into a
situation where conflict and antagonism will
disappear through an overall process of adjustment of
ourselves to the world.”(Note 42) For instance,
Ming Tai Zu (Tai-tsu), the first emperor
(1368-1398?) of the

P.57

Ming Dynasty, attempted to harmonize the three
religions by saying that while Confucianism is the
Way of yang or manifest virtue, Taoism and Buddhism
are yin or hidden virtue. For him, the yang virtue is
the culmination of this-worldly doctrine and can be
relied upon for countless generations, the yin
virtues are secret aids of the kingly Way; together
the two comprise the Way of heaven.(Note 43) The
Chinese pragmatic minds tend to take principles,
particularly theoretical principles, not so rigidly.
Between the option of “harmonizing differences” and
“fighting it out” they tend to choose harmonization.
This is perhaps the ultimate reason for Chinese
embracing multiple religious participation.

7. Conclusion

Then, what lessons can be drawn from all this?
Today we are promoting multiculturalism. Cultures
include religions. In order to promote
multiculturalism we need first of all to be tolerant
towards different religious beliefs and practices. We
need to be able to put up with religious practices
other than our own. But that is not enough. We need
to look beyond tolerance. We cannot live with our
neighbors of different religions unless we have a
genuine understanding of them. And we cannot have a
genuine understanding of them unless we understand
their religions. One way to understand religions
different from our own is to try to practice
different religions. A Chinese Christian with a
strong Confucian background may understand both
better than a mere Confucian or a mere Christian. She
may be

P.58

better equipped for promoting both cultures
and living across the two cultures. Some people may
think she is being incoherent. But what is wrong with
such an “incoherence?” The Chinese lessons indicate
that as long as we keep an attitude of breadth, we
will be able to accommodate different religions. This
attitude toward religion is “multiple religious
participation,” and I believe it is an important
dimension of multiculturalism.

John Hick and others have explored, in theory, the
possibility of coexisting religions which are valid
respectively on their own account. This theory can be
used to support the idea of multiple religious
participation. If no single religion has the ultimate
truth and each only reflects a facet of the Ultimate
as Hick maintains, then no one is absolute or
perfect. If with religion is the human drive for
perfection, then one ought to embrace different
religions in order to make one’s spiritual life as
perfect/fulfilling as possible within human
limitations. Of course there is a provision to it —
there must be a productive way to put them all to
work. The Chinese case I have presented provides a
practical illustration of how some religions, even
though seemingly contradictory to each other, can be
integrated into an individual’s live. Our case is a
practical demonstration for multiple religious
participation.

Although my thesis in this essay can be prescriptive,
it is first of all descriptive. It describes the way
in which millions of Chinese have lived their lives.
So, the question here is not whether multiple
citizenship in faith multiple religious
participation) is possible, but whether it is
desirable. I do not claim multiple religious
participation is the only way for multiculturalism.
But it is one way. And

P.59

very likely a good way.(Note 44)

Notes:

1. For instance, Theosophy “brings together elements
from Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity,
Spiritualism, Egyptian Hermeticism, perhaps
something from Jewish Kabbalism, and occultism
generally.” These Also Believe, Charles Braden,
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949, p.243.

2. Hans Kung and Julia Ching, Christianity and
Chinese Religions , New York: Doubleday, 1989,
“Epilogue: Dual Religious Citizenship: A
Challenge to the West,” pp.273-283.

3. John Hick, “A Religious Understanding of Religion:
a model of the Relationship between Traditions,”
in Inter- Religious Models and Criteria, edited
by J. Kellenberger, New York: St. Martin’s Press,
1993, pp.25-26. A similar idea was expressed in
his God and the Universe of Faiths, London and
Basingstoke: Macmillian, 1973.

4. Ibid., p.27.

5. John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion : Human
Responses to the Transcendent , Yale University
Press, New Haven, 1989, p.373.

6. Hans Kung and Julia Ching, 1989, pp.281-282.

7. Quoted from the Oxford Study Bible: Revised English
Bible with the Apocrypha, edited by M. Jack
Suggs, K.D. Sakenfeld, and J.R. Mueller, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1992, p.82.

8. John H. Berthrong, All Under Heaven:
Transfor- mation Paradigms in Confucian-Christian
Dialogue, SUNY Press, Albany, 1994, p.27. For a
discussion of this rejection, see Berthrong’s
Introduction in this book.

9. USA-Today (US), “Nirvana in the ’90s: Buddha
Beckons the Material World,” by Marco R. della
Cave, August 10, 1994, 1D.

10. There is the question of what religion is.
It is not my intention to provide a definition of
religion here. For the purpose of this essay I
use “religion” in the sense in which Confuciansim
can be called a religion. In this sense, religion
must be understood very broadly to extend beyond
the understanding of religion in many ordinary
believers in the West.

11. For the difference between Taoism
as a philosophy and as a religion, see Ren Ji-yu,
“the Taoist and Taoist Religion, ” in Taoism and
Traditional Culture (Dao Jiao yu Chuan Tong Wen
Hua), edited by the Editorial Board of Cultural
Knowledge, Beijing: China Books Publishers, 1992,
pp.3-9.

12. Tu Wei-ming, Centrality and Commonality: An Essay
on Confucian Religiousness, State University of
New York Press, Albany, 1989, p.94.

13. John Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human
Responses to the Transcendent, Yale University
Press, New Haven, 1989, p.14.

14. In this regard, Mencius’ effort in the Book of
Mencius (2A:6, 6A:1-6) is more an illustration
that an argument. In contrast, one can say that
Xun Zi’s case that human nature is evil is just
as forceless or forcelles as Mencius’.

15. The title of Herbert Fingarette’s little but
influential book is “Confucius — The Secular As
Sacred,” Harpaer Torchbooks, New York, 1972.

16. Zhuang Zi: Making All Things Equal .

17. See Chuang Tzu: Inner Chapters, translated by
Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English (New York: Vintage
Books, 1974), p.55.

18. The Taoist believes that everything can be
useful, depending on how you look at it.

19. Holmes Welch, Taoism: The Parting of the Way,
Beacon Press, Boston, 1966, p.158.

20. H.G. Greel, Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao
Tse-tung , the University of Chicago Press, 1953,
p.197.

21. Zong Mi, Yuan Ren Lun, quoted from The Ways of
Thinking of Eastern Peoples, by Hajime Nakamura,
published by the Japanese National Commission for
UNESCO, 1960, p.288.

22. The Way of Thinking of Eastern Peoples, by Hajime
Nakamura, published by the Japanese National
Commission for UNESCO, 1960, pp.288-9.

23. Ibid., p.288.

24. Zhao Shen, “Treating All Three Doctrines Fairly”
(San Jiao Ping Xin Lun), Book A. Quoted from
Taoism and Traditional culture (Dao Jiao yu Chuan
Tong Wen Hua), edited by the Editorial Board of
Cultural Knowledge, Beijing: China Books
Publishers, 1992, p.39.

25. Cheng Chih-ming, Chung-kuo shan-shu yu
tsung-chiao (Chinese Morality Books and
Religion), Taipei: Student Book Store, 1988,
chapter 13. Also in Julia Ching, Chinese
Religions, Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books,
1993, p.218.

26. Henrik Kraemer, The Christian Message in a
Non-Christian World , London: Edinburg House, for
the International Missionary Council, 1938,
p.201. Quoted from Judith A. Berling, The
Syncretic Religion of Lin Chao-en, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1980, p.1.

27. Judith A. Berling, The Syncretic Religion of Lin
Chao-en , New York: Columbia University Press,
1980, p.9.

28. John H. Berthrong, All Under Heaven: Transforming
Paradigms in Confucian-Christian Dialogue, SUNY
Press, Albany, 1994, p.178.

29. Chen Yinke, “the Relation between Tao Yuanming’s
Thought had ‘Clear Talk'” (Tao Yuanming zhi
sixiang yu qingtan zhi guanxi), in Jinmingguan
conggao chubian (Chen’s Essays, First Series),
Shanghai: Shanghai Guji, 1980, pp.196. Quoted
from Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos:
Literary Hermeneutics, East and West, Duke
University Press, Durham and London, 1992, p.121.

30. Collected Works of Liang Shuming, vol.1, Shandong
Publishing House, 1989, p.528.

31. Guy Alitto, the Last Confucian: Liang Shuming and
the Chinese Modernity, the University of
California Press, erkeley, Ca., 1986, 337-338.

32. Jiang Jin, “Liang Shuming and the Emergence of
20th-Century New Confucianism”, Chinese
Historians, Vol.VI, No.2, pp.1-26.

33. For some insightful discussion see Zheng Jiadong,
“The Religiousness of Confucian Thought,” (Rujia
Sixiang de Zongjiaoxin Wenti) in New-Confucianism
Forum (Xinrujia Pinglun), Vol.2, edited by Zheng
Jiadong and Ye Haiyan, China Broadcasting
Publishing House, 1995, pp.187-245.

34. This metaphor is attributed to Chang Shih, a
colleague of Master Zhu Xi (Chu Hsi, 1130-1200).
See Wm. Heodore De Bary, “Neoconfucianism as
Traditional and Modern,” in Interpreting Across
Boundaries: New Essays in Comparative Philosophy,
edited by G. Larson and E. Deutsch, Princeton
University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 188,
p.306.

35. Donald Holzman, Book Review on Six Dynasties
Poetry by Kang-i Sun Chang, Harvard Journal of
Asian Studies, Vol.48, June 1988, pp.244-250.

36. Zhang Longxi, The Tao and the Logos: Literary
Hermeneutics, East and West, Duke University
Press, Durham and London, 1992, pp.123-4.

37. Archie J. Bahm, Comparative Philosophy: Western,
Indian and Chinese Philosophies Compared, World
Books, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1977, p.54.

38. For instance, Hajime Nakamura gave some very
detailed examples of how sinified Buddhism was
made in the process of being translated into
Chinese. See his The Way of Thinking of Eastern
Peoples, Japanese National Commission for Unesco,
1960, “Part III: They Ways of Thinking of the
Chinese.”

39. Chad Hansen, “Chinese Language, Chinese
Philosophy, and ‘Truth, ‘” Journal of Asian
Studies, vol. XLIV, No.3, 1985, p.515. In this
article Chad Hansen argues outrightly that
“Chinese philosophy has no concept of truth,”
p.492.

40. Therefore, they did not need a Nietzsche to ask
the question astonishing to most Westerners,
“What is the good/value of truth?”

41. R.C. Zaehner, Hinduism, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1968, p.192.

42. Cheng Chung-ying, New Dimensions of Confucian and
Neo-Confucian Philosophy, SUNY press, Albany,
1991, P.195.

43. Judith A. Berling, 1980, pp.46-7.

44. This essay was presented at the 4th Interfaith
Dialogue Conference, October 7-8, 1994, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, and at Monmouth College Faculty
Colloquium, spring of 1995. For valuable comments
and suggestions, I would like to thank my
audience on both occasions and my colleagues
Farhat Haq, Douglas Spitz, Virginia Hellenga, and
especially Robert Cathey, whose critiques have
helped revising later drafts.