On Wednesday, February 17, Venerable Alexander Bruce, Associate Professor, Australian National University, College of Law, and Buddhist monk, delivered his lecture "The Four Noble Truths of Christianity: A Theological Thought Experiment."
Below, Venerable Bruce discusses how he came to comparative theology, his hopes for this current and for future "theological thought experiments," how his roles as a Buddhist monk and as a lawyer intersect, and the need for interreligious dialogue in law and in society.
HDS: How did you decide on this comparative theological topic?
AB: Although I was born into a Catholic family in Australia and went to Catholic Schools, I left school feeling very confused about the tenets of the Catholic Christian tradition. This period, 1975-1985, was a time of liturgical experimentation and theological fluidity, not just in Australia but throughout the Catholic world following the Second Vatican Council. My religious "education" seemed to me to involve lots of "guitar rock masses," "interpretative dance liturgies," and parables told through mime. I remember lots of bean-bag and candle sessions involving "values clarification" and facing the "wounded healer." It all seemed very mysterious but oddly flaky to me. I left school without a clear content, structure, or understanding of my Catholic Christian tradition.
I had always been interested in Buddhism because it seemed to offer clear content and a profound structure enabling you to understand its core tenets. It was uncompromising in its insistence that you are responsible for cleaning up your life, that it is possible to develop a kind and wise way of being alive in the world, and it set out clear and intelligent paths and practices to develop the love and wisdom necessary to do so. It was only after a chance (?) encounter with a Jesuit Priest/Scientist in Spain when I was about 25 that I realized the Catholic Christian tradition also contained resources to develop love and wisdom. After putting myself back through a Masters degree in Theology through the Australian Catholic University, I realized I didn't actually have to look far to find the spiritual challenges and resources needed to meet those challenges in the Catholic Christian tradition into which I had been born.
By that time I was an ordained Buddhist monk in the Tibetan tradition of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I have devoted my life to exploring the similarities and differences between Christianity (Catholic and Orthodox) and Buddhism (Theravada and Mahayana) and to helping people navigate their own spiritual explorations, especially disaffected Christians who think their own tradition has little to offer today.
HDS: What would you like people to learn in particular from this experiment?
AB: This is the first of what I hope to be many "Theological Thought Experiments." My hope is that this particular experiment ("The Four Noble Truths of Christianity") will enable people to see that despite Christianity possessing no inherent philosophical structure, its insights and truths can be expressed in a systematic and interesting way. What I hungered for most while at school was a structure; some ordered framework with which to approach the mystery of humanity's relationship to God through Christ. I wanted some clear path, a structure enabling me to hold in tension within me the aspiration toward spiritual life on the one hand, and the many, many human weaknesses that seemed to be inconsistent with that spiritual life on the other. If nothing else, I hope people will simply reflect on what I have to share and wonder about its significance for understanding their own spiritual tradition, whether Christian or Buddhist.
HDS: You are a Buddhist Monk in the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition, and you are also an Associate Professor at the Australian National University College of Law. How do (or do not) your roles as a Buddhist monk and as a lawyer intersect?
AB: Ordinarily, when a monk is ordained, the Abbot sends him away to a monastery to study, pray, meditate, and teach others. Buddhist philosophy is very deep and complex. However, my Abbot told me that I had to return to the world to teach others, that the knowledge would come to me and that I simply had to be out in the world. Within the Buddhist tradition there have always been examples of such "Monk-Scholars" who in centuries past may have been wandering hermits. In the 21st Century and certainly in Western societies, it is no longer possible to simply wander around the highways begging for food and randomly lecturing people! I suspect you would get arrested...
However, I was appointed to the Australian National University College of Law where I teach in my Buddhist robes. I teach antitrust law, consumer law, and animal law as well as giving the occasional lecture in comparative religion/theology. Buddhism is a non-proselytizing religion, and so I do not seek to convert anyone with public preaching. However, I am able to introduce my views by asking questions about the ethics of (for example) antitrust law and the use of animals. My view is that law was and continues to be a vital instrument for keeping the exercise of personal, corporate, and political power in check. There is plenty of scope within that understanding of law to communicate concepts of wisdom and compassion. St. Francis of Assisi is alleged to have said "Preach the Gospel always, use words if necessary." I try to keep this in mind in my own conduct.
HDS: Is there room for interfaith dialogue in the practice of law?
AB: Absolutely! Law is a reflection of a prevailing culture, and culture stems from "cultus:" what we worship. The components of any legal and political system are never value-neutral. Even the Rawlsian "Veil of Ignorance" experiment requires its citizens to design laws that reflect values and ideals. To what extent should Church-State remain separate? Should Sharia law be permitted to exist with secular legal systems? To what extent should religious exemptions for the slaughter of animals (halal and kosher) derogate from federally legislated slaughter practices?
At least in my view, both law and democracy are adventures in ethics, in values, and in what we worship. I agree with Jesuit John Courtney Murray's view that simply because a law commands majority assent does not mean it is right or ethical. But whose ethics? And whose conception of right? If the law can tell us what we can or cannot do then religion and particularly discussion amongst the religions will enable us to determine whether and to what extent we should do or not do.
HDS: Comparative theology is most frequently practiced from a Christian starting point. How is it beneficial from a Buddhist perspective?
AB: Buddhists have a lot to learn from Christians, indeed from all non-Buddhist traditions. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has frequently observed that wherever a Christian monastery or convent is established, then pretty soon you will also see a school, hospital, soup kitchen, orphanage, or hospice also being established. This has generally not been the case in the Buddhist traditions and there are many reasons for that. What is it about the nature of Christian love (agape) that inspires these actions? How can Buddhist notions of compassion and concern be enlarged to embrace those in need?
Quite apart from this very particular example, US theologian Stephen Prothero has observed a high degree of what he calls "religious illiteracy" amongst the US population. I have to say this also accurately reflects the Australian experience. At least in my case, and for the reasons set out in in answering your first question, I had to go back to University later in life to gain any sense of "religious literacy." There is a great danger in simplistic and under-understood interreligious dialogue. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What danger? Without Buddhists understanding Christian theology and Christians understanding Buddhist philosophy, then in an attempt to engage in "nice" comparative theology, they may descend into syncretism or place so many qualifications on Christianity or Buddhism that they empty either or both of their distinctive metaphysical, ethical, and soteriological contents. We do each other no favors if we do not make an effort to understand the other from inside their unique theological or philosophical tenets.
- by Melissa Coles, MDiv candidate