The Cosmic Breath

Philosophical Studies in
Science and Religion

Series Editor
F. LeRon Shults, University of Agder, Norway

Advisory Board
Philip Clayton, Claremont University, USA
George Ellis, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Niels Henrik Gregersen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Antje Jackelyn, Bishop of Lund, Sweden
Nancey Murphy, Fuller Theological Seminary, USA
Robert Neville, Boston University, USA
Palmyre Oomen, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
V.V. Raman, University of Rochester, USA
Robert John Russell, Graduate Theological Union, USA
Nomanul Haq, University of Pennsylvania, USA
Kang Phee Seng, Centre for Sino-Christian Studies, Hong Kong
Trinh Xuan Thuan, University of Virginia, USA
J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, Princeton Theological Seminary, USA

VOLUME 4

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.nl/pssr

 The Cosmic Breath
Spirit and Nature in the
Christianity-Buddhism-Science Trialogue

By

Amos Yong

LEIDENBOSTON
2012
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Yong, Amos.
The cosmic breath : spirit and nature in the Christianity-Buddhism-science trialogue / by Amos Yong.
p. cm. (Philosophical studies in science and religion, ISSN 1877-8542 ; v. 4)
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 978-90-04-20513-0 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Religion and science. 2. Christianity and other
religionsBuddhism. 3. BuddhismRelationsChristianity. I. Title.

BL240.3.Y65 2012
261.243dc23

2012010130

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual Brill typeface. With over 5,100 characters
covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the
humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.nl/brill-typeface.

ISSN1877-8542
ISBN978 90 04 20513 0 (hardback)
ISBN978 90 04 23049 1 (e-book)

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhofff Publishers.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

 For
Thomas Jay Oord
 CONTENTS

Preface ................................................................................................................ xi

1. IntroductionSpirit, Science, and the Religions:

Pneumatology and Philosophy of Nature in a Pluralistic
World ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1Thinking about Nature: Methodological Issues in the
Science-and-Religion Discussion................................................ 2
1.2Considering the Religions: Interfaith Dialogue and the
Buddhist-Christian Encounter .................................................... 10
1.3Starting with the Spirit: Pneumatology and the
Christian-Buddhist-Science Trialogue ...................................... 20

PART ONE

PNEUMA: DIVINE PRESENCE AND NATURE IN THE THEOLOGY

AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE

2. Spirit and Science: An Emerging Dialogue ........................................ 37

2.1Spirit and Science: What Kind of Relationship? ................... 38
2.2Spirit, Theology, and Science: Emerging Trajectories.......... 44
2.3Pneumatology and Field Theory ................................................ 51

3. Spirit and Creation: Pneumatology, Genesis 1,

and Modern Science ................................................................................. 58
3.1Spirit and the Creation Narrative .............................................. 60
3.2Spirit and Emergence .................................................................... 65
3.3Spirit, Systems Theory, and Divine Activity ........................... 70

4. Spirit and Human Nature: The Breath of Life, Genesis 12,

and the Neurosciences ............................................................................. 80
4.1Genesis and the Emergence of the Human ............................ 81
4.2Mind, Body, and the Neurosciences.......................................... 85
4.3Divine Presence and Contemporary Theological
Anthropology.................................................................................... 92
viii contents

PART TWO

SHUNYATA: NATURE AND SCIENCE IN MAHAYANA BUDDHISM

5. Buddhism and Contemporary Science ............................................... 103

5.1The Buddhist-Science Dialogue: An Overview ..................... 104
5.2Mind and Life: Contemporary Tibetan Buddhism and
Science............................................................................................... 112
5.3Emptiness, Science, and the Kyoto School ............................ 120

6. Shunyata: The Nature of the World in Mahayana Traditions..... 129

6.1Madhyamaka and the Emergence of Shunyata .................... 130
6.2Huayen: Emptiness and Form.................................................... 136
6.3Basho and the Emptying Field in Contemporary
Cosmology ........................................................................................ 144

7. Self and Becoming Human in Buddhism and Science .................. 151

7.1Non-Self, True-Self, and the Neurosciences ..................... 152
7.2Buddhist Contemplation and the Science of
Consciousness ................................................................................. 159
7.3Shunyata and Human Naturing................................................. 167

PART THREE

PNEUMA AND SHUNYATA: NATURE, THE ENVIRONMENT,

AND THE CHRISTIAN-BUDDHIST-SCIENCE TRIALOGUE

8. Spirit, Nature, Humanity: A Trialogical Conversation ................... 177

8.1Pneuma and Shunyata: Science and Comparative
Theology............................................................................................ 178
8.2Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada: On Cosmology and
Philosophy of Nature .................................................................... 185
8.3Pneuma and Anatman: On Human Being and
8.4Becoming .......................................................................................... 192

9. Spirit and Method: Science, Religion, and Comparative

Theology ...................................................................................................... 198
9.1Interpreting the Human: Pneumato-christological
Perspectives ..................................................................................... 200
 contents ix

9.2 Interpreting the Cosmos: Pneumato-theological

Approaches ................................................................................... 208
9.3 Method in Science and Religion: A Pneumatological
Assist ............................................................................................... 217

10.Spirit and Environment: Toward a Christian

Ecological Ethic after Buddhism ...................................................... 224
10.1Pneumatological Theology and the Environment............ 225
10.2Buddhist Self-Emptying and the Environment ................. 229
10.3Toward a Pneumato-ecological Ethic: Christian-
Buddhist Convergences ............................................................ 234

Epilogue ............................................................................................................. 242

Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 247

Name Index ...................................................................................................... 277
Subject Index.................................................................................................... 279
 PREFACE

The genesis of this volume is intertwined with the fortunes of a compan-

ion volumePneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Does
the Spirit Blow through the Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology
11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012)which is making its way to press just
a few months behind this book. That book is an exploration of a thesis
regarding an approach to the interreligious encounter that suggests how
pneumatological categories could facilitate adequate comparisons and
contrasts in the Christian dialogue with Buddhist traditions. I have long
been at work at the interface of constructive Christian theology, religious
pluralism, and the interfaith dialogue, and that book inquires about the
possibility of forging a twenty-first century Christian theology after an in
depth encounter with the complex worlds of Buddhism. And why Bud-
dhism? Probably for some very basic reasons having to do with the fact
that my parents were converts to Christianity from a very nominal form
of Theravadin Buddhism in Malaysia (where I was born), that it of the
major religious traditions of the world first caught my attention when I
was at graduate school almost twenty years ago (as of the time of this writ-
ing), and that as a generally non-theistic religious way of life, it presents
unique challenges and opportunities for Christian theological reflection
in a pluralistic world. Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue
represents my first extended efffort to think theologically as a pentecostal
Christian theologian in a world of many faiths, and does so with dialogue
partners not primarily from the Western theological or philosophical tra-
dition but with Gautama Buddha and others who have been enlightened
by his teachings.
In the fall semester of 2004, in the midst of working at that time through
a draft of Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue I was invited
to serve as the Edward B. Brueggemann Chair in Theology and Dialogue at
Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio. During that term I was privileged to
teach a graduate course on Religion and Science with Fr. Joseph Bracken,
SJ. I realized at that point that Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian
Dialogue included a rather long section on how both traditions inter-
acted with the sciences. In order to get some feedback on this material, I
extracted this portion of that manuscript and developed that into the first
version of the present book. I received input on that initial draft of what is
xii preface

now The Cosmic Breath from Fr. Bracken and students in the class, which
led to a revised edition.
Although this Christianity-Buddhism-science manuscript then lay fal-
low for the next few years because of other unrelated writing projects and
commitments, I continued to work at the interface of its triad of topics.
On the science side, my focus has been on developing pneumatological
perspectives on the theology and science dialogue, and these have been
published in the form of a number of journal articles, two edited books,
and one self-authored volume. On the Buddhism side, I have continued to
work on matters related to Buddhist-Christian dialogue but also increas-
ingly turned my attention to the interface of Buddhism and science. Here
I have also published a number of journal articles and review essays
exploring contemporary Buddhist engagements with the religion and sci-
ence conversation.
This book on what I call the Christian-Buddhist-science trialogue
brings together two very important theological tasks in our time: the
interfaith dialogue in general and the Christian-Buddhist dialogue more
specifically on the one hand, and the religion-and-science conversation
in general and the Buddhism-science and Christianity-science encounters
more particularly. Each of these discussions has its own fundamental and
persisting methodological challenges. As such, this is probably the most
ambitious book that I have undertaken to date. The fundamental intu-
ition driving this book, however, is that while bringing these various con-
versations together complexifies the issues even exponentially, yet doing
so may also provide the occasion for insights into the issues at hand in
ways that may not be as generative in stand-alone discussions. In other
words, I think the Buddhist-Christian dialogue can gain from factoring
in contested matters in the religion-and-science arena even while the
Christian theology-and-science conversation also can be illuminated by
debates across the Buddhist-Christian encounter.
Let me be more precise. It has turned out that The Cosmic Breath is, at
one level, fundamentally a book about theological method in a scientific
and pluralistic world. I have long been engaged in self-critical reflection
about method in theology as a pentecostal Christian, initially formulated
in terms of what I called a pneumatological imagination in the long book
that was my second published volume (Spirit-Word-Community: Theologi-
cal Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective, Ashgate/Wipf & Stock, 2002).
Yet even there I argued that methodological issues in the theological task
are inseparable from the material content of theology. My earlier work thus
defended the pneumatological imagination both at the methodological
 preface xiii

and at the dogmatic levels, but did so primarily in conversation with the
Western philosophical and theological tradition. The present volume
picks up on that methodological orientation but focuses on the theologi-
cal task in a scientific and interdisciplinary context on the one hand, and
in a religiously pluralistic and interfaith environment on the other hand.
Yet my core methodological intuition persists: that what I have called the
pneumatological imaginationin this book, this simply means starting
with the Spiritprovides an explicitly theological rationale for engaging
with the many disciplines of science and the many voices and perspec-
tives of a religiously plural world. This means that, as before, while meth-
odologically driven, the present volume is also resolutely theological; so
at a second level, then, there are also theological stakes to what appear in
the following pages, not just methodological ones.
Because of the scope of this volumecovering not just one or two but
three fields of inquiry: constructive theology, theology and science, and
the interfaith and Buddhist-Christian dialogueas its author I am keenly
sensitive to the unfinished nature of the following argument. There are
so many loose ends and each one of them calls out for its own book-length
treatment. Yet as I have wrestled with the questions herein over the last
ten years, I think that for the sake of voicing them I will need to let this
book go, as incomplete as it is. In the end, there are also ethical questions
at stake regarding the natural world (our cosmic environment), and these
urgently call for more extensive consideration. I can only hope that the
ideas contained therein resonate with my readers and that others will be
motivated to take up, engage, and maybe even complete the fragmen-
tary thoughts that constitute this work. If that is the case, I will be both
humbled and enriched by the trialogue that emerges at this intersection
of Christianity, Buddhism, and science.
While none of the following persons should be held responsible for the
contents of the following pages, I would be remiss if I did not thank them
for their contribution to this volume. I must begin with F. LeRon Shults,
editor of the book series within which this volume is appearing, who saw
the potential of the original proposal and enthusiastically embraced it.
LeRon and I go back over ten years to when I first arrived at Bethel Uni-
versity in the fall of 1999. He has been a wonderful colleague, encouraging
friend, and trusted confidant over the yearseven after we left Bethel
(me to Virginia and he to Norway)while his scholarship at the frontiers
of the theology and science discussion has been instructive, innovative,
and inspiring.
xiv preface

I am deeply grateful to Paul Ingram (Pacific Lutheran University) and

Perry Schmidt-Leukel (University of Mnster), for carefully reading a ver-
sion of the manuscript and sending many very helpful comments. Paul
and Perrys pioneering efforts, on both sides of the Atlantic, in the Bud-
dhist-Christian dialogue and the Buddhism-Christianity-science trialogue
have opened up space for the work of others, including my own. Thanks
also to Tony Richie and Christopher Stephenson, my fellow pentecostal
theologian friends, for their comments on the manuscript, and also for
journeying with me at these frontiers of pentecostal theology. My gradu-
ate assistant, Vincent Le, helped with the bibliography and indexes. Last,
but not least, Suzanne Mekking, Liesbeth Hugenholtz, Mirjam Elbers
(more recently), and the staff at Brill have been professionals from con-
tract through to production, and for that, I am deeply appreciative.
This book is dedicated to my longtime friend, Thomas Jay Oord. I first
met Tom at a joint annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Stud-
ies (SPS) and the Wesleyan Theological Society (WTS) in 1998. Our initial
conversations were quite apologetic and even polemical: me approach-
ing him from a Peircean and pentecostal perspective (shaped at Boston
University under Robert Cummings Neville) while he engaging me from
his own more Whiteheadian and Wesleyan point of view (informed by
his graduate studies at Claremont University under John B. Cobb Jr. and
David Ray Griffin). Over the years, we have come to see our theological
work as complementary, even if we still have our disagreements about
this or that. Tom has been a wonderful dialogue partner and theologi-
cal critic, often times going an extra mile in providing feedback on book
manuscripts I have sent him for comments. In 2008, we were co-chairs
of the joint SPS-WTS meeting on science and each did our part in edit-
ing one of a two-volume set of conference papers: The Spirit Renews the
Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of Creation
(edited by me), and Divine Grace and Emerging Creation: Wesleyan Forays
in Science and Theology of Creation (edited by Tom), both published by
Pickwick Press in 2009. I am repeatedly challenged by his scholarship, not
only for the academy but also for the church; I admire his love for the
church, in particular for the Holiness tradition that has nurtured him in
the faith; and I am grateful for his friendship, always spurring me on by his
example, especially his theology and life of love. May the Spirit of Holiness
bless all you do, my friend!
***
I need to acknowledge permission to use previously published material at
various segments of this volume:
 preface xv

A very early version of this books argument was outlined in my arti-

cle, Christian and Buddhist Perspectives on Neuropsychology and the
Human Person: Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada, Zygon: Journal of Reli-
gion and Science 40:1 (2005): 14365; I am grateful to the Board of Zygon
and Wiley-Blackwell for permission to expand on this essay.
Part of chapter 5 includes sections adapted from my review essay,
Mind and Life, Religion and Science: The Dalai Lama and the Buddhist-
Christian-Science Trilogue, Buddhist-Christian Studies 28 (2008): 4363,
and part of chapter 7 includes revisions of another review essay, Tibetan
Buddhism Going Global? A Case Study of a Contemporary Buddhist
Encounter with Science, Journal of Global Buddhism 9 (2008) [http://
www.globalbuddhism.org/]; thanks to the University of Hawaii Press
and to the editors of the Journal of Global Buddhism for permission to
revise and reuse these articles in this book.
Portions of chapters 34 of my book, Pneumatology and the Buddhist-
Christian Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the Middle Way? Studies
in Systematic Theology 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012), have been
revised and expanded for a number of sections of the present volume;
I appreciate Brills permission to rework this material for this very dif-
ferent book.

Unless otherwise noted, the Scripture quotations contained herein are

from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989 by the
Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of
Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
SPIRIT, SCIENCE, AND THE RELIGIONS: PNEUMATOLOGY
AND PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE IN A PLURALISTIC WORLD

The argument in this book triangulates around three sets of interlocking

questions and methodological intuitions. For the Christian tradition, what
does it mean to do theology in a pluralistic world of modern science?
The response suggested in what follows is that starting with the Christian
doctrine of the Spirit (pneumatology) may point a way forward that takes
seriously both the deliverances of modern science and the voices of those
in other faiths, even the perspectives of those in non-theistic traditions
like Buddhism. With regard to the encounter between religions, then, how
might the dialogue between faiths proceed? The reply here recommends
that the hurdles confronting the interreligious dialogue in general and the
Buddhist-Christian dialogue in particular might be positively reconfigured
when a third party, the religion and science conversation, is factored
into the discussion. Last, but not least, with regard to some of the big
questions about cosmology, the nature of the world, and the philosophy
of nature, what does the future hold for the dialogue between science
and religion and what are some of the promising trajectories for that
discussion? The recommendation in this volume is that in the twenty-
first century context, the Buddhist-Christian dialogue can contribute to
certain developments in the science and philosophy of nature, including
anthropology, by introducing pneumatological and relational categories
into the discussion.
While each of these topics deserves a book to itselfindeed, I have
written one or more books on each of these considered separately1our

1On theology of religions, religious pluralism, and the interreligious dialogue, see my
books Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology
of Religions, Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 20 (Shefffield, UK: Shef-
field Academic Press, 2000), and Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology
of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003). On Buddhist-Christian dialogue, see
my Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the
Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012). And on
theology and science, see Yong, The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action
in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination, Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Grand Rapids and
2 chapter one

goal here is to reflect on them together. The task then is to expand the
theology and science dialogue and the Buddhist-Christian dialogue into
a trialogue between Christianity, Buddhism, and science.2 My wager is
that such a trialogical consideration will provide illumination unavailable
when taken up on their own or even in pairs. The three parts of this intro-
ductory chapter clarify the methodological challenges involved, first with
regard to discussions in the science and philosophy of nature (1.1), and
then about developments in the interfaith dialogue (1.2), before suggest-
ing how a pneumatological approach to these matters has the potential to
advance this exploration (1.3). Our having to cover a good deal of ground
results in this being one of the longest chapters of the book, but this is
needed in order to explicate the threefold chord around which the fol-
lowing trialogue unfolds.

1.1Thinking about Nature: Methodological Issues in the

Science-and-Religion Discussion

Discussions in the philosophy of nature have taken some interesting turns

in the wake of our contemporary postmodern situation. Whereas modern-
ist cosmologies and explications of the nature of the world were often
positivistic and reductionistic in their materialist tendencies, postmodern
accounts are much more varied. To be sure, naturalistic perspectives have

Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011). The present volume
seeks to bring these disparate conversations together.
2In one sense, the idea of a trialogue is simply a dialogue among more than two
persons, parties, or perspectives; this is how it is used by Harvie M. Conn, Eternal Word
and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission in Trialogue (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1984). However, I also think trialogue captures the kind of complex interac-
tions occurring amidst a tri-directional conversation that is taken for granted in our now
trite clich, dialogue. That the intricacy, density, and convolutedness of this kind of con-
versation increases exponentially when a third party is added into the mix can be seen in
recent dialogues among Christians, Jews, and Muslimse.g., Ignaz Maybaum, Trialogue
between Jew, Christian and Muslim (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), Ismal Rj
Frq, ed., Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths: Papers Presented to the Islmic Studies Group
of American Academy of Religion (Herndon, Vir.: International Institute of Islamic Thought,
1982; 4th ed., Geltsville, Md.: Amana Publications, 1995), and, more recently, in Dan Cohn-
Sherbok, Incarnation and Trialogue, in Dan Cohn-Sherbok, ed., Islam in a World of
Diverse Faiths (New York: St. Martins Press, 1997), 1832. As used in this book, trialogue
assumes just this kind of complexity; see also my elaboration of the trialogue-idea within
a more hermeneutical framework in Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in
Trinitarian Perspective (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and
Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002).
 introduction 3

persisted, but even here, some are not reticent to acknowledge or even
discuss spiritual or even religious themes and motifs in their consider-
ations.3 So if Enlightenment modes of thinking resulted in an eviscerated
view of nature being all there isdevoid not only of human souls but
also of spirit beings and even of deities as wellthe present time is wit-
nessing what some have come to call a reenchantment of the world.4 In
such a reenchanted cosmos, nature may still be all there is, but the nature
of nature itself is certainly much more complicated than when dissected
by the modern mind. Unsurprisingly, within the scheme of these recent
developments, theologians have reappeared in the conversation, suggest-
ing that theological considerations can also be legitimately brought to
bear in thinking about nature, the cosmos, and what is ultimately real.5
If discussions in the philosophy of nature were to include specifically
theological perspectives, however, an already complicated topic becomes
even more complex, not least from a methodological point of view. Exac-
erbating the issue is, at least in part, the long theological tradition that has
wrestled with the question of nature. It is not so simple to just say that phi-
losophies of nature now have to consider theologies of nature since even
the specific nomenclature of theology of nature itself is of fairly recent
origin, evoked in large part from the awakening since the 1970s to the
ecological crisis of our times. More to the point, over the past generation,
the literature has proliferated not only as theology of nature, but also as
theology of creation, theology of the environment (environmental theol-
ogy), and theology of ecology (ecological theology), among other names.
One point of entry into this discussion is to distinguish the project
of theology of nature from the project of natural theology. Religion and
science scholars such as Ian Barbour have suggested that whereas the

3Here I am thinking not only about explicitly new age understandings of a natural
world rife with spirits and even angels and demons but also about gaia and other similar
philosophical cosmologies as well as more naturalistic philosophies of nature like that of
Robert Corringtons (who I discuss later, in 2.1).
4E.g., Morris Berman, The Reenchantment of the World (Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell
University Press, 1981); David Ray Grifffin, ed., The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern
Proposals (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1988); James Kirk, Organicism as
Reenchantment: Whitehead, Prigogine, and Barth, American University Studies V, Philoso-
phy 167 (New York: Peter Lang, 1993); Thomas Moore, The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life
(New York: HarperPerennial, 1997); and Ervin Laszlo, Science and the Reenchantment of the
Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality (Rochester, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2006).
5Leading the way in this regard is Alister E. McGrath, The Reenchantment of Nature:
The Denial of Religion and the Ecological Crisis (New York: Doubleday, 2002); see also Avihu
Zakai, Jonathan Edwardss Philosophy of Nature: The Re-enchantment of the World in an Age
of Scientific Reasoning (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2010).
4 chapter one

entire project of natural theology can be said to have emerged during the
Enlightenment in the attempt to proceed from cosmological and teleo-
logical arguments for the existence of God to theology, the current project
in theology of nature starts instead with religious and theological data
and works within that framework to integrate the empirical findings and
theoretical hypotheses of modern science.6 Hence if natural theology is
apologetically motivated and allows the sciences to establish the primary
categories for theological reflection, theology of nature is religiously and
theologically motivated and seeks to understand scientific advances with
a theological worldview.7
Two observations follow from this distinction. First, theology of nature
is primarily a theological exercise, guided by theological categories, and
seeking theological coherence. As such, its dominant concepts derive from
the biblical and ecclesial or theological traditions. At the same time, the
doing of theology of nature is also a reflective task motivated by questions,
curiosity, and even wonder.8 Toward those ends, theology of nature asks
how biblical and theological ideas illuminate our comprehension of and
engagement with the natural world as understood by the sciences. How-
ever, this means, second, that theology of nature inevitably interacts with
the natural world or the world of nature. Now while some may wish to
work with a definition of nature that is focused strictly on the material
world,9 my attempt to develop a theology of nature understands nature as
equivalent to the entirety of the createdcreated by God, that isworld,
including, of course, the inanimate, animate, and human realms.
Having said this, the obvious tension arises: whereas a theology of
nature seeks to proceed from a biblical or theological starting point, it
is by definition already caught up in a dialogue with its object of study:
the world of nature. Now insofar as it is the business of science to study

6Ian G. Barbour, Nature, Human Nature and God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), 2. That
this distinction is clear enough definitionally but nevertheless elusive in terms of accom-
plishment can be seen in the recent book by R.J. Berry, Gods Book of Works: The Nature
and Theology of Nature (London and New York: T & T Clark, 2003). Despite his title, Berry
blurs the lines between the two and is not as successful avoiding natural theology.
7This is how Colin Gunton also defines theology of nature in his The Triune Creator:
A Historical and Systematic Study (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998),
chs. 68, esp. 13435.
8See Robert P. Meye, Invitation to Wonder: Toward a Theology of Nature, in Wesley
Granberg-Michaelson, ed., Tending the Garden: Essays on the Gospel and the Earth (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 3049.
9E.g., Olaf Pedersen, The Book of Nature (Vatican City: Vatican Observatory Publica-
tions, 1992).
 introduction 5

the world of nature using experimental and empirical methods, there is

therefore always a dialectical interplay between the discourse of biblical/
theological studies and the world of science. As with other theological
endeavors, theology of nature is also not exempt from the hermeneuti-
cal circle, in this case, the circle between Scripture/theology and nature/
science and vice-versa.
These observations lead to the methodological question. On the one
hand, if we proceed from a biblical and theological starting point, can
we ever engage the world of nature and of science on its own terms?10
Would not the scientific data be either distorted (at best) or nullified (at
worst) through theological interpretation? By privileging the biblical and
theological tradition, do we not in efffect silence natures voice and the
potential contributions of science? On the other hand, if we begin with
the scientific data, theories, and categories, would the reverse distortion
and nullification not occur such that the biblical and theological tradi-
tions are in efffect eclipsed?11 Put this way, of course, we touch on the
perennial debate between Athens and Jerusalem and on how the compli-
cated relationship between faith and learning is re-played in the religion
and science conversation in general and in the theology and science dia-
logue more specifically.
There are a number of important questions embedded in this debate
that have implications for the philosophy and theology of nature, of which
I will explicate three. First, there is the question concerning the philoso-
phy and epistemology of science. Here, the debate concerns, at least in
part, science as a realistic enterprise. On the one side is the traditional
view of science as describing the real world as it actually is, and provid-
ing empirical methods to engage and analyze that world. On the other
side is an assortment of positions advocating a view of the language of
science as instrumental for human purposes, internal to the discourse
of scientists, seeking not proof but falsification of its theories, or even

10That theology of nature is therefore always already contaminated by the world is

exemplified in Rosemary Radford Ruether, Toward an Ecological-Feminist Theology of
Nature, in Mary Heather MacKinnon and Moni McIntyre, eds., Readings in Ecology and
Feminist Theology (Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, 1995), 8993.
11I suggest that these two approaches are evident in two of the earlier attempts to
develop a theology of nature. George S. Hendry, Theology of Nature (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1980), is long on theology and short on science, while Stephen Toulmin, The
Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature (Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1982), is long on science and short on theology.
6 chapter one

plainly metaphoric and self-referencing.12 Attempting to mediate between

these views are those who admit that science proceeds within communi-
ties and traditions of inquiry, but respond that insofar as science serves
human purposes of getting around in the world, to that extent a critical
realist position is to be assumed. At another level, of course, that science
rests, finally, on unproven assumptionse.g., about the correspondence
between scientific concepts and models with the external world, especially
at the quantum levelraises questions about the scientific enterprise.13
While my own position presumes a critical realist epistemologythat
there is a real world that exists apart from human minds, although human
knowledge of that world is fallible and corrected at least in part by the
scientific enterpriseall sides of the debate pose questions for the phi-
losophy and theology of nature. On the one hand, the empirical method
of science competes with the authoritative methods of scripture and the-
ology; in this case, how can revelatory discourse withstand the ongoing
deliverances of science? On the other hand, the doing of science or the
engaging with science requires acceptance of its terms, entry into the cul-
ture of science, and embrace of a scientific worldview; in this case, at
what point does science degenerate from being a method of inquiry to
being an ideological hermeneutic that rivals theology?
Part of the answer to this worry lies in the nature of science as a self-
correcting enterprise. At its best, science is a method of inquiry that always
stands ready to question both its conclusions and approaches. This is not
to say that science is continuously changing its mind about things and
that nothing stands still in a scientific world. To be sure, change happens,
although generally it occurs slowly as scientists exchange ideas, conduct
experiments, and test hypotheses. At least science is open to follow the
data wherever that may lead. In that case, as Charles Sanders Peirce, the
American philosopher and scientist, suggested, scientific activity is non-
authoritarian and directed toward attainment of the truth in the long run.
Science is a fully public enterprise, open to anyone who is interested in

12On the metaphoric nature of the scientific enterprise, see Stephen Happel, Meta-
phors for Gods Time in Science and Religion (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002), esp. ch.
1, and the classic by Ian G. Barbour, Myths, Models, and Paradigms: The Nature of Scientific
and Religious Language (London: SCM Press, 1974).
13Many of these disputes within philosophy of science are nicely overviewed in Samir
Okasha, Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2002).
 introduction 7

and willing to learn its empirical methods of inquiry.14 In this Peircean

sense, theology also, when considered as aspiring toward the articulation
of truth in the long (eschatological) run, is a fully public enterprise as
well, open to any and all who are interested in engaging with the subject
matter and its range of data.15
A second and related question can be asked concerning the nature of
specifically theological language. While there is a similarity between this
question and that regarding the nature of the language of science in that
there is a spectrum of mediating positions amidst realistic and positiv-
istic views on each end, there is the compounding problem in theologi-
cal discourse of references to the divine. Clearly, there are problems with
assuming that theological language functions either univocally or equivo-
cally. However, the traditional response that such language is analogical
answers neither the question about how similarities are determined and
to what extent they persist (extensive similarities result in religious and
theological language being more univocal rather than analogical), nor the
question about whether or not the diffferences which pertain are so radi-
cal that theological discourse lapses from analogy to equivocality.16 Given
this situation, can there really be a theology of nature that somehow con-
nects the world revealed through experience and scientific investigation
to a divine referent?
Relatedly, as already noted, to begin theologically for the Christian tra-
dition is to begin biblically. Biblical categories, is should be clear, lead to
a theology of creation rather than a theology of nature. The latter, after
all, is a philosophical construct, whereas the biblical accounts begin with
the creative activity of God. Hence from a biblical perspective, there is
no natural world on its own terms (this is a modern concoction); rather

14See Charles Sanders Peirces famous essay, The Fixation of Belief, in Nathan Houser
and Christian Kloesel, eds., The Essential Peirce: Selected Philosophical Writings, 18671893
(Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1992), 10923.
15See also my theological appropriation of Peirces method of inquiry, The Demise
of Foundationalism and the Retention of Truth: What Evangelicals Can Learn from
C.S. Peirce, Christian Scholars Review 29:3 (Spring 2000): 56388.
16The challenges confronting the classical theory of analogy are superbly discussed in
Robert Cummings Neville, God the Creator: On the Transcendence and Presence of God (1968;
reprint, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992), esp. 1622. Nevilles response to
the dilemma is to develop a peculiar theory of divine creation. While plausible in some
respects, it raises other theological questions that lead me to a more pneumatologically
oriented response (to which we return later).
8 chapter one

there is only God the creator and the world as Gods creation.17 While
this is surely the case, as a systematic theologian in a postmodern, post-
Western, and even post-Christian world, I will remain engaged with the
ongoing discussion in theology of nature rather than defer to the cate-
gories of biblical theology. Theology of nature is open to philosophical
interrogation in the public square in ways that theology of creation is not.
In particular, the idea of nature is more amenable for conversations and
even debates with people of other faiths in general and Buddhists in par-
ticular than the notion of creation. The goal in what follows is to discern
the plausibility of a theology of nature formulated in a more public con-
versation with both science and other religions.
The third question related to the methodology of theology of nature
then backs up from the level of theological language to that of religious
language itself. If theology is to religion as reflection is to experience, then
theological language finds meaning within the framework of a religious
community and its religious practices.18 But at this level, there is not only
the more technical issue of correlating scientific data with religious data
given the uncertainty of whether or not religious language is univocal,
equivocal, or analogical, there is also the broader challenge of correlating
scientific data with data from multiple religious traditions that oftentimes
seem to compete with and even disagree with each other. For those who
think that a theology of nature should proceed only from biblical and theo-
logical premises, the diffficulties thrown up by the plurality of religious tra-
ditions cannot be avoided since even the biblical tradition emerges from
a religiously plural environment (e.g., the ancient Near Eastern, Judaic,
and Hellenistic worlds), and since any contemporary understanding of the
biblical and theological tradition is filtered through the theologians or
philosophers own experience of religious pluralism. There are two further
levels of complexity. On the one hand, the theology-science dialogue pre-
sumes theological approaches that would appear to require inclusion of at
least Jewish and Islamic perspectives (the other major theistic traditions)
alongside Christian ones, while on the other hand, the religion-science

17E.g., Ronald A. Simkins, Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient
Israel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), and Erich Zenger and Karl Lning,
To Begin with, God Created...: Biblical Theologies of Creation, trans. Omar Kaste (College-
ville, Minn.: Michael Glazier Books, 2000).
18By now, there is widespread acceptance of the postliberal thesis regarding the inter-
twining of doctrines or beliefs with practices and vice-versa, even if the precise relationship
between the two as articulated by, e.g., George Lindbeck, The Nature of Doctrine: Religion
and Theology in a Postliberal Age (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984), remains contested.
 introduction 9

dialogue presumes non-theistic religions in their multiplicity, diversity,

and dynamism rather than simply religion defined as Christianity (or as
theistic). Finally, any attempt at theology of nature is an attempt to under-
stand the world or cosmos in its totality, and here the perspectives of reli-
gious others are important not only because many of them have thought
long and hard about these matters, but also because at the epistemic
level it is diffficult for anyone to claim that they have exclusive perspec-
tive on the whole that is unavailable to others. The challenge through-
out is that each tradition interprets and engages the world and science
diffferently.
Yet other faiths are no less challenged than the Christian tradition
with regard to the methodological issues pertaining to engaging science.
With regard to the Buddhist tradition that we will be in dialogue with in
the remainder of this book, for example, there is a similar spectrum of
approaches but inevitably the rubber hits the road: which perspectives
do we privilege, what categories do we deploy, and from where do we
proceed in the discussion?19
Buddhist traditions, of course, have articulated cosmologies as rich as
their Christian counterparts.20 Yet Buddhist thinking about the nature
of ultimate reality has been generally subdued in light of the Bud-
dhas admonition about not being caught up in speculative enterprises
that only cause further division between human beings and perpetuate
sufffering. Nevertheless, preliminarily, it might be argued that even the
Buddhas Four Nobel Truthsthat all is duhkha/dukkha (Sanskrit/Pali)
or sufffering; that duhkha is caused by desire or, more accurately, thirst;
that thirst is eliminable; and that the way to eliminate thirst is to embark
upon the Nobel Eightfold Pathare suggestive for a Buddhist philosophy
of nature.21 For those caught in the wheel of samsara, the conventional
world of duhkha, which involves thirst or greed, nature is evil (sufffering/
duhkhathe first two noble truths), whereas for those on the path of

19See B. Alan Wallace, ed., Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2003).
20E.g., Akira Sadakata, Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins, trans. Gaynor
Sekimori (Tokyo: Ksei Publishing Co., 1997), and W. Randolph Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmol-
ogy: Science and Theology in the Images of Motion and Light (1983; reprint, Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass Publishers, 1989).
21Robert A.F. Thurman, Buddhist Views of Nature: Variations on the Theme, in
Leroy S. Rouner, ed., On Nature, Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion 6
(Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 96112.
10 chapter one

enlightenment, nature can be viewed as good (at least as engaged with

compassion).
We will return to expand on these considerations later in the book. Now,
however, I simply want to note the methodological parallels. Christian
theologies of nature instinctively begin with Christian presuppositions,
even as Buddhist philosophies of nature spring offf Buddhist sensibilities.
What happens if we attempt not just a religion-and-science conversation
in the abstract but also bring to the discussion table the concrete beliefs
and practices of two very diffferent religious traditions? All of a sudden, it
is not just that we have two religion-and-science dialogues side-by-side
but we also have a religion-and-religion encounter as well. In addition, the
methodological issues for this interaction is just as, if not more, complex
than it is for the other discussion.
Before we look more closely at interfaith dialogical methods, let us
briefly summarize the complications related to the methodological and
philosophical task of theology of nature. There are three interrelated sets
of questions. 1) For theology of nature to take nature seriously, it requires
engaging with science and raises the question of the function and role
of scientific methods, theories, and data in the theological enterprise; in
this case, does not engaging science on its own terms threaten theological
commitments? 2) For theology of nature to be uncompromisingly theolog-
ical, it needs to privilege biblical and theological categories; in this case,
can the voice of nature and the perspectives of science ever be seriously
accommodated within the discourse of revelation? 3) For a theology of
nature to be robustly theological, it has to locate its claims amidst a wider
network of religious discourses and practices; in this case, how viable is
a theology of nature that ignores the theological, philosophical, and cos-
mological ideas of other religious traditions? Together, these questions
mean that the methodological and philosophical challenge for theology
of nature is at once theological, scientific, and religious.

1.2Considering the Religions: Interfaith Dialogue

and the Buddhist-Christian Encounter

I now want to expand on the religious dimension of our topic and its
methodological problematic. In order to put in relief the major issues to
be engaged in this book we will quickly cover three broad domains: the
nature of the interreligious dialogue in general, the challenges related to
the Buddhist-Christian encounter more specifically, and how the Christian
 introduction 11

dialogue with Buddhism might influence our explorations in the philoso-

phy and theology of nature. We shall encounter similar methodological
challenges as detailed in the preceding pages.
Alongside the many diffficult questions raised by the encounter with
modern science, Christian theology has also had to grapple seriously
with an increasing awareness of our religiously plural world. The stan-
dard responses of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, formulated ini-
tially to deal with the questions regarding heretical factions within the
church and then later expanded to understand the soteriological fate of
the unevangelized, have been adapted to account for the relationship
between Christianity and other faiths.22 In brief, exclusivism insists that
salvation, goodness, truth, and beauty are available either only or ulti-
mately through Christianity and not through other religions. Inclusivism
allows for the possibility that other religions may be salvific, or may grant
access to the good, the true, or the beautiful, but if so, this is made possible
only because of Gods provision in Christ. Pluralism suggests either that
at least more than one if not many religions present paths to salvation,
goodness, truth, and beauty, that the diffferent religions each salvifically
mediate the transcendent on their own terms in ways that enable their
practitioners to achieve various soteriological ends, and that for salvific
religions, none is superior to any of the others. Many questions persist
about these theological claims,23 some of which we will return to later
on in this book. Our concerns at this point, however, are methodologi-
cal: what kind of diffficulties emerge for the interreligious dialogue when
considered according to this standard threefold theological construct?
Interrelated epistemological and categorical aspects contribute to our
methodological conundrum.

22Initially formulated by Alan Race, Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the
Christian Theology of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1982), and revised and expanded
variously in Paul F. Knitter, Introducing Theologies of Religions (Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
2002) and Veli-Matti Krkkinen, An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, His-
torical and Contemporary Perspectives (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2003).
23For critical assessment of the theological usefulness of these three basic categories,
see my article, The Spirit, Christian Practices, and the Religions: Theology of Religions in
Pentecostal and Pneumatological Perspective, Asbury Journal 62:2 (2007): 531, esp. 1319.
The most vigorous recent argument to retain this threefold categorization is by Perry
Schmidt-Leukel, Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism: The Tripolar TypologyClarified
and Reafffirmed, in Paul F. Knitter, ed., The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith Explo-
rations of Religious Pluralism (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005), 1327.
12 chapter one

Epistemologically, the question concerns not only that of the justifica-

tion for any of these positions but the implications of that position for the
interreligious encounter. If all human knowers are historically situated
and contextually circumscribed, how do they get a birds eye view from
which to make judgments, theological or otherwise, about other faiths?
More precisely, these soteriological judgments often appear to be based
on premises internal to the home religion without due consideration of
the views of others. Thus, any putative contradiction between religions is
resolved fideistically in favor of what the home religion teaches. The result
is that interreligious dialogue is practically impossible. What is more likely
to occur are rather interreligious apologetics, both positively or negatively
engaged,24 or, monological proclamations for evangelistic or proselytistic
purposes. I have nothing against either apologetics or evangelistic preach-
ing unless that becomes the sole modalities of interfacing with those in
other faiths. If people of faith know only their own religion and engage
with religious others only on those terms and in order to convert others
to their faith, they will be talking (if they can keep it at that level without
getting exasperated) past one another.
Categorically, the problem is the other side of the epistemological one:
that of defining other religions from an alien standpoint and according to
a foreign set of categories.25 Exclusivists claim that their own religion tells
them all that is important about other faiths. Inclusivists identify what is
important in other faiths only to say that the home religion is either bet-
ter or simply more encompassing. Some pluralists say that at least some
religions are on par with others but others impose some metaphysical
scheme upon all or insist on the incommensurability of many if not all
religions. The question is whether these various approaches can ultimately
sustain the interreligious encounter. Exclusivists are strong on making
known their own beliefs but less able to appreciate the beliefs of others;
any overtures to dialogue seem to be no more than masks of what are in
the end proselytizing intents. Inclusivists appear to afffirm the otherness of

24Negative apologetics provides answers to challenges directed to the home religion

while positive apologetics attempts to undermine the viability of the other religion; see
Paul J. Grifffiths, An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue
(Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991).
25On this issue of developing adequate comparative categories for interreligious
dialogue, I have learned a great deal from my teacher, Robert Cummings Neville. See
especially the three volumes of the Comparative Religious Ideas Project edited by him:
Ultimate Realities; Religious Truth; The Human Condition (Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 2001).
 introduction 13

people of diffferent faiths and to desire to learn from them, but in the end
threaten to subsume what is acceptable of others within the home tradi-
tion. Pluralists either have to convince religionists from diverse faiths that
their salvific experiences are complementary if not identical or they have
to provide a framework for engaging in dialogue when we already know
either that those in other faiths are saved anyway or that each tradition
provides adequate means to achieve its own set of ultimate goals.26
The preceding considerations, of course, assume the value of dialogue
as a mode of interreligious encounter. For various reasons (some already
mentioned above and others of which I will touch on below), not all reli-
gionists would agree that dialogue either is the most important for or is
even desirable at all when it comes to interacting with people of other
faiths. My response would be that practically speaking, in any pluralis-
tic society the exchanges and interactions between neighbors, coworkers,
and classmates is already an occasion for and example of interreligious
dialogue, non-technically considered. At a theological level, however, dia-
logue with thoughtful members of other faiths is both ethically obligatory
for Christians and reflects the virtue of Christian hospitality in a plural-
istic and globalizing world.27 Further, my claim would be that Christians
cannot continue to engage the theological task ignorant or neglectful of
other faith traditions. To be sure, there are multiple modalities of inter-
faith interactions and depending on the context, dialogue may not be the
preferred method at any point in time.28 Yet it is also possible to cultivate
a dialogical approach to our work as Christian theologians that under-
takes reflecting on all there is in conversation with any and all who might
have an interest in the subject matter.29 From this perspective, I only
want to point out that each of the three major approaches of exclusivism,

26There are of course exceptions to each of these claims about exclusivism, inclusiv-
ism, and pluralism. In large part, however, these exceptions prove the rule, even while they
introduce significant modifications to the traditional ways of understanding this three-fold
typology. As the reader proceeds through this book, she or he might well think that the
position articulated there is in exclusivist, inclusivist, or pluralist in diffferent respects. That
is part of the point of undertaking such a comparative trialogical exercise.
27E.g., David Lochhead, The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith
Encounter (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1989).
28This is my argument of my book, Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Prac-
tices, and the Neighbor, Faith Meets Faith series (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).
29See my article with John Sobert Sylvest, Reasons and Values of the Heart in a Plural-
istic World: Toward a Contemplative Phenomenology for Interreligious Dialogue, Studies
in Interreligious Dialogue 20:2 (2010): 17093.
14 chapter one

inclusivism, or pluralism faces major methodological hurdles that some-

times impede authentic dialogue.
Let us turn specifically to the Buddhist-Christian encounter in order to
clarify this basic methodological point. In terms of exclusivisms, of course,
the diffferences between Christian theism and Buddhist non-theism sug-
gest that there is less of a risk that they will be easily confused. If Chris-
tians aspire after salvation understood as reconciliation to and union with
God in Christ, Buddhists seek after enlightenment following the path of
the Buddha. Few would argue that Buddhism leads to Christian salvation
or that Christianity leads to Buddhist enlightenment. There will therefore
be less resistance to the exclusive natures of the two religious traditions.
Methodologically, however, such exclusivisms generally result in
debate rather than dialogue. The contrasts are stark such that, even after
expending time and energy to learn about the other, it comes down to a
parting of ways. Christians will assert that a choice has to be made: the
Dharma or the Gospel?30 Buddhist exclusivists, on the other hand, will
counter-challenge: non-theism or theism?31 The point is precisely that
dialogue within the exclusive frame of reference is subordinated to other
aims: debate or proselytism. Again, I am not denying that there is a place
for both. However, what happens when there are no clear-cut winners to
our debates and what happens when either side refuses to convert to the
other side. Do exclusivists then go their separate ways? Is that the end of
Buddhist-Christian relations?
Inclusivism appears at least at first glance to be more conducive to
longer-term interactive relationships. Christian inclusivists, on the one
hand, might be open to how Buddhist notions can help Christians appre-
ciate aspects of their own Christian faith that may have been neglected
over time.32 Buddhist inclusivists, on the other hand, might be willing to
grant that other faiths could provide a variety of skillful means to achieve
enlightenment and freedom from duhkha.33 Inclusivists are generally

30This is the title of the sixth and final chapter of Keith Yandell and Harold Netland,
Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009).
31A classical Buddhist counter-theistic argument is Gunapala Dharmasiri, A Buddhist
Critique of the Christian Concept of God (Antioch, Calif.: Golden Leaves, 1988).
32See Gerald R. McDermott, Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revela-
tion, and Religious Traditions (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), ch. 6 on Buddhist
No-Self and No-Mind.
33E.g., John Makransky, Buddhist Inclusivism: Reflections toward a Contemporary
Buddhist Theology of Religions, in Perry Schmidt-Leukel, ed., Buddhist Attitudes to Other
Religions (St. Ottilien, Germany: EOS Editions, 2008), 4768; see also Kristin Beise Kiblinger,
 introduction 15

open to learning from others and in this case, the vast diffferences between
Christianity and Buddhism means, at least for some, that the other is
less of a threat than religious traditions that are closer in substance to the
home faith.
Yet methodologically, in the end, the whole point about inclusivism is
that whatever is good, true, and beautiful in other faiths either enables
a deeper appreciation of or finds ultimate fulfillment in the home faith.
Christians might find revelation in Buddhism in so far as Buddhist tradi-
tions help Christians uncover or recover aspects of their own faith, but
salvation is still through Christ; and if Buddhists are to be saved, they are
saved through Christ either in his manifestation in Buddhism or because
the highest aspirations of Buddhist faith and practice point beyond them-
selves to Christ. Buddhists might develop skillful means through engaging
with Christians, but enlightenment is still most accessible through prac-
tice of the Nobel Eightfold Path, or its variants; and if Christians are to
be enlightened, either they have to take refuge in the Buddha or their
Christian practice will have to in some way include the practices favorable
to the attainment of awakening. One version of inclusivism culminates in
the anonymous Christianity thesis of Karl Rahner, which notion has been
criticized severely by Bibhuti Yadav for not allowing Buddhism to speak
on its own terms.34 Few like being labeled as closet believers or uncon-
scious practitioners of another faith, and the methodological rationale
for dialogue at this point breaks down. Although inclusivism begins the
interfaith encounter expressing openness to being transformed by the dia-
logue, it turns out in the end that these interactions result in either con-
version or the claim that even if no change of religious afffiliation occurs,
the other is practically part of us anyway. Again, I have nothing against
religious conversion (if no coercion or unethical means are involved); but
my methodological question is this: can inclusivist theologies on either
side sustain interreligious relationships after a certain point?
What about pluralist theological sensibilities? Christian and Buddhist
pluralists would have no problems with what some call dual religious
commitments,35 with the latter particularly flexible since Buddhism is

Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes toward Religious Others (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate, 2005).
34Bibhuti S. Yadav, Protest against the Theology of Anonymous Christianity, Religion
and Society 24:4 (1977): 6981.
35E.g., Paul F. Knitter, Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian (Oxford: Oneworld,
2009).
16 chapter one

generally agreed to be first a practice rather than a set of beliefs or as involv-

ing membership in a religious institution. Another version of a pluralist
approach would insist that in a globalizing world, Christian faith ought
to be open to transformation in its encounter with Buddhism through a
process of dialogical integration.36 A third also Christian-inspired option
is much more openended, for example viewing the Buddhist-Christian
dialogue as a long-term history-of-religions research project driven by the
interfaith encounter.37 These last two alternatives are more relevant to
the interfaith dialogue as it unfolds in especially academic contexts.
The methodological challenge for pluralism is twofold. On the one side,
what are the objectives of a pluralistic approach to interfaith dialogue?
For dual religious believers or practitioners, is the goal primarily that of
furthering their own self-understanding or is there also a missiological
dynamic wherein they might want to persuade others that such a dual
religious identity is a desirable form of life? For dialogical integrationists,
is the goal that of achieving some kind of theoretical, theological, or even
doctrinal synthesis of two or more religious belief systems, or maybe even
sets of religious practices, and if so, is this simply a conscious efffort at what
has been called syncretism before and how might dialogical integration
difffer from such projects as they have been historically documented? For
dialogical researchers, toward what end or ends are such research, con-
versation, and exploration directed? Put alternatively what are the norms
to be deployed in assessing the results of multiple religious belonging, or
dialogical integration, or of dialogical research? How might we evaluate
the various forms of integration? How do we analyze the fruits of histori-
cal research or judge the value of theological reflection?
If we were to compare the discussion so far in this section with the
preceding analysis of the theology-and-science conversation, we might
observe that there are parallel challenges between these two ventures. Both
dialogues press the question about starting points and norms. They high-
light the nature of public conversation: how do particular traditions and
modes of inquiry engage with interlocutors with diffferent methodological,
ideological, philosophical, and religious/theological commitments? Can
strangers attain a level of appreciation of diffferent paths, perspectives, or

36Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Transformation by Integration: How Inter-Faith Encounter

Changes Christianity (London: SCM Press, 2009), part II of which is devoted to four case
studies of how Christianity is transformed in dialogue with Buddhist traditions.
37E.g., Paul O. Ingram, The Process of Buddhist-Christian Dialogue (Eugene, Ore.:
Cascade Books, 2009).
 introduction 17

methods of inquiry and yet retain their integrity or do deeper and deeper
levels of appreciation involve some sort of conversion to the other?38
How might these diffferent ways of inhabiting, describing, and engaging
the world converge or diverge across communities of inquiry?
If we now take a step back to reflect on the methodological issues iden-
tified so far in this chapter not only here with regard to the Buddhist-
Christian dialogue but also earlier with regard to the religion and science
dialogue, it should be clear that having a Christianity-Buddhism-science
trialogue complexifies the task of the philosophy or theology of nature.
Formerly,39 there was only the challenge of adjudicating between theol-
ogy and science (or between philosophy and science, on the Buddhist side
of things), and there would be those who would subordinate science to
religious revelation on the one side or those who subjected theology to
scientific inquiry on the other. At present, the question is which theol-
ogy or revelation should be either subordinated to science or privileged
over science. Formerly, there were also some who separated the two com-
pletely, either because they saw a certain incommensurability between
the domains and methods of theology (as second order religious dis-
course) and science, or because they saw these two realms as parallel dis-
courses irrelevant to one another, each providing alternative perspectives
on human life in the world. At present, the radical diversity of religious

38I raise and discuss some of these methodological and material questions in my The
True Believers? Francis X. Clooney and Dual Religious Belonging in the Comparative
Theological Enterprise, Dharma Deepika: A South Asian Journal of Missiological Research
(forthcoming). Tony Richie has reminded me also that Stephen Neill, The Christian Faith
and Other Faiths, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1984), defends the possibility
of entering into the heart and spirit of another religion without disloyalty to ones own
(18); Neill rejects idealistic detachment as unrealistic and unnecessary, arguing that those
most committed to their own faith can still be sympathetic toward others through a will-
ingness to suspend judgment (18).
39The various alternatives I have described in this paragraph as formerly existing
can be found in the standard theology and science texts; see, e.g., Ian G. Barbour, Issues
in Science and Religion (1966; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971); Robert John Russell,
William R. Stoeger, S.J., and George V. Coyne, S.J., eds., Physics, Philosophy and Theology:
A Common Quest for Understanding (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications,
1988); Ted Peters, ed., Cosmos as Creation: Theology and Science in Consonance (Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1989); Malcolm A. Jeeves and R.J. Berry, Science, Life and Christian Belief:
A Survey of Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998); Niels Nenrik Gregersen and
J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, eds., Rethinking Theology and Science: Six Models for the Cur-
rent Dialogue (Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1998); and Richard F. Carlson, ed., Science and Christianity: Four Views (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 2000). While my examples here are drawn primarily from the Christian
side of the engagement with science, I return in chapter 4 to discuss Buddhist models of
interacting with science.
18 chapter one

traditions means that what was thought to be incommensurable given a

specific religion-science conversation (e.g., Christianity-science) may not
apply to another religion-science conversation (e.g., Buddhism-science).
Formerly, there has also been nuanced responses that avoided either the
extreme of justifying theology via science or vice-versa, and proceeded
both with the conviction that theological claims should not be counter-
indicated by scientific or empirical evidence on the one hand,40 even
while recognizing the provisionality of the deliverances of science and
the reality that all inquiry, scientific and otherwise, is based on assump-
tions which can never be questioned wholesale on the other. For these,
the hermeneutical spiral dictates nothing less than the ongoing, dialogi-
cal relationship between theology and science, each clarifying, comple-
menting, and perhaps even correcting the others self-understanding at
appropriate junctures in the human quest for truth. While there is much
to be gained by proceeding in this direction, my claim in this book is that
presently the dialogue needs to be expanded from that between Christian
theology and science to include the religious claims of other faiths.
So although the task of philosophy and theology of nature is certainly
much more demanding if we proceed in this direction, opening up of the
theology-science dialogue toward a theology-religion-science trialogue
brings with it new opportunities as well. In any case, this strategy is gaining
momentum. Christians and Muslims have begun such dialogues around
the scientific roundtable,41 as have Christians and Buddhists. Although the
latter trialogue is a bit farther along than the former, yet we are still very
early in the process of sorting out the methodological, material, philo-
sophical, and theological issues amidst this triadic conversation.42 On the

40This is the position enunciated most clearly by Philip Clayton, Explanation from
Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1989), 16167, and Clayton, God and Contemporary Science (Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press, and Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), esp. 59.
41E.g., Ted Peters and Muzafffar Iqbal, eds., God, Life, and the Cosmos: Christian and
Islamic Perspectives (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002).
42A pioneer from an earlier generation was the biblical scholar Burnett Hillman
Streeter, especially his The Buddha and the Christ: An Exploration of the Meaning of the
Universe and of the Purpose of Human Life (London: Macmillan, 1932), which attempted
to locate the ideals of both traditions within the modern world of science. Many of the
methodological questions opened up by Streeters explorations remain unaddressed, as
Pan-Chiu Lai, Buddhist-Christian Studies in a Scientific Age: A Case Study of Burnett Hill-
man Streeter (18741937), Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19 (2009): 3449, reminds us.
Leading the way in the contemporary scene have been the Lutheran theologian, Paul O.
Ingram, Buddhist-Christian Dialogue in an Age of Science (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and
Littlefield, 2008), and the Tibetan Buddhist scholar, B. Alan Wallace, Mind in the Balance:
 introduction 19

one hand, perhaps the dialogue between Christian theology and science
can be illuminated through observing the dialogue between another reli-
gious tradition and science. Comparison of two (or more) religion-science
dialogues can help distinguish genuinely scientific problems from prob-
lems associated with particular religious traditions. On the other hand,
perhaps lessons learned from the interreligious dialoguefor example,
about perspectivalism or hermeneutical frameworksitself can illumi-
nate challenges confronting the religion-science dialogue. In some ways,
those who argue that religion and science are parallel or relatively incom-
mensurable discourses are in a position similar to those religionists who
claim that diffferent religious traditions are irreconcilable. How religion-
ists yet communicate with each other across such allegedly incongruent
lines may shed light on how the religion-science dialogue nevertheless
proceeds against expectations.
To be sure, some scientists are reductionists when it comes to religious
matters, dismissing religion as outmoded in a scientific age. This project
proceeds cautiously, sensitive to such criticisms insofar as they touch
upon nave or uncritical religious self-understandings. But by and large, I
will not spend time engaging with such accounts which have turned sci-
ence into what I call scientism, by which I mean that the deliverances of
science are wrongly claimed as supporting all kinds of anti-metaphysical
(naturalistic) or anti-religious (materialistic) pre-commitments.43 There
are many more scientists or scientifically informed people who are genu-
inely interested in engaging with religious matters, not to mention reli-
gious pluralism as well. This book speaks into this triadic interface of
Christianity, Buddhism, and science.
Yet the question remains for the philosophy and theology of nature: how
can such a project succeed in the face of these methodological challenges?
In order for this project to be manageable and in order for it to have any
chance of succeeding, there will need to be appropriate parameters (there

Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press,
2009). Another volume edited by Paul D. Numrich, The Boundaries of Knowledge in Bud-
dhism, Christianity, and Science (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), focuses more
on epistemological issues. For a brief introduction to the possibilities of a Christianity-
Buddhism-science trialogue, see Robert John Russell, Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual
Transformation of Christianity, Buddhism and the Natural Sciences, in Ryusei Takeda, ed.,
Religion and Science, Buddhism and Environmental Bioethics: Buddhist-Christian Dialogue
(Kyoto, Japan: The Research Institute for Buddhist Culture, Ryukoku University, 2005),
7199.
43See, e.g., Mikael Stenmark, Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion (Aldershot, UK,
and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2001).
20 chapter one

is neither space nor time for any exhaustive discussion), as well as an

orienting framework and methodology that facilitates convergence of the
religion-science and the interreligious dialogues. In the following pages, I
suggest that a pneumatological theology provides a relational and partici-
patory hermeneutic that can facilitate both the religion-science and the
interreligious dialogues toward a philosophical theology of nature.

1.3Starting with the Spirit: Pneumatology and the

Christian-Buddhist-Science Trialogue

My methodological thesis is that pneumatology opens us up to the pos-

sibility of a participatory epistemology which overcomes the dualistic
and dichotomous thinking of subject and objecte.g., of theology and
science, and of the world of Scripture and of naturewithout collapsing
the distinction between the two.44 Similarly, a pneumatological approach
to religious pluralism also opens up to a participatory epistemology of
self and othernesse.g., of religious beliefs and religious practices, of the
worlds of Scripture and other sacred texts, and of Christianity and other
faithsagain without collapsing the distinctions between them.45 Allow
me to elaborate on three basic elements of such a pneumatological epis-
temology and hermeneutic: its grounding in the Pentecost narrative of
Acts 2; its furnishing dynamic categories for comprehending science and
religion; and its providing a dialogical and intersubjective means of adju-
dicating multi-disciplinary and multi-religious claims to truth.
Pneumatology and the Ground of Epistemic PluralismFirst, a pneu-
matological theology proceeds at least in part from the Pentecost narra-
tive of the Spirit of God being poured out upon all flesh (Acts 2:17).46
This involves understanding all flesh to have universal application. This
reading is supported by both the immediate context of this claim which
includes sons and daughters, young and old, and slave and free, and the
broader context of the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit upon the many

44My Spirit-Word-Community, esp. part II, provides the book-length argument; a briefer
article is my The Hermeneutical Trialectic: Notes toward Consensual Hermeneutic and
Theological Method, Heythrop Journal 45:1 (2004): 2239.
45To be chronologically precise, I come to the religion-science dialogue from much
more extensive work in theology of religions, but my pneumatological epistemology and
methodology developed contextually within the latter framework was also always intended
to engage with matters related to the former; see my Spirit-Word-Community, esp. 6.2.
46The following is adapted from my The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism
and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 4.3.3.
 introduction 21

who were gathered on the streets of Jerusalem from around the known
(Mediterranean) world. While at one (exegetical) level it might be argued
that all flesh is limited to the class of people drawn from the categories
of sons, daughters, etc., at another (theological) level, the sons, daughters,
etc., are who they are precisely because they are those upon whom the
Spirit is poured out. In this latter reading, the all flesh would not be
qualified by Christians. Further, while some might argue that the all
flesh is limited to Jews and proselytes to Judaism derived from the Jew-
ish diaspora, this overlooks three more universalistic trajectories embed-
ded in this text: a) that proselytes are not full converts: rather, being at
diffferent stages of their spiritual journeys, they embody in their lives
multiple traditions and cultures in various degrees; b) that the summary
list of regions and languages present in Jerusalem symbolize (weaker) or
represent (stronger) the breadth of the known first century world; and
c) that Lukes own narrative is guided by a universalistic vision whereby
all flesh includes those from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of
the earth (Acts 1:8; cf Acts 3:25).47
From this universalistic (epistemic, not soteriological) reading of the
Pentecost narrative, it is but a short series of steps to understanding inter-
disciplinary and interreligious engagement in pneumatological perspec-
tive. First, it is undeniable that this Pentecost narrative should be read
against the narrative of the Tower of Babel (Gen. 11) when human beings
were dispersed across the earth through the confusion of their languages.
Against this background, the outpouring of the Spirit redeems the diver-
sity of languages, enabling each tongue to become a vehicle to communi-
cate the wondrousness of Gods deeds of power (Acts 2:11). Building on
this, the diversity of languages is also correlated with the diversity of cul-
tures (or, nations, tribes, and peoples, to use first century Mediterranean
categories; cf. Rev. 7:9 and passim) and, by extension, to the diversity of
symbol systems (including, I argue in a moment, that of the various sci-
ences). In this reading, Pentecost becomes the theological basis for not
only accepting but also valuing the plurality of cultures, and the missio-
logical basis for methods that emphasize the inculturation, indigeniza-
tion, and contextualization of the Christian gospel.
This connection between language and culture should then be extended
to include, I suggest, other semiotic dimensions of human life, including

47I provide such a reading to the book of Acts in my Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with
the Apostles (Brewster, Mass.: Paraclete Press, 2011).
22 chapter one

both the world of the sciences and the world of the religions. With regard
to the former, I propose that the world of the sciences is constituted by
a plurality of semeiotic or symbolic systems (disciplines), each operating
according to various grammars (rules), sustained by various practices, and
directed to various functions, but all networked to one another by the
common goal of inquiring into nature.48 With regard to the latter, the
world of the religions is intrinsically linked to the diversity of cultures
and languages, and only a modernist compartmentalization would divide
between them. Hence, I argue, the Pentecost principle of linguistic and
cultural plurality necessarily includes that of scientific endeavor and of
religious diversity, and divine redemption includes not only human lan-
guages and cultures, but also human scientific inquiry and human religi-
osity. However, just as this does not mean that all human words and all
aspects of human culture are holy without qualification, so also it does
not mean that all scientific inquiry and all forms of human religiousness
are ultimately saved or sanctified. Language and culture, science and reli-
gion, must all be tested and discerned, even as each is potentially a vehicle
for mediating the truth, beauty, goodness, wondrousness, and even grace
of God. However, acceptance of this possibility establishes the Day of Pen-
tecost as the narrative ground for engaging the world of the sciences and
the world of religions in pneumatological perspective.
Now before proceeding, I need to be clear that I am not insisting that
my elucidation of Acts 2 in the preceding (and following) pages captures
the authors original meaning or the intended audiences understanding.
Rather than being a strictly exegetical exercise, mine is a more theologi-
cal interpretation wherein I am suggesting only one possible reading of
Acts 2 for our twenty-first pluralistic, scientific, and technological world.
Now given that Lukes purpose was also to show how the Spirit of Pente-
cost was the Spirit of Jesus, we will need to return later to a discussion of
what our pneumatological hermeneutic of the religion-science and inter-
religious dialogues has to say about christology.49
Pneumatology and the Dynamism of Science and ReligionThe second
basic element of a pneumatological approach to science and religious

48See my Academic Glossolalia? Pentecostal Scholarship, Multi-disciplinarity, and the

Science-Religion Conversation, Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14:1 (2005): 6180.
49Elsewhere, I respond more specifically and at length to this question of the Spirit
of Pentecost as the Spirit of Jesus; see Yong, A P(new)matological Paradigm for Chris-
tian Mission in a Religiously Plural World, Missiology: An International Review 33:2 (2005):
17591; see also 9.1 below.
 introduction 23

pluralism is that pneumatology furnishes dynamic categories for compre-

hending both domains of human experience. Let me explicate this dyna-
mism in terms of a two fundamental notions: tradition and praxis.
Tradition in pneumatological perspective is dynamic in light of the
long-standing metaphor of the Spirit as the soul or life of the Church,
especially when the latter is considered in its institutional form. Whereas
the classical theological understanding of tradition (and the ecclesial
tradition more specifically) emphasized its given once-and-for-all nature,
a pneumatological view of church and tradition highlights the fluidity
and dynamic movement of both. In this pneumatological framework,
the Christian tradition and church not only exist, but are also becom-
ing, because the tradition and church are concrete expressions of human
responses to and participation in the Spirits outpouring uponpresence
and activity inthe world.
Similarly, this pneumatological perspective recognizes the dynamic
character of scientific inquiry and of other religious traditions. In the same
way as the Christian tradition can be discerned only through its continu-
ally changing empirical manifestationsto see if the Spirits presence and
activity can be detected or if the Spirit is absent in some respectso also
are the traditions of inquiry of the natural and human sciences, and of
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., discernible through their
permutations. A pneumatological perspective on science and a pneuma-
tological theology of religions would be better equipped to recognize sci-
ence and religions not as nouns, but as verbs: they are formed by the
processes of human traditioning and are thereby shaped by the various
human engagements with the world (the sciences) and various human
responses to realities considered transcendent (the religions).50
This leads to our consideration of praxis. From a pneumatological per-
spective, praxis becomes just as, if not more, important than beliefs (doc-
trines) and that precisely because pneumatology calls attention to divine
activity rather than divine being (at one level), and to sanctification rather
than to mere confession (at another). This contrasts with the classical
understanding wherein praxis was secondary to doctrine in defining
a religious tradition. The strength of a pneumatological theology is pre-
cisely its capacity to recognize the interrelatedness of praxis and doctrine

50While the dynamic character of science is obvious, that of the religions is now much
more widely accepted, especially since Wilfred Cantwell Smiths The Meaning and End of
Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1962); cf. also Dale T. Irvin, Christian Histories, Christian
Traditioning: Rendering Accounts (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1998).
24 chapter one

without subordinating either to the other. Rather, praxis is understood to

be guided by doctrine even as praxis shapes, clarifies, confirms (or not),
and even transforms doctrinal formulations. A pneumatological view-
point both acknowledges and is able to provide a theological account for
the interrelatedness between praxis and doctrine.
For this reason, a pneumatological understanding of science empha-
sizes the process of inquiry rather than the content of scientific knowledge.
This is especially important given the fallibility attached to all scientific
discoveries, and the shifting nature of the scientific paradigms and frame-
works. The advances of science are predicated on nothing less than the
willingness to question previously accepted claims to truth and to start
afresh. Scientific inquiry is therefore a set of practices oriented toward
engagement with the world, and a pneumatological perspective on the
religion-science dialogue would empower the practices of both religion
and science in their common quest for truth.
Similarly, a pneumatologically informed theology of religions is better
able to comprehend religious otherness not only in terms of the category
of doctrine but also in terms of other dynamic praxis categories like ritual,
piety, devotion, morality, and the like.51 While many previous theologies
of religions have had an almost exclusive focus on the beliefs of religious
others,52 a pneumatological theologia religionum is better able to account
for the diversity of beliefs that are linked to and shaped by diffferent social,
moral, and religious practices.
Together, these brief discussions of tradition and praxis are suggestive
of how a pneumatological approach inculcates a more dynamic under-
standing of theology and its work, especially in its engagement with the
worlds of nature and the religions. In the same way as pneumatology

51On the intrinsic relationship between Christian beliefs and practices, see James
William McClendon, Jr., Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986,
1994, 2000); Reinhard Htter, Sufffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice (Grand
Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000); and Miroslav Volf and Dorothy C. Bass,
eds., Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2002).
52Some of the prominent exceptions, interestingly, have been those of pluralist theo-
logians like John Hick (who has focused on the ethical-transformative processes of reli-
gious traditions) and Paul Knitter (whose emphases have been on orthopraxis); see John
Hick, An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1991), and Paul F. Knitter, One Earth Many Religions: Multi-
faith Dialogue and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1995), and Jesus and
the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books,
1995).
 introduction 25

points to eschatology (the doctrine of things related to the end), so also a

pneumatological theology of science and a pneumatological theology of
religions recognizes the openendedness and unfinished character of sci-
entific inquiry and of religious traditions. Certainly, scientists and scholars
of religion have long been advocates of this more dynamic understanding
of each domain. The contribution of a pneumatological perspective is a
specifically theological (rather than philosophical or practical) rationale
for this kind of dynamic interpretation of science and of religion.
Pneumatology, Truth, and the ReligionsThis leads to the third basic
element of a pneumatological approach to science and religious plural-
ism: its capacity to provide an intersubjective mode of engaging claims
to truth.53 Previous theological approaches to science and other religious
doctrines have noticed and, often, emphasized their contradictory quality
when explicated in terms of the correspondence theory of truth. So most
scientists believe in evolution via random mutation and natural selec-
tion, while some Christians believe that God created each species distinc-
tively; or most Buddhists believe that death leads either to reincarnation
or nirvana, while Christians classically believe that death leads either to
heaven or hellin which cases, either scientists or Christians and either
Buddhists or Christians are right (and the other wrong) since both sets
of claims cannot be simultaneously true. With regard to the question
of evolution, there is both the challenge of what counts as data and the
deeper issue of how to interpret the data when the lines between sci-
ence and metaphysics are blurred. With regard to the question of nirvana
or reincarnation versus heaven or hell, the problem is that such claims
are either transcendental or eschatological, resulting in Buddhist and
Christian claims and counterclaims without any means of adjudicating
conclusively in the present life the apparent contradictions assuming the
correspondence theory of truth.
More recent developments have thus focused on the epistemological
questions of how any particular truth claim is nested semiotically within
a larger web of interlocking beliefs and practices. This is explicated in
terms of the coherence theory regarding how truth is known. Considered
in this way, the religion and science domains are disparate, with theologi-
cal claims dealing with ultimate meaning, morality, sentiment, and piety
that are embedded in religious practices, and scientific claims dealing

53The following is a revision and adaptation of my The Spirit Bears Witness: Pneuma-
tology, Truth and the Religions, Scottish Journal of Theology 57:1 (2004): 125.
26 chapter one

with matters of fact regarding the world that are embedded in traditions
of empirical enquiry.54 Similarly, Buddhist or Christians claims only make
sense within Buddhist or Christian frameworks since doctrines function
with regard to religious traditions and practices in ways similar to how
grammars function with regard to languages. In both the religion-science
and interreligious dialogues, truth is to be assessed according to whether
or not any statement coheres with other statements within the religious
system (of beliefs and practices).
Yet the turn to epistemic coherentism does not resolve the alethic
issues. The problem here is twofold: either scientific and the diffferent reli-
gious frameworks are all incommensurablebased as they are on difffer-
ent semiotic and praxis systemsand hence apparently contrary claims
are essentially non-adjudicable; or any attempt to adjudicate scientific-
religious or multiple religious claims requires that one not only learns about
or observes from a distance another tradition but also that one enters into
and participates in its semiotic system and practices. With regard to the
religion-science conversation, to adopt the former positionthat religion
and science are incompatible languagesignores the fact that religion
makes claims regarding matters of fact and that science provides expla-
nations on matters related to morality and even metaphysics. To adopt
the latter positionthat engaging religion with science and vice-versa
requires cross-over and returnrisks either mixing the two domains
inappropriately or privileging one and subordinating the other. How then
does religion and theology engage with science given this dilemma con-
nected with the coherence theory of truth?
With regard to the interreligious encounter, to assume that religious
traditions are inapposite leads to relativism: what is true for the Buddhist
is not true for the Christian and vice-versa. But to assume that adjudi-
cating religious truth claims requires cross-over and return into another
religious tradition and its practices threatens to compromise the kind of
scholarly objectivity aspired to by scholars of religion,55 and raises the
question of how to retain ones Christian identity in the process of enter-

54Expressed most straightforwardly in terms of the principle of religion and science

providing non-overlapping magisteria, by Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and
Religion in the Fullness of Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999).
55See Russell T. McCutcheon, ed., The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Reli-
gion: A Reader (London and New York: Cassell, 1998), and Elisabeth Arweck and Martin
D. Stringer, eds., Theorizing Faith: The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Ritual (Bir-
mingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press, 2002).
 introduction 27

ing into the beliefs and practices of another faith. Is it not advisable to
follow anthropologists and their participant-observatory methods that do
not require them to embrace fully the ways of life (both beliefs and prac-
tices) of those who they are studying? However, is it then possible in this
way to adjudge between contrary claims to truth among the religions?
The pneumatological approach to this dilemma provides a specifi-
cally theological rationale for holding both correspondence and coher-
entist theories of truth and methods for their resolution in tension. Let
me explicate this claim in two steps. First, going back to the theological
reading of the Pentecost narrative proposed above, the outpouring of the
Spirit enables each one to give witness to the wondrous works of God
(Acts 2:11) in and through the diversity of languages. Now insofar as lan-
guage can only be arbitrarily divorced from culture and from religion, to
the same extent, then, cultures and religions are potentially vehicles for
mediating the grace and truth of God. Therefore the Spirit who gives the
capacity to speak in a foreign language also enables, by extension, par-
ticipation in a foreign culture, a diffferent semeiotic system of beliefs and
practices, and even in some aspects of an alien religion, so that one can
experience and testify to those realities to some degree from within. If
in more exegetical terms the Spirits outpouring on the Day of Pentecost
redeemed the various languages for the purposes of God, my more theo-
logical interpretation and application to the religion-science and interre-
ligious dialogues would be to embrace the redemption of both domains
of human knowledge and experience, but attempt to present and discuss
them in ways that respect their distinctive languages and perspectives.
Hence I say that our dialogue with science and other faiths allows and
even invites our engagement with them on their own terms and, to that
degree, emically from within rather than merely etically from without.56
I therefore suggest also that the same Spirit whose outpouring on the Day
of Pentecost enabled the speaking in foreign tongues might today enable
genuine engagement with the sciences and with other faiths.
This means, second, a pneumatological epistemology empowers a
robustly dialogical and intersubjective approach to truth. On the one

56My colleague, Tony Richie, also discusses, in dialogue with other evangelical theo-
logians, the importance of entering into the viewpoint of religious others to whatever
degree possible, without compromising Christian faith; see Richie, Speaking by the Spirit: A
Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Encounter and Dialogue, Asbury Theological Seminary
Series in World Christian Revitalization Movements in Pentecostal/Charismatic Studies 6
(Wilmore, Ky.: Emeth Press, 2011), 9294.
28 chapter one

hand (from the Christian perspective), the Spirit graciously enables our
entrance into, inhabitation of, and testimony to faith in Jesus Christ. On
the other hand (from the religion-science or the theology of religions per-
spective), this same Spirit also graciously grants understanding of, guides
participation in, and empowers engagement with other languages, cul-
tures, semiotic systems, and even at least in some respects religious tradi-
tions. This dialogical relationship thus means that we engage our own and
the other tradition both as insiders and as outsiders, albeit in diffferent
respects. While it is obvious how we are insiders to our own tradition,
it is also important to note that we are theological outsiders even to
the Christian tradition insofar as we are still not yet fully converted to
the image of Christ (on this side of the eschaton).57 On the other hand,
while it is clear we are outsiders to other traditions, it is also important
to note that we are potential insiders even to other traditions insofar
as the Spirit enables us to speak in other languages and to crossover into
other traditions. Hence we engage our own and other traditions neither
merely objectively (as outsiders) nor merely subjectively (as insid-
ers), but intersubjectivelye.g., both within and outside each tradition,
as individuals and as members of (both) communities, in terms of both
beliefs (doctrines) and practices (participation and inhabitation), in his-
torical reality (in dialogue with others), and yet anticipating eschatologi-
cal consummation. This dialogical and intersubjective engagement with
truth therefore neglects neither the criteria of coherence nor that of cor-
respondence, but highlights the processes of adjudication as involving
the mutual transformation of traditions in dialogue by the power of the
eschatological Spirit.
***
The promise of this pneumatological epistemology and hermeneutic
needs to be tested in a pluralistic and scientific world. I propose to do
so in this book by way of an exploration wherein Christianity, Buddhism,
and science engage in a trialogue directed toward the development of a
philosophy and theology of nature appropriate to the demands of life in
the twenty-first century. The following chapters argue two interrelated
theses, one methodological and the other theological. The methodologi-
cal thesis is that the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit opens up to a

57I elaborate on the eschatological aspects of pneumatological theology in my Per-

forming Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey, PNEUMA: The
Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 28:2 (2006): 31321.
 introduction 29

dialogical and philosophical theology that respects the integrity of science

and other faiths in general and Buddhism in particular. In this trialogue,
Christian theological engagement with science can be illuminated from
the encounter between Buddhism and science on the one hand, even
while the religion-science dialogue can be illuminated by the interreligious
dialogue on the other hand. The result is that a pneumatological approach
to the religion-science and interfaith dialogues promises to advance and
even integrate both conversations. By extension, the theological thesis is
that a pneumatological perspective informed by science and Buddhism
allows for the formulation of a theology of nature more appropriate to
the demands of the religiously plural world of the twenty-first century.
A Christian theology of nature can and must learn from the sciences and
other wisdom traditions, including Buddhism.
The three parts of this book focus respectively on the Christian the-
ology and science dialogue, the Buddhist philosophy and science dia-
logue, and the comparative theology and science dialogue respectively,
all directed toward a philosophical, scientific, and interreligious theology
of nature. Part I attempts to think about creation as the locus of divine
presence, and does so by introducing the idea of spirit in the religion-
science dialogue (chapter 2); by rethinking the doctrine of creation in
pneumatological perspective through a close re-reading of the Genesis
narrative while keeping in dialogue with recent developments in the cos-
mological sciences and in emergence, complexity, and systems theories
(chapter 3); and by culminating with a reconsideration of the doctrine of
human nature in pneumatological perspective through a close re-reading
of Genesis 1 and 2 while keeping in dialogue with recent developments in
the cognitive sciences (chapter 4). My objective here is to articulate a sci-
entifically informed theology of nature appropriate to the present time.
Part II follows the same movement from introducing religion-science
issues to discussing cosmological and anthropological matters, but does
so in dialogue with the Buddhist tradition. I suggest that our pneumato-
logical framework for discussing the natural world in the Christian tradi-
tion provides an avenue for conversation with perspectives on ultimate
and phenomenal reality gathered around the Mahayana Buddhist notion
of shunyata (literally: emptiness, or also understandable as referring to
the doctrine of codependent or interdependent origination). I therefore
begin by introducing the idea of shunyata as it has been formulated in
Mahayana Buddhism and as it has been appropriated in the Buddhism-
science dialogue (chapter 5); proceed by explicating an understanding of
the world as dynamically self-emptying or interdependently constituting
30 chapter one

in the Huayen tradition of Buddhism and developed further in the dia-

logue between the Japanese Kyoto School and modern science (chapter 6);
and conclude by exploring an understanding of human personhood and
human nature as self-emptying or interdependently arising in dialogue
with the non-self and true-self perspectives of especially Mahayana
Buddhism and its recent dialogue with the neurosciences (chapter 7). Our
goal here is to understand especially Mahayana Buddhist perspectives on
the cosmos and human nature in order to set up the comparative exercise
in the last part of the book.
The separate treatments of Christian theology and Buddhist philoso-
phy in the first two parts of the book are designed to ensure that each
tradition is first presented and understood on its own terms. However a
philosophical theology of nature emergent from the religion-science and
the interreligious conversations will need eventually to get to the hard
work of comparison. The last three chapters (in part three) attempt to
do so by summarizing, sorting, and synthesizing the cosmological and
anthropological results of the first two parts (chapter 8); by stepping back
to assess the theological synthesis and the pneumatological epistemology
and methodology against the normative claims of the Christian theologi-
cal tradition and the basic consensus of the religion-science conversation
(chapter 9); and by concluding toward a preliminary application of the
resultant theology of nature toward a more specific but still interreli-
giously shaped theology and ethics of the environment (chapter 10). Our
conclusions thus hope to have methodological, theological, and ethical
traction as informed by the Christianity-Buddhism-science trialogue.
I should also say that the idea that the attempt to develop a philosophi-
cal theology of nature is not an excuse for taking up the really important
matters in the religion-science dialogue or the interreligious dialogue.
Rather the Christian understanding of nature itself stands to gain not only
(obviously) from the sciences, but also (less obviously) from the collective
wisdom of the religious traditions of humankind. In fact, what kind of
theologyof nature or otherwiseis it that neglects the insights of any
and all who have asked theological, philosophical, or ultimate questions
about whatever it is being discussed? I suggest that just as any Christian
theology in our pluralistic world needs to learn from and engage both
the sciences and those in other religious traditions, so also a Christian
theology of nature needs to be informed by the religion-science and inter-
religious dialogues. Hence, theology of nature is both a means to an end
that facilitates a fresh encounter among religious and science traditions
 introduction 31

and an end in itself that draws from the interreligious dialogue with the
sciences.
In the end, this volume is best read as an efffort in constructive philo-
sophical theology in global context. With regard to science and religion,
in this case, Buddhism, the volume does not undertake the task of what
is understood as negative Christian apologeticsthe efffort to establish
the basic correctness of Christian ideas against its competitors. While
there remains a need for such tasks, and while there will be occasions in
what follows to raise critical questions from the Christian perspective in
dialogue with science and Buddhism, that is not the primary goal here.
Instead, the goal is what might be called positive Christian apologetics
in the interdisciplinary, intercultural, and interreligious context of the
twenty-first centurythe efffort to articulate a Christian philosophy of
nature in light of contemporary scientific developments and Buddhist
traditions. With regard to the dialogue with Buddhism, the primarily
methodological approach will be that of comparative theology, one that
respects the diffferences between the two traditions and yet seeks synthe-
sis (not syncresis) whenever such is deemed appropriate in the mutual
quest for truth; with regard to the dialogue with science, the approach will
be mediated through explorations of philosophical issues at the bound-
aries of where science meets religion (and theology). Brought together,
the task of constructive theology is pursued with the conviction that a
pneumatological framework can facilitate a triadic conversation that will
deepen, perhaps transform, butmost importantlyexpand Christian
understandings of itself in relationship to the natural world.
In the pages to come, then, the following questions guidemostly
implicitly, sometimes explicitlyour reflections. How should Christian
theology engage with modern science in the twenty-first century? How
should Christian theology engage with other religious traditions? Given
the radical diffferences between Christian theism and Buddhism non-
theism, how can Christians and Buddhist engage each other rhetorically
and, more substantively, theologically or philosophically? Finally, how
should a Christian theology of natureof the world, of creation, of the
wholebe developed in a trialogue with the sciences and the religions?
This volume proceeds persuaded that the pneumatological framework
suggested here will be suffficient for engaging these questions and push-
ing the trialogue forward, but my readers will be the ones to decide finally
whether that is the case.
 PART ONE

PNEUMA: DIVINE PRESENCE AND NATURE IN THE THEOLOGY

AND SCIENCE DIALOGUE
34 part one

The theological task before us is the quest for a philosophy and theology
of nature that engages and is informed by the dialogues with science and
with Buddhist traditions. The methodological engine developed to drive
this project is the Christian doctrine of the Spirit. In the following three
chapters, I sketch the basic cosmological (chapter 3) and anthropological
(chapter 4) features of a pneumatological theology of nature derived from
the dialogue between Christian theology and science (chapter 2).
Our thinking about cosmology and anthropology is important because
they will help us to get at the kinds of questions that a pneumatologi-
cal theology of nature raises. Since the Christian theological tradition has
generally understood the Holy Spirit as the presence and activity of God
in the world, a pneumatological theology of nature seeks to probe more
intentionally into the mode of that presence and activity. So, for example,
what kind of world is it that allows God to be present and active by Gods
Spirit? More specifically, what kind of creatures are human beings such
that we can and do consciously interact with the divine spirit? Because
these cosmological and anthropological matters are especially pointed
in a theology of nature developed in pneumatological perspective, they
receive focused attention in this part of the book.
Clearly, a pneumatological theology engages with the field of philoso-
phy and theology of nature in a way that already privileges the category
of spirit in the conversation. We will certainly have to tread carefully here.
There have been far too many wrong turns historically in the encounter
between theology and science in which various ontologies of spiritsub-
stantial, ethereal, or vitalistic notions, for examplehave been presumed
that have not been amenable to scientific research and inquiry. People
of faith can always make claims about divine, angelic, or even demonic
spirits and how such influence, even determine, the ways of the world.
Alternatively, the invisible, immaterial, and non-empirical nature of spiri-
tual realities can often be posited as explanations for this or that phe-
nomenon which is no diffferent than any God-of-the-gaps responses in
the theological encounter with science, and these will inevitably result
in foreclosing scientific inquiry. Deploying pneumatological categories in
the religion and science dialogue cannot serve as an excuse to dismiss the
scientific consensus when it is not religiously or theologically appealing,
or to avoid doing the hard work of research in both domains. In fact, we
have to be on even greater alert and be prepared to labor more intensely
and persistently precisely because the pitfalls are even more ambiguous if
not also more hazardous to making progress in the field. Certainly inquiry
 pneuma 35

into this nexus of spirit and science is not for the faint of heart, at least not
if we desire to take both sides of the equation very seriously.
We therefore proceed tentatively and perspicaciously, if not coura-
geously. The following biblical and theological analyses conducted in
dialogue with the sciences lay the groundwork for the interreligious and
interdisciplinary philosophy of nature that is part of the goal of this work.
Part II will unfold Buddhist cosmological and anthropological understand-
ings so that we can undertake a comparative exploration in the final part
of this volume. The pneumatological motif functions methodologically
and materially as a Christian theological norm especially in the first and
last parts of the arguments in these pages.
 CHAPTER TWO

SPIRIT AND SCIENCE: AN EMERGING DIALOGUE

The two dominant symbols of divine presence in the Christian tradition

have been IncarnationGod with us in the fleshand Pentecostthe
Spirit of God poured out on all flesh. The former christological symbol has
emerged in the theology and science dialogue in various ways, whether
it is in terms of cosmological evolution, spatiality and temporality, theo-
logical anthropology, or, more recently, information theory.1 These are
important developments for the dialogue between Christian theology and
the sciences, but the renaissance of trinitarian theology in the last few
decades suggests also that the promise of a fully trinitarian theology will
not be fulfilled until christological considerations are complemented by
specifically pneumatological explorations as well.2
To be sure, there have been some rumblings about a pneumatologi-
cal contribution to the theology and science discussion. Yet pneumato-
logical input proposals to date have been far less systematic, precise, or
sustained. In this chapter, I introduce previous attempts to engage the
religion-science conversation in the terms and categories of spirit. We
begin with generic understandings of spirit in the religion-science litera-
ture (2.1), proceed to more theological uses, including introduction of the
effforts of Wolfhart Pannenberg (2.2), and then seek to explore and criti-
cally asses the links proposed between pneumatology and contemporary
field theory (2.3). The following considerations identify the emergence

1On christology and cosmology, the speculative work of Teilhard de Chardin has led
the way. On spatiality and temporality, see Thomas F. Torrance, Space, Time and Incarna-
tion (London: Oxford University Press, 1969). On christology and theological anthropology,
see Arthur Peacocke, Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and BecomingNatural, Divine,
and Human, enlarged ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), esp. Part III. On christology
and information theory, see John C. Puddefoot, Information Theory, Biology, and Chris-
tology, and Arthur Peacocke, The Incarnation of the Informing Self-Expressive Word
of God, both in W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, eds., Religion and Science:
History, Method, Dialogue (New York and London: Routledge, 1996), 30119 and 32139
respectively.
2I make some form of this argument in all of my books, most recently in Spirit of Love:
A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Waco, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2012).
38 chapter two

of specifically pneumatological categories and motifs in the theology and

science dialogue.
Within the bigger scheme of things, however, this chapter, and this part
of the book as well, seek to ask what diffference, if any, a pneumatological
approach makes to thinking about a philosophy and theology of nature.
Much Christian reflection on theology of nature has proceeded on vaguely
theistic terms.3 Even projects devoted to thinking trinitarianly about the-
ology and science believe that it is suffficient to explicate the christological
register, but this neglects the pneumatological dimension.4 Building on this
existing discussion and on my previous work,5 my goals for this volume
include that of contributing to the theology and science discussion from
a specifically pneumatological perspective. Along the way, perhaps such
an efffort can also illuminate longstanding philosophical questions about
the nature of reality and even about the Buddhist-Christian dialogue. This
chapter is but a first constructive step toward such aspirations.

2.1Spirit and Science: What Kind of Relationship?

The language of spirit has been present in the religion-science dialogue in

various forms. Five uses of spirit are pertinent for our purposes of intro-
ducing this conversation.6

3The three volumes of Alister McGraths A Scientific Theology (Grand Rapids, and Cam-
bridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 20012003), are helpful, but oper-
ate mostly in general theistic categories.
4E.g., John Polkinghorne, Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), while both on many counts, has a
weak pneumatology. Andrew Robinson, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and
the Metaphysical Semiotics of C.S. Peirce, Philosophical Studies in Science and Religion 2
(Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), is much better pneumatologically, although this will need
translation for even for theologians because of the density of the ideas related to Peirces
triadic system.
5My own engagement with these questions until now has been explicitly from a pen-
tecostal perspective, as evidenced in my editorial work on Pentecostalism, Science, &
Creation: New Voices in the Theology-Science Conversation, a collection of six articles
in Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 43:4 (2008): 875989, The Spirit Renews the Face
of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of Creation (Eugene, Ore.: Pick-
wick Publications, 2009), and (with James K.A. Smith) Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal
Engagement with the Sciences (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2010), as well
as my own book, The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecos-
tal-Charismatic Imagination, Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011). This present volume attempts to expand
the pneumatological horizons of these discussions in dialogue with Buddhist traditions.
6Elsewhere, I generate a typology of fifteen diffferent uses of spirit in the religion-
science dialogue; see my Discerning the Spirit(s) in the Natural World: Toward a Typology
of Spirit in the Theology and Science Conversation, Theology & Science 3:3 (2005): 31529.
 spirit and science 39

First, there is the very generic use of spirit which is synonymous with
religion or spirituality. In this usage, the breadth, depth, flexibility, and
ambiguity of the words religion and spirituality are simply transferred over
into the word spirit. The generality of spirit operative here can be seen
in such publications as the popular but very professional-looking peri-
odical Science & Spirit, and in such projects as Science and the Spiritual
Quest (http://www.ssq.net/).7 Within this category, spirit often refers to
an overall religious orientation or disposition toward the spiritual dimen-
sions of reality and of human experience.8 One of the early contributions
toward this understanding may be Teilhard de Chardins ideas regarding
the evolution of the human species from being materially constituted
toward being consciously aware and spiritually awakened. While each of
these variants of spirit has its benefits, and while advocates can hardly
be blamed taking advantage of the ambiguity of spirit as bequeathed by
the tradition, it goes without saying that the imprecision of the idea of
spirit in these cases requires further specification before it can become
theologically useful.
Second, some appearances of spirit in the religion-science conversation
have been associated, however loosely, with the occult sciences. Perhaps
anticipating the Teilhardian trajectory and even contributing to it from
another perspective, spirit has been allied here with the tradition of the-
osophy. Derived in part from the philosophical idealism of Hegel (e.g.,
his use of Geist),9 and in part from Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science),
Rudolf Steiner (Anthroposophical Wisdom) and, more recently, contem-
porary New Age religious and consciousness movements, the theosophi-
cal spirit is understood primarily in terms of spiritualismin contrast
to materialismwith connections both to the esotericist tradition (which
includes the ancient but reworked traditions of Gnosticism, Hermeticism
and occultism) and to the tradition of alchemical sciences. Here, then,
is both opportunity and challenge for the science and religion conver-
sation: opportunity precisely because esotericists are intentional in their

7This generic equation of spirit and religion is perhaps also exemplified in Camillus D.
Talafous, O.S.B., ed., Readings in Science and Spirit (Englewood Clifffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1966), and Ravi Ravindra, ed., Science and Spirit (New York: Paragon House, 1991).
8E.g., Kevin Sharpe, Sleuthing the Divine: The Nexus of Science and Spirit (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2000). See also the discussions of Spiritual Progress and Laws of the Spirit in
John M. Templeton, The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God, new rev. ed. (New York:
Continuum, 1995), chs. 8 and 13.
9See Glenn Alexander Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition (Ithaca and London:
Cornell University Press, 2001), who argues for the occult underpinnings of Hegels idea
of Geist.
40 chapter two

engaging with the realm of spirit (especially in terms of psi-phenomena),

but challenge precisely because the alchemical and occult sciences are
widely thought to belong (at best) in the category of the anomalistic
sciences.10 Yet this connection, once made, opens up to the wide range
of contemporary psychical research.11 From the perspective of orthodox
Christian theology, however, much work needs to be done to separate
the wheat from the chafff in the anomalistic sciences before the gains for
a pneumatological theology of nature can be assessed.
Third is spirit used especially by philosophers of religion in the circles
of religious naturalism. Robert Corrington, for example, deploys the lan-
guage of spirit in dialogue with the pragmatic philosophy of Peirce, the
evolutionary metaphysics of Justus Buechler, and the depth psychology
of Jung.12 While Corringtons project assumes rather than specifically
engages the most recent advances in the sciences, it is also much more
philosophically sophisticated than most other visions of religious natural-
ism. At the same time, such a naturalistic (non-theistic) understanding
of spirit allows for the retention of a rigorous scientific platform without
doing away completely with the kind of religious orientation to life which
embraces the beauty and wonder in nature and the evolutionary process.
If the main advantage that religious naturalism afffords is its assumption of
a causally closed universe that can take the deliveries of the empirical sci-
ences at face value, its major criticism comes from religionists who think
that the naturalistic notion of spirit is evacuated of all substantive reli-
gious and theological content. Further research which intentionally brings
advocates of religious naturalism into the science and religion dialogue is
needed to advance the conversation.
Fourth is the related philosophical use of spirit to talk about relational-
ity. The recent James Loders (19322001) idea of spirit as relationality is

10Even if the lines are not quite so easily drawnsee Henry Bauer, Science or Pseudo-
science: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies (Urbana, Ill.: The
University of Illinois Press, 2001).
11Such as that which occurs in the Society for Psychical Research (http://www.spr
.ac.uk/), the American Society for Psychical Research (http://www.aspr.com/), the Austral-
asian Society for Psychical Research (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~amilani/ufo.html),
the Scottish Society for Psychical Research (http://www.sspr.co.uk/), and many others. See
also my The Spirit of Creation, ch. 6, for further discussion.
12Corrington is also active in the Unitarian Universalist Association. He has written
or edited fourteen books. The most relevant for our purposes are Corrington, Nature and
Spirit: An Essay in Ecstatic Naturalism (New York: Fordham University Press, 1992), Natures
Self: Our Journey from Origin to Spirit (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), and Natures
Religion (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997).
 spirit and science 41

developed, like Corringtons, in substantive dialogue with the disciplines

of philosophy and psychology.13 In brief, Loder suggests that spirit refers
to the quality of relationality wherein two disparate things or realities are
held together in a way that does not compromise their distinctiveness
or integrity; he then expands this idea into a theological anthropology
of human development. The pneumatological bases of Loders philoso-
phy of spirit are clear: the biblical and theological tradition both testify
to the Spirit who is of the Father and of the Son, who brings God into
relationship with the world, who connects divinity and humanity, who
bridges the creation and the eschaton, etc. Within this framework, Loders
lifelong interests have been focused, from a Christian perspective, on the
realization of spiritual healing and the actualization of spiritual maturity
in human lives and on the question of how spiritual development can be
nurtured in individuals, congregations, and communities. Certainly Loder
has left a legacy, especially among practical theologians and behavioral
psychologists. Hence, there is a need to bring Christian practical theolo-
gians and psychologists who work with Loders ideas together with other
psychologists, philosophers, and religionists to explore further the con-
vergences and divergences of a relational understanding of spirit at the
intersection of these disciplines.14
The fifth and final use of spirit deserving mention in this introductory
overview is that which picks up on another trajectory of Hegels philo-
sophical idealism leading to the emergence of Geist as a philosophical cat-
egory informing a wide range of socio-cultural, social philosophical, and
the socio-political disciplines by the turn of the twentieth century. Refer-
ences to the spirit and law, spirit and culture, and spirit and the arts can
be found across the spectrum of discourses in especially the human sci-
ences. In disciplines like cultural anthropology, theorists have attempted

13James E. Loder and W. Jim Neidhardt, The Knights Move: The Relational Logic of the
Spirit in Theology and Science (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1992), and James
Loder, The Logic of Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1998). I develop the idea of spirit and relationality partially in dialogue with
Loder in my Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective
(Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and Eugene, Ore.: Wipf &
Stock, 2002), esp. ch. 3.
14The relational theologian F. LeRon Shults has taken up Loders mantle at the interface
of psychology of theology, co-authoring two books with Steven J. Sandage, Faces of Forgive-
ness, The: Searching for Wholeness and Salvation, and Transforming Spirituality: Integrating
Theology and Psychology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003 and 2006, respectively); for
Shults relational pneumatology, see his book, with Andrea Hollingsworth, The Holy Spirit
(Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008).
42 chapter two

to retain notions of spirit as found in the extensively developed beliefs

and practices surrounding spirit-beings. Thus earlier scholars like Tylor
and Malinowski classified as animistic the religious beliefs and practices
of these primitive cultures, while more recent researchers like I.M. Lewis,
Felicitas Goodman, and Thomas Csordas have looked afresh at the phe-
nomenon of spirit possession (known also as shamanism) among indig-
enous and pentecostal and charismatic religious groups through a variety
of cultural-anthropological tools and lenses.15 This kind of cultural anthro-
pological research provides both empirical and theoretical perspectives
on the popular rituals and practices of masses of religious people. No
doubt, the findings of this tradition of cultural anthropology will provide
comparative data for religious behavior which exhibit phenomenological
similarities across multiple religious traditions, and in that sense, further
illuminate our understanding of the human religious spirit.16
As we can see from this very brief survey, the notion of spirit in the
religion-science dialogue has been wide-ranging, including the very
generic equation of spirit with religion or spirituality, the uses of spirit
emergent in theosophical, naturalistic, and philosophical circles, and the
understanding of spirit as referring generally to human nature especially
in the human sciences. While our own attempt to develop a pneumato-
logical theology of nature can certainly glean insights from these conver-
sations, we still need a more robust theological framework in order to
avoid the transformation of this project into a natural theology.
Fortunately, the renaissance of pneumatology during the last genera-
tion has substantively impacted theological discourse. The import of this
turn to the Spirit in contemporary systematic theology can be most
clearly seen in the work of theologians like Jrgen Moltmann. After start-
ing in the late 1960s with an eschatological theology, Moltmanns has been
led to rethink the entirety of the traditional theological loci from a pneu-
matological starting point, resulting in the movement from a pneuma-

15Representative publications by Lewis, Csordas and Goodman include: I.M. Lewis,

Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession (London: Routledge, 1989);
Thomas J. Csordas, The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of Charismatic Healing
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); and Felicitas D. Goodman, Where the Spir-
its Ride the Wind: Trance Journeys and Other Ecstatic Experiences, and How about demons?
Possession and Exorcism in the Modern World (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988
and 1990 respectively).
16I explore these themes further in my The Spirit and Creation: Possibilities and Chal-
lenges for a Dialogue between Pentecostal Theology and the Sciences, in Journal of the
European Pentecostal Theological Association 25 (2005): 82110.
 spirit and science 43

tological ecclesiology and Christology to a pneumatological doctrine of

God, and even more recently, to a pneumatological theology of creation.17
In rethinking a Christian theology of nature from a pneumatological per-
spective, Moltmann has pushed the discussion forward considerably from
where it was before, and that along two lines.
First, Moltmann has helped to overcome the traditional dualism
between spirit and matter in general and between Holy Spirit and nature
or creation in particular. This further opens up the possibility for theolo-
gians to approach the dialogue with those working in the empirical sci-
ences from an explicitly theological platform (rather than the theology
being just an afterthought to the scientific perspective). On the other side,
however, this pneumato-theological framework at the same time grants to
the book of nature (and hence to science) its own authentic voice, per-
spective, and contribution. By this I mean to say that a pneumatologi-
cal theology assumes the diversity, distinctiveness, and integrity of voices
heard originally at Pentecost to be divinely ordained for the glory of God,
and in this case, the voices from the sciences need to be heard on their
own terms (and not just on the terms of the theologians).18
This leads, second, to the observation that Moltmanns project can take
seriously the perspectives of science and resist becoming a natural the-
ology precisely because of its pneumatological framework. Beginning as
he does with trinitarian theology, christology, and pneumatology proper,
the fact is that the pneumatological logic of his theology has pushed
him to develop a theology of creation which allows for, even demands,
an engagement with science. The result is a triune and relational theol-
ogy which understands the interconnectedness of God and creation, of
human beings and society, of humankind and the environment, of mind
and body, etc. In short, the Moltmannian project represents the emer-
gence of a new trinitarian theological paradigm which values rather than
disparages the contributions of the sciences, while at the same time also

17Beginning with Jrgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribu-
tion to Messianic Ecclesiology (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), The Trinity and the King-
dom: The Doctrine of God (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981), and continuing with God
in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God (San Francisco: Harper &
Row, 1985), and The Spirit of Life: A Universal Afffirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992)all
translated by Margaret Kohlamong other works.
18Moltmanns recent and most focused engagement with science is Science and Wis-
dom, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003).
44 chapter two

enlarging the framework for pneumatological understanding to include,

potentially, the entirety of the created order.19
An important methodological point should be mentioned here in light
of the preceding discussion. Note that the notion of spirit is theologi-
cally robust, as our discussion of Moltmanns pneumatology manifests;
yet when present in the religion and science discussion, much of its use
is either philosophical or otherwise rather vague. While such ambiguity
will eventually need to be more clearly specified in order for the idea of
spirit to be useful in the sciences, for the moment it is helpful to observe
that categorical vagueness is often more helpful than not, especially when
at the beginning stages of a research program (in this case, one that is
not only interdisciplinary but also interreligious). In other words, a more
vague notion of spirit initially opens up possibilities for interdisciplinary
(and interreligious) dialogue since it is applicable in general to a larger set
of phenomena, until and unless otherwise specified.20

2.2Spirit, Theology, and Science: Emerging Trajectories

Against this background, we see that a pneumatological theology of nature

that is engaged with science has issued forth from and in conjunction
with the more recent developments of trinitarian theology. Not coinci-
dentally, trinitarian theology has been invoked in rethinking the notion
of time and temporality, and in clarifying the idea of chaos, among other
projects.21 These developments have introduced two distinct yet interre-
lated trajectories of pneumatological speculation into the theology and

19See also T. David Beck, The Holy Spirit and the Renewal of All Things: Pneumatology in
Paul and Jrgen Moltmann (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick Publications, 2007).
20I discuss the heuristic value of vague categories further with the help of Charles
Sanders Peirce in my Spirit-Word-Community, 5.1.
21See, e.g., Michael Welker, Gods Eternity, Gods Temporality, and Trinitarian Theol-
ogy, Theology Today 55:3 (1998): 31728; Ted Peters, The Trinity in and Beyond Time,
in Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy and C.J. Isham, eds., Quantum Cosmology and the
Laws of Nature: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, 2nd ed. (Vatican City State: Vati-
can Observatory Publications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sci-
ences, 1996), 26389; and Denis Edwards, The Discovery of Chaos and the Retrieval of the
Trinity, in Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy and Arthur R. Peacocke, eds., Chaos and
Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City State: Vatican Observa-
tory Publications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995),
15775. So also a trinitarian conception of God as creator, Christ as material consumma-
tion, and the Spirit as evolutionary fulfillment has been proposed by Sigurd-M. Daecke,
GottOpfer oder Schopfer der Evolution: christlicher Glaube und Entwicklungslehre,
Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982): 23047.
 spirit and science 45

science dialogue. The first is best represented by the patristic model of

the Word and Spirit as the two hands of the Father (Irenaeus). In the
language of Eastern Orthodoxy, the Word is iconically represented by
the creation and the Spirit is the iconographer, the air breathed by the
world; together, both reveal the image and presence of God in and to cre-
ation.22 Translated into the idiom of process philosophy, the created order
is constituted concretely by actual occasions (Word) and dynamically by
creativity (Spirit), such that the Spirit drives the spontaneity of natures
processes.23 When understood within a trinitarian framework, of course,
all pneumatological insights into the theology and science dialogue will
have christological implications (and vice-versa, even if many who have
developed the christological approach have either ignored or failed to
develop this reciprocity).
The other trajectory represents those who have utilized a distinctively
pneumatological starting point leading to a more explicitly trinitarian
conceptualization. George Murphy, trained in physics and theology, has
developed a pneumatological approach along three fronts.24 First, begin-
ning with the Spirit as the bond between the Father and the Son, and
as the fellowship of the ecclesial community, Murphy suggests that this

22See John Chryssavgis, The World of the Icon and Creation: An Orthodox Perspective
on Ecology and Pneumatology, in Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Christi-
anity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Bring of Earth and Humans (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2000), 8396; cf. Gennadios Limouris, Come Holy SpiritRenew the
Whole Creation: Pneumatology in Symphony with Christology, in Limouris, ed., Come
Holy SpiritRenew the Whole Creation: An Orthodox approach for the Seventh Assembly
of the World Council of Churches, Canberra, Australia 621 February 1991 (Brookline, Mass.:
Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990), 719. See also Alexei V. Nesteruk, Light from the East:
Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003),
for a rich discussion of the correlation between Orthodox theology and modern cosmol-
ogy, albeit one developed in dialogue with christology (primarily) rather than pneumatol-
ogy (minimally).
23This latter point is observed by Robert Jenson in dialogue with process metaphysics;
see Jensons Cosmic Spirit, in Robert W. Jenson and Carl Braaten, eds., Christian Dogmat-
ics, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 2.16578, esp. 17073. Process theologians
like Bernard Lee and Blair Reynolds argue similarly. Lee distinguishes between the realms
of ruach (Spirit) and dabhar (Word) in the Hebrew prophets as referring to the deep struc-
tures and the concrete historical embodiments respectively of the peoples encounter with
God, and Reynolds calls attention to the Spirit as the personal lure of God both relating
to the world and calling the world toward actualizing its full potential; see Lee, God as
Spirit, in Randolph Crump Miller, ed., Empirical Theology: A Handbook (Birmingham, Al.:
Religious Education Press, 1992), 12941, and Reynolds, Toward a Process Pneumatology
(Selinsgrove: Suaquehanna University Press, and London and Toronto: Associated Univer-
sity Presses, 1990), esp. ch. 5.
24George L. Murphy, The Third Article in the Science-Theology Dialogue, Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith 45:3 (1993): 16269.
46 chapter two

relational Spirit is also reflected in creation itself along with its living sys-
tems. Second, drawing from the Johannine imagery of the Spirit blowing
unpredictably (3:8), Murphy makes connections with chaos theory and
the role of chance in the spontaneous and somewhat random processes
of natural evolution; along the way, he recognizes the Spirit as a source
both of order and of surprise, of the impossible, and even of the resur-
rection from the dead. Third, the Spirit as the bestower of spiritual gifts
also empowers humans in relationship to the natural world; thus science
and technology are among the means accomplishing the divine purposes
for a world in which Christs body is present, anticipating and partici-
pating in the eschatological sanctification of the cosmos. Unfortunately,
Murphy does not expand on these pneumatological inquiries in his more
recent work.25
In another exploratory article Ernest Simmons, religion professor at
Concordia College (Moorhead, Minnesota), also has attempted to bring
pneumatological motifs into dialogue with quantum field theory.26 In
brief, Simmons makes two moves. First, drawing from the theology of
the cross which sees the passion of Christ as revealing Gods kenosis or
self-emptying into the world for the sake of the world, Simmons suggests
both a kenotic creation wherein the world and its agents are made pos-
sible through the self-limitation of God, and a kenotic pneumatology
wherein the Spirit is the self-emptying, self-limiting agapeic love of God
sanctifying the creation toward life and fulfillment.27 Second, then, the
proposal is made that quantum holism provides an analogy for under-
standing Gods presence and activity in the world by the Spirit in terms
of the entanglement, nonlocality, and indeterminacy operative at the level
of the quantum field. Entanglement and nonlocality are related insofar
as quantum research has demonstrated that photons or other subatomic
particles separated by a distance nevertheless behave simultaneously as if
they are connected or in communication (which is impossible given the
widely accepted axiom that no information can be exchanged at a rate
faster than the speed of light), leading to the conclusion that they must
have been entangled from the beginning. Simmons wonders whether the

25Murphy returns to more christologically oriented reflections in his theology and sci-
ence book, The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press Interna-
tional, 2003).
26Ernest L. Simmons, Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology: Quantum Field Theory and
the Theology of the Cross, CTNS Bulletin 19:2 (1999): 1116.
27Simmons, Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology, 13.
 spirit and science 47

kenotic Spirit could be understood to be hidden in (or perhaps as) the

quantum field entanglement. If so, then God could be present and active
at the level of quantum indeterminacy, not only in terms of the Spirits
self-emptying that gives creatures the freedom to actualize their own pos-
sibilities (the possibilities of the quantum field) in various ways, but also
in terms of the Spirit being seen as analogous to a field operator which
makes various field states possible but nevertheless remains hidden within
the field.28 All this is set within a process-panentheistic framework which
preserves, at least in that sense, Gods transcendence from the world even
while emphasizing the divine kenosis into the world.29
While we will return to these matters later (2.3), clearly, Murphys and
Simmons approaches bring together religious and theological language
with the discourse of the sciences. Equally clear, at least historically, is
that pneumatological categories have been amenable to such speculation.
Going back to antiquity, pneuma in the pre-Socratics was understood to
refer to air as the life breath and as representative of the world soul (Anaxi-
menes, early Pythagorean physicians, and Hippocrates) or to the logos
or pure fire (Heraclitus). Later speculation developed in the direction of
opposing pneuma to logos or matter (the later Pythagoreans) or associat-
ing pneuma more deeply with the transcendent nous or mind of the world
(Anaxagoras). In Plato, pneuma becomes the generative force within the
metaphysical trinity which included also the One and the Good, as well as
the source of aesthetic inspiration (Timaeus). Both ideas converged into
that of pneuma as carrying forth and actualizing the logos, or the seeds of
the logos (the logos spermatikos) that in-form the material world. From
there, some extended Platos triad toward the development of a sophisti-
cated demonology (Xenocrates, end of fourth century bce), while others
developed his doctrine of the logos spermatikos (cf. Jn. 1:9 later) as that
which fills the universe and that which carries itself outward either pro-
phetically or ecstatically (the Stoics). Posidonius (13551 bce) then puri-
fied the notion of spirit from materiality, even while Seneca (4 bce65 ce)

28Simmons, Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology, 14.

29Simmons discusses these ideas further in his The Sighs of God: Kenosis, Quantum
Field Theory, and the Spirit, in Curtis L. Thompson and Terence E. Fretheim, eds., God,
Evil and Sufffering: Essays in Honor of Paul R. Sponheim, published as Word & World Supple-
ment Series 4 (St. Paul, Minn.: Luther Seminary, 2000), 18291. See also the work of my stu-
dent, Bradford McCall, Kenosis and Emergence: A Theological Synthesis, Zygon: Journal
of Science and Religion 45:1 (2010): 14964.
48 chapter two

opposed passive matter to the active, creative, and artistic pneuma who is
omnipotent and omniscient and determines the future.30
While medieval thinkers focused on the realm of spirit and its human-
istic implications, the speculative pneumatologies of the ancients were
preserved in Gnostic and Hermeticist undercurrents in the West.31 Argu-
ably, it is in the work of Hegel, Schelling, and the Romantics that the
category of spirit is not only retrieved but also restored to the center of
philosophical, theological, and even scientific discussion, with implica-
tions especially for understanding nature. Hence it is fair to say both that
the recent renaissance of pneumatological reflection in philosophy and
theology exhibit clear Hegelian impulses,32 and that the contemporary
application of pneumatological ideas and categories to the religion and
science dialogue participates in this venerable tradition of the ancients
and moderns. No one is either more deeply located at the heart of this
(Hegelian) theology-philosophy-science conversation or as well equipped
to extend the discussion as is the German systematic theologian, Wolfhart
Pannenberg.
For over three decades now, Pannenberg has been engaged with the
religion-science conversation.33 By the mid-1980s, he was the first to
develop a pneumatological theology of nature in the direction of conceiv-
ing the Spirit as the field bonding the Father and the Son in love, relating
God and the world, and unifying the manyness of the world.34 Building on

30I draw in this paragraph primarily from Walter Wili, The History of the Spirit in
Antiquity, in Joseph Campbell, ed., Spirit and Nature: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks,
Bollingen Series 30.1, trans. Ralph Manheim (1954; reprint, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1982), 75106; quote from 1023.
31See Paul S. MacDonald, History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations about Soul, Mind
and Spirit from Homer to Hume (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2003), esp. ch. 5.
32I hope to develop this argument in detail in the future. For now, a genealogical over-
view of the category of spirit in philosophical discourse through and from Hegel is outlined
in my A Theology of the Third Article? Hegel and the Contemporary Enterprise in First
Philosophy and First Theology, in Stanley E. Porter and Anthony L. Cross, eds., Semper
Reformandum: Essays in Honor of Clark H. Pinnock (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, 2003),
20830; see also Steven G. Smith, The Concept of the Spiritual: An Essay in First Philosophy
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988).
33In addition to this, Pannenberg has, almost from the beginning of his theological
career, been an ardent advocate of doing theology in dialogue with the worlds religious
traditions. This was laid out initially in his programmatic essay, Toward a Theology of
the History of Religions, in Pannenberg, Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays
Volume II, trans. George H. Kehm (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), ch. 4. Sad to say,
however, this vision has been largely unfulfilled in Pannenbergs subsequent three-volume
Systematic Theology.
34Wolfhart Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith,
ed. Ted Peters (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), esp. 3741. See also the
 spirit and science 49

the Stoic concept of pneuma as subtly penetrating the entire cosmos and
holding it together, but revised away from its materialistic underpinnings
with the help of Michael Faradays field concepts35which reconceived
the world as constituted primarily by active fields of force rather than by
masses and material bodies (now understood to manifest concentrations
of force at specific points and places of the field)Pannenberg suggested
that spirit could be applied to the dynamic field potencies of creation in
general and to material bodies and organic life in particular, all of which
are continually self-transcending manifestations of the worlds evolution-
ary processes. Insofar as fields are considered as dynamic environments
and systems of self-organizing relationships, a pneumatological recon-
ception would enable understanding of creations emergent potentialities
and complexities. Not only could field theory pneumatologically defined
make intelligible divine presence in the particularities of the world, but
it also enabled the overcoming of the Aristotelian doctrine of substance
along with its problematic dualisms. In this way, Faradays concept of
force fields served as a resource for a pneumatological understanding of
creation.36
In his Systematic Theology and later writings, Pannenberg extends his
reflections along three lines.37 First, he distinguishes between the princi-
ple of order (Logos/the Son) and the principle of life (Spirit) from biblical
data, and suggests how both work together in the actuality of the created

overview provided by Henry Jansen, Relationality and the Concept of God, Currents of
Encounter 10 (Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 1995), ch. 5, God as the Infinite Field of
Love. Jansen makes especially clear Pannenbergs indebtedness to Hegels philosophical
theology.
35I discuss Faradays contributions in more detail in the next section.
36Noteworthy here also is the very brief attempt of Jefffrey C. Pugh, Entertaining the
Triune Mystery: God, Science, and the Space Between (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press Inter-
national, 2003), 9294, to connect field theory with the triune Spirit of God. A much more
extensive consideration of this theme than Pughs is Lawrence W. Fagg, Electromagnetism
and the Sacred: At the Frontier of Spirit and Matter (New York: Continuum, 1999). Fagg
considers the four forces of naturethe gravitational, the strong and weak nuclear forces
which work at the atomic level, and the electromagnetic which holds atoms and molecules
together allowing for the chemical and biological interactions undergirding the cosmos as
a whole and human experience of the cosmos more particularlyand suggests that the
electromagnetic field is especially suitable as a physical analogue for divine immanence.
In that sense, Faggs project parallels Pannenbergs, but I mention it only here in the notes
since Fagg does not make a specifically pneumatological argument. Spirit in Faggs title
refers more to spirituality than to the Holy Spirit.
37Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, trans. Geofffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), esp. 2, The Spirit of God and the Dynamic of Natural Occur-
rence (76135), and Pannenberg, God as Spiritand Natural Science, Zygon: Journal of
Science and Religion 36:4 (2001): 78394.
50 chapter two

order. In this view, Spirit both re-presents the concrete reality of the his-
torical Jesus through the Church and makes present the divine Logos to
nature and history. Second, developing on his own eschatological theol-
ogy, Pannenberg associates the Spirit with the future as the creative field
of possibility. Building on quantum indeterminacy (of present events) as
opening up to field(s) of possibility, the Spirit is now understood to repre-
sent the creative and expressive field of the divine life as it interacts with
the evolutionary processes of the world. Here, the Spirit as the source of
new life, the resurrection, and the coming reign of God, is analogically
applied to the evolution of creation itself. Finally, utilization of the field
concept enables rescuing theological talk about divine omnipresence
from vacuity. Of course, God as spirit is the field of possibility which gives
space and time to creaturely possibilities. The divine immensity is not, of
course, divisible, as are creaturely realities which are granted existence
of their own within the undivided space of Gods omnipresence and in
the presence of his eternity.38 In summary, The ecstatic openness of life
to its environment and to its future corresponds to the creative activity
of the divine spirit, and if the divine spirit works as a dynamic field, then
here we have a field concept that is connected with contingency regarding
the effficacy of the field.39
Various questions can and should be posed to Pannenbergs pneumato-
logical speculations. For starters, insofar as material realities are concen-
trations of fields of force, to that extent forces not only exert regulative
controls on these realities but are also constrained in some way by mate-
rial movements. In that sense, fields and material entities are mutually and
relationally constituted. Does Pannenbergs theology provide for or even
demand such interrelationality such that God and the material world are
mutually constituted, or is there an asymmetrical relationship between
the divine field of force and the creaturely elements so that the latter is
dependent on the former but not vice-versa? More importantly, if God is
conceived in terms of physical fields, then what is the need for God-talk
at all assuming that fields can bear the explanatory burden? From the sci-
ence side of this specific question, does not Pannenbergs project of talk-
ing about the Spirit as energy or field of force trespass upon the hard-won
denotative language of science? Finally, even if Pannenberg were to gain
approval to proceed, does not linking spirit and Faradays field theory end

38Pannenberg, God as Spiritand Natural Science, 791.

39Pannenberg, God as Spiritand Natural Science, 792.
 spirit and science 51

up wedding theology to a pre-evolutionary and even nineteenth century

physics out of place in a post-Einsteinian world?40 We will need to keep
these questions and concerns in mind as we proceed.

2.3Pneumatology and Field Theory

In order to understand these criticisms and Pannenbergs response, a very

cursory overview of the history of the concept of force fields is neces-
sary.41 From the Platonic idea of force conceived as the all-pervasive and
universal world soul inherent to substances came the medieval notion of
force as spiritual. For the medieval scholastics, force was the energetic
nature of divine, angelic, or even demonic realities which were manifest
in the movement of celestial and terrestrial bodies. Later, Bishop George
Berkeley (16851753) and the Cambridge Platonists purified this notion to
suggest that the real cause of motion is spirit, ultimately God. With God as
the supremely effficient and final cause, then, the movement of all things
was naturally from and to God. It was hence a short step to Copernicus
(14731543) theory of gravity as the tendency of appetition of parts to be
united with the whole to which they belongfundamentally a theologi-
cal explanation.
The shift introduced by Kepler (15711630) marked the transition toward
a modern scientific understanding of force. Kepler introduced the concept
of force into the exact sciences as a means of seeking a causal explana-
tion of the relationship between planetary velocity and distance. In turn,
Newton (16421727) developed his theory of gravitation which included
the idea that matter exerts causal force on matter at or from a distance,
even if mysteriously, within a framework of absolute material, corpuscu-
lar, and perhaps even fluidic space.42 In this closed universe, Pierre Simon

40These are just some of the questions posed to Pannenbergs field pneumatology by
Mark William Worthing, God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1996), 11724, and Jefffrey S. Wicken, Theology and Science in the Evolving Cosmos:
A Need for Dialogue, Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 23:1 (1988): 4555, among other
critics.
41I rely primarily on Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Dis-
tance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1961); Max Jammer,
Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1957; reprinted with corrections, New York: Harper Torchbooks and The Science
Library, 1962), esp. chs. 35; and Leslie Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New
York: Random House, 1966), chs. 12.
42Descartes and Leibniz also denied the notion of empty spaces or the void, although
the latter did so more for theological reasons: that the world would not be a perfect
52 chapter two

de Laplace (17491827) hypothesized that given knowledge of the position

and momentum of every particle in the universe at any moment, the entire
future course of the world could be predicted to eternity. Classical Newto-
nian mechanics had reached its zenith in the Laplacean hypothesis.
Newtonianism also led to the notion that properties of things are ulti-
mately properties of inherently insensible particles. Thus, heat and light,
for example, were reduced to atoms and corpuscles moving through
space, and our sensing heat and light was predicated on the transduction
of the insensible realm of atoms to the sensible qualities of things. This
anticipated, of course, nineteenth century ether theory. Immanuel Kant
(17241804), however, questioned this process of transduction. In fact, he
critiqued also the notions of absolute space and absolute time, especially
since knowledge was not about things in themselves, but derivative from
the structures of the mind. Thus, in Metaphysical Foundations of Natural
Science (1786), Kant suggested that matter be defined by a) the resistance
force of objects to penetration and attempts to move them, and b) the
attraction force which keeps objects individualized and from swelling up
or dispersing. All space is therefore filled by forcesso there is no such
thing as empty space. However, while Kant understood the universal
forces to be in equilibrium, Friedrich Schelling (17751854), a student of
Kants ideas, saw these forces to be in continual conflict, each attempting
to overcome the other. In his Sketch of a History of Nature (1797), Schelling
posited the universe as consisting of polarized forces: darkness and light,
the sexes, good and evil, etc. This led him and others to anticipate that
chemistry would finally unlock the secrets of nature since chemical pro-
cesses were micro-processes of forces reacting to each other.
This sequence of developments in modern science and Naturphilosophie
precipitated the revolutionary discoveries of field theory in the nineteenth
century. Hans Christian Oersted (17771851) challenged the imponderable
fluids theory of heat and light, and reduced the Kantian forces to that of
combustion and combustibility thereby extending Schellings conflict-of-
force idea. The result was a theory of the universe as a three-dimensional
reality in which forces crossed either conflicting or harmonizing. More
importantly, in the process Oersted discovered electromagnetism (in
1820), which called into question the mechanistic impact theory of cau-
sality on the one hand, even while pressing the question regarding the
mysterious notion of action-at-a-distance on the other.

creation of God if it contained vacuums; see William Berkson, Fields of Force: The Develop-
ment of a Worldview from Faraday to Einstein (New York: Wiley, 1974), 25.
 spirit and science 53

It was left up to Michael Faraday (17911867) and James Clerk Maxwell

(18311879) to formulate the scientific details of classical field theory.43 The
former, a devout Christian and one of the great experimental chemists
of the nineteenth century, proposed that reality is constituted by forces
as the sole physical substance. Material particles, solid bodies, electrical
fields, mass objects, etc., are all convergent points of associated forces.
By explaining matter in terms of what he called lines of force, Faraday
moved away from the problematic notions of action-at-a-distance and of
absolute space which had held sway since Newton. Forces act contigu-
ously on other forces, and causality is mediated through these lines of
force. This launched his search for a unified field theory, resulting in the
suggestion that electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces are but (per-
haps geometrical) modifications of one underlying type of force.
Building on Faradays proposals, Maxwell shifted to the fields of force
terminology and provided it with the mathematical precision it had here-
tofore lacked. At the same time, Maxwell adjusted Faradays theory, spe-
cifically in his distinguishing between electromagnetic fields and matter.
More importantly, his conclusions emphasized the continuous nature of
the field (highlighted by Faraday) in contrast to the Newtonian concep-
tion of bodies located in absolute space and acting upon each other either
contiguously or at a distance. This reopened the door for the mysterious
ether to be understood as the medium for field activity. Maxwell, how-
ever, was ambiguous on this point. Either ether was understood only ana-
logically, or it was reconceptualized as a series of discrete particles (waves
within fields) which vibrations are waves of various sortse.g., light or
heatthus enabling continuous action and mediating causal energy.44
By the end of the nineteenth century, however, Faradays and Maxwells
force fields were being rethought in part because the theory of ether to
which it was connected was being abandoned, and in part because the
priority of particles over waves was being overturned.45 The experiment
by Albert Michelson (a physicist) and Edward Morley (a chemist) in 1887
showed that the speed of light was constant in all directions rather than

43On Faraday and Maxwell, see Berkson, Fields of Force, and P.M. Harman, Energy,
Force, and Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth-Century Physics (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982).
44For an overview of Maxwells achievements, including a discussion of Maxwell and
ether theory, see the editors introduction to James Clerk Maxwell, A Dynamical Theory of
the Electromagnetic Field, ed. Thomas F. Torrance (Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press,
1982), esp. 1718.
45Mendel Sachs, The Field Concept of Contemporary Science (Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas, 1973).
54 chapter two

being afffected by ether (as predicted by classical field theory). Further,

other experiments showed that light as a continuous manifestation of
electromagnetism could be propagated even in a vacuum, thus showing
the superfluity of the ether thought to mediate light corpuscles or waves.
Finally, Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity in 1905 and General Theory
in 1916 both showed that matter can be converted into energy and vice-
versa, resulting in particles and waves being considered as equally funda-
mental, and revealing the diffficulty of correlating or assigning traditional
measurement properties to either matter or fields since such properties
will have diffferent values from diffferent frames of reference. Yet the Gen-
eral Theory did, of course, understand reality ultimately in terms of fields
of activity. The diffference was that whereas Faraday saw the world as a
field of continuous forces, Einstein saw fields as geometrical curvatures of
space; and whereas classical field theory understood force in terms of sub-
stances, Einstein moved toward an invariance theory which understood
the only constant in the world to derive not from an ultimate substance or
field of force, but from the speed of light in inertial reference frames.
Nevertheless, light itself was soon found to be an indeterminate wave-
particle duality, as described by Niels Bohrs (18851962) Complementarity
Principle in 1927. Thus classical field theory quickly gave way to quantum
field theory featuring quanta of discrete and non-divisible lumps and
bits of energy in the micro-world. Here, the waves and particles which
are the final stufff of the world are interactive excitations of an underly-
ing field, and particulate matter is a confluence of wave fluctuations in
the quantum field.46 Unlike the lines of force in classical field theory, the
wave functions of quantum field theory are mathematical representa-
tions of future possibilities. Insofar as any given quantum entity could
be manifest either as a wave or a particle, but never both together (at
least to human perceivers and their instrumental detectors), any attempt
to measure the quantum entity would, as Werner Heisenberg (19011976)
showed (1927), collapse the wave function such that if either momentum
or location is known, the other is unknowable and efffectively non-existent
(Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle). This introduces the idea that things
are what they areas collapsed wave functionsprecisely in their mea-
sured interactions with other things, both sentient and non-sentient.

46Attempting to comprehend Steven Weinbergs massive and comprehensive The

Quantum Theory of Fields, 3 vols. (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press,
19952000), made me aware of how ill-prepared my background in religious studies and
theology has left me for engaging with the details of this topic.
 spirit and science 55

Together, Bohrs and Heisenbergs principles have come to be known as

the Copenhagen Interpretation. According to this view, a quantum entity
is neither an actuality nor a fiction, but a potentiality awaiting determi-
nation at least in interaction with an observer. At the same time, the
quantum framework was also clearly at odds with Einsteins geometrical
but yet continuous space-time field, and its indeterminism and openend-
edness was thought incompatible with relativity theorys (in principle)
deterministic closed system. This is especially the case with regard to
relationships between distant particles which appeared to communicate
simultaneously across space-time. This not only called into question rela-
tivity theorys rejection of instantaneous communication faster than the
speed of light, but also revived the debates in classical mechanics about
the possibility of action-at-a-distance. Yet the reigning consensus was not
the triumph of this classical notion, but rather the emergence of a new
paradigm known as holism, whereby quantum entities are always already
mutually entangled and interwoven as parts of a larger whole (see the
previous discussion of Simmons ideas in 2.2).
The preceding overview, while horribly over-generalized, nevertheless
highlights a number of important concepts and categories. Central to these,
of course, is that the ontology of substance has been replaced over the
last few hundred years by the concept of force understood both in terms
of energy and in terms of causal power. Related and as important is the
concept of field, whether consisting of waves or of particles. In the quan-
tum field, of course, we have both, signifying perhaps a unity-in-duality or
complementarity of continuity (waves) and distinctiveness (particles) at
the heart of reality. Further, the category of potentiality has emerged, call-
ing attention to the dynamic potency and force of the ultimate building-
blocks (i.e., quantum realities) of the natural world on the one hand,
and to the indeterminacy and openendedness of reality at the quantum
level on the other. Finally, the concept of holism not only attempts to
integrate these various notionse.g., relating parts and wholes, singular-
ity and duality, waves and particles, force and matter, potentiality and
actualitybut also points toward larger and larger wholes or fields in
what seems like a continuous stream of self-transcendence.
We will return to discuss many of these issues later in other contexts.
For the moment, we are focused on Pannenbergs retrieval of Faradays
field theory toward a pneumatological theology of nature. Against this
background, it is understandable that Pannenberg sought to extricate
the Stoic notion of pneuma as materiality from substance-metaphysics,
and found help precisely in Faradays and Maxwells field theories which
56 chapter two

understood the ultimately real to be fields of force (and matter as con-

centrations of forces). At the same time, it was important to avoid the
nineteenth century field theories reliance upon causality propagated
via ethereal substance. It is also clear that Pannenberg has not ignored
contemporary quantum field theorys modifications and extensions of
Faradays formulations. His linking of quantum indeterminacy with the
unpredictability of the eschaton (to be brought about by the Holy Spirit
whose comings are unknown and whose workings are unimaginable)
reflects attempts to adjust his utilization of Faradays field theory. Yet
Pannenbergs crossing between field theory and pneumatological theol-
ogy still raises all the questions previously encountered about both scien-
tific language and theological language. This is especially acute given that
quantum field theory is itself understood in general to be analogical lan-
guage twice removed: once in its dependence upon classical nineteenth
century field theory, and the second time in field theory as itself a model
for understanding the world. Combined with the analogical language
operative in Pannenbergs theology (by his own admission), the question
is whether or not this pneumatological theology of nature can meaning-
fully bridge the discourses of science and theology.
Of course, Pannenberg recognizes the diffficulties of his project but
defends his correlation of pneumatological and field theory discourses for
theology of nature. He writes:
We see that the reality is the same because theological statements about
the working of the Spirit of God in creation historically go back to the same
philosophical root that by mathematical formalizing is also the source of
the field theories of physics, and the diffferent theories give evidence of the
same emphases that we find in the underlying metaphysical intuitions. We
also see that the reality is the same because the theological (as distinct from
the scientific) development of the concept is in a position to find a place in
its reflection for the diffferent form of description in physics, for which there
can be empirical demonstration, and in this way to confirm the coherence
of its own statements about the reality of the world.47
In places like this, Pannenbergs language is ambiguous enough so that
critics question if he intends, finally, to understand field theory as the
literal mode of the divine Spirits presence and activity. My reading of
Pannenberg, however, leads me to believe that he intends not a univo-
cal equation of pneumatology and field theory but only a correlational
relationship between the two, recognizing both notions as analogues of

47Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2.83.

 spirit and science 57

human inquiry. Having said that, note also that Pannenberg also quali-
fies his theological use of field theory when he writes, The person of the
Holy Spirit is not himself to be understood as the field but as a unique
manifestation (singularity) of the field of divine essentiality. But because
the personal being of the Holy Spirit is manifest only in distinction from
the Son (and therefore also from the Father), his working in creation has
more of the character of dynamic field operations.48 Further, his retrieval
of Faradays field theory includes Faradays supremacy of the field over
material bodies (themselves understood as manifestations of fields of
force), thereby enabling, by analogy, Pannanbergs own prioritization of
the field of the Spirits activity and the secondary and dependent nature
of the creaturely orders. So, in response to the previous question regarding
whether or not a pneumatological theology of nature leads to a mutuality
between creator and creature, Pannenberg writes: By nature the creative
working of the divine Spirit cannot be regarded as conditioned by the resul-
tant creaturely phenomena. But for the sake of the creatures this work-
ing can adjust itself to the conditions of their existence and activity and
thus give them room to afffect the field structure of the Spirits working.49
Diffficulties obviously remain, not the least of which is that there is nei-
ther agreement among scientists especially about details of quantum field
theory, nor among philosophers and theologians about the implications
of field theory for their work. Yet the next two chapters are intended at
least in part as an attempt to push Pannenbergs theological project fur-
ther along.50 I hope to do so here by way of reading the creation nar-
ratives through a pneumatological hermeneutic that should, I believe,
provide a plausible biblical and theological framework for engaging and
even extending Pannenbergs pneumatological theology of nature. Judg-
ment will need to made at the end of the day both about whether or
not Pannenbergs scientific and theological intuitions can or have been
salvaged, and about the specifically theological viability of the response to
the question about mutuality. In the meanwhile, however, the immediate
issue before us is if and how a reconception and extension of Pannen-
bergs pneumatological theology of nature can help us understand divine
presence in the world.

48Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2.8384.

49Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, 2.101.
50Remember that Pannenberg views theology as a universal science, which is what
motivates his engagement with all sources of knowledge, science included; see, e.g.,
Don H. Olive, Wolfhart Pannenberg: Makers of the Modern Theological Mind (Waco, TX:
Word Books, 1973), 3436.
 CHAPTER THREE

SPIRIT AND CREATION: PNEUMATOLOGY, GENESIS 1,

AND MODERN SCIENCE

The preceding chapter introduced the emergence of pneumatology in

the theology and science dialogue as a first step in thinking about pneu-
matological contributions to the philosophy and theology of nature. The
level of discussion there proceeded at an abstract level, understandably so
given not only the vagueness of the category of spirit but also since much
of the developments were focused specifically in the domain of physics
and field theory. Our strategy here will be to descend from the more spec-
ulative domain toward the particularities of the biblical traditions. This is
not to say that we will take leave of theological abstractions altogether;
it is to say that these more exploratory ventures will be disciplined in
some respects by our engagement with the biblical text, in particular with
Genesis 1.
Our reasons for taking up the Genesis account include the pneumato-
logical theme that is embedded therein, and this will be further clarified
shortly.1 For now, note the following threefold purpose in rereading the
creation narratives toward a pneumatological theology of nature. First,
I seek to highlights elements in the biblical text that are overlooked on
more traditional readings without doing violence to the text. Second, this
rereading of Genesis 1 anticipates unleashing the pneumatological sym-
bols hermeneutical power even while it enriches our understanding of
God as spirit. Finally, I expect the results to be consistent with the most
recent developments in the cosmological sciences even while it provides
us with a matching theological vision accompanied by more expansive
explanatory power especially with regard to the realms of ontology and
metaphysics. We proceed from biblical interpretation (3.1) to interaction
with the science of emergence (3.2) and with systems theory (3.3).

1My initial effforts along these lines were published as Ruach, the Primordial Waters,
and the Breath of Life: Emergence Theory and the Creation Narratives in Pneumatological
Perspective, in Michael Welker, ed., The Work of the Spirit: Pneumatology and Pentecostal-
ism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 183204. The following expands on those preliminary
considerations.
 spirit and creation 59

Before proceeding, however, I should register an important caveat: the

following neither presumes a concordist understanding of Genesis 1 and
modern science nor thinks such a presupposition to be viable either for
understanding the biblical text or for the theology and science discussion.
Concordism suggests that it is possible to map what the Genesis account
says with the results of modern science, but this presumes both an anach-
ronistic interpretation of scripture and a mistaken understanding of the
genre and purposes of the early chapters of the Bible.2 I do not believe
that the Bible is to be read as a textbook on matters of science, nor do I
think it tells us how God created the world. However, I do think that what
the Bible says will not contradict what the consensus of science tells us
about the processes of creation, and in that sense, I see the book of scrip-
ture (interpreted appropriately) and the book of nature (understood cor-
rectly by the sciences) as being complementary, if not convergent.3 Both
provide diffferent perspectives on the nature of the world. When in some
instances they appear to suggest contradictory notions, interpretations of
either or both could be in error. Yet it is also possible that, on occasion,
conflicting views provoke corrective courses of inquiry in either direction:
theological insights may initiate scientific hypotheses or scientific data
may lead to revisions of theological conclusions. So, to be sure, mine is a
theological and philosophical approach to an ancient text, an approach
now also informed by modern scientific perspectives beyond the horizon
of the ancient biblical authors. Yet rather than being primarily an attempt
to explicate what the original authors might have meant, the following
is instead an efffort to understand an ancient text in a vastly diffferent,
contemporary context, and to explore the complementarity between the
early creation narrative and modern science, as illuminated from a pneu-
matological perspective.

2While fault may be found with some of the details of the argument in this book, I
am by and large in agreement with the primary thesis of John H. Walton, The Lost World
of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers Grove: IVP Academic,
2009), which is that the first chapter of the Bible is about Gods purposes for creation
rather than being a scientific description of the how of Gods creative activity. For an
excellent overall argument against concordismboth its assumptions and methodssee
Denis O. Lamoureux, Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution (Eugene,
Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2008), esp. ch. 5.
3See my Reading Scripture and Nature: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and Their Implica-
tions for the Contemporary Evangelical Theology and Science Conversation, Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith 53:1 (2011): 113.
60 chapter three

3.1Spirit and the Creation Narrative

A pneumatological rereading of the creation narratives begins, of course,

with the Priestly account of the ruah Elohim (breath, wind, even storm of
God) which swept over the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2), continues with
the breath (nephesh) given to all living creatures (1:30), and culminates
(relatively speaking) with the Yahwist account of the Lord breathing
(naphach) specifically into ha adam the breath [nishmah] of life (Gen.
2:7).4 While a canonical reading of the creation narrative justifies connect-
ing the breath given to ha adam with the ruah Elohim especially in light
of Qohelets afffirmation that the dust returns to the earth as it was, and
the spirit [ruah] returns to God who gave it (Eccl. 12:7), there is no need
to read the divine ruah here as referring to the third person of the Trinity
since that would certainly be an anachronistic imposition upon this text.
At the same time, given the Christian testament witness to God as spirit
(cf. Jn. 4:24), a pneumatological rereading of Genesis 1 can proceed at least
along these lines. Within this framework, creation can be understood to
be thoroughly en-spirited by God.5 As such, not only does God create
all things through WordLet there be...and Spirit, but all things are
what they are as creatures of God precisely because they originate in the
divine Word spoken and uttered by the ruah of God.6
Before proceeding, however, what about those who would reject read-
ings of the creation narrative which accentuate the divine breath? Ger-
hard Von Rad claims that verse two and its reference to the divine breath
stands on its own concerning Gods activity over the chaotic elements, and
that the ruah elohim takes no more active part in creation.7 In response,

4I refer to Priestly (Gen. 1:12:3) and Yahwist (Gen. 2:425) accounts more because they
conveniently provide ways of identifying these complementary creation narratives than
because I buy into their associated redaction theories. These designations nevertheless
continue to persist as scholarly conventions, perhaps in part because no overarching the-
ory has emerged to displace Wellhausens documentary hypothesis. For brief discussion,
see Mark S. Smith, The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010), 23.
5This phrase is from Jay McDaniel, Where is the Holy Spirit Anyway? Response to a
Sceptic Environmentalist, Ecumenical Review 42:2 (1990): 16274.
6See Pannenbergs discussion on Cooperation of Son and Spirit in the Work of Cre-
ation, in Systematic Theology, vol. 2, trans. Geofffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994), 10915. For another pneumatological theology of the creation narratives, see D. Lyle
Dabney, The Nature of the Spirit: Creation as a Premonition of God, in Gordon Preece
and Stephen Pickard, eds., Starting with the Spirit: Task of Theology Today II (Adelaide,
Australia: Australia Theological Forum, Inc., and Openbook Publishers, 2001), 83110.
7Von Rad continues, The Old Testament nowhere knows of such a cosmological sig-
nificance for the concept of the spirit of God; Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary,
rev. ed., trans. John H. Marks (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1972), 4950.
 spirit and creation 61

while verse one certainly introduces the entire creation narrative, verse
two equally belongs at least to the activities of God on the first day.8 But,
von Rads sweeping generalization can be questioned as the Psalmist also
provides warrant for a pneumatological reading of the creation story: By
the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the
breath of his mouth (Ps. 33:6), and When you hide your face, they [the
animals] are dismayed; when you take away their breath, they die and
return to their dust. When you send forth your spirit, they are created;
and you renew the face of the ground (Ps. 104:2930). Of course, this
pneumato-theological account should then be understood not primarily
as a scientific treatise about the history of creation (notice the creation
of light, day and night and the appearance of terrestrial vegetation before
the calling forth of the sun and moon), but rather as a statement against
polytheism, astrological practices, and the pantheistic worship of nature
in its variations, all prevalent in the surrounding ancient Near Eastern cul-
tures.9 Having said this, rather than provide a verse-by-verse commentary
on the text, I will make a few overall observations about the movements
of the breath of God vis--vis the creation.
First, note that the creation in all its complexity flows from the pri-
meval chaos (tohuwabhohu).10 For good reason, then, the rabbis since at
least the time of Philo have understood the ruah elohim as the element
of creative fire, or the divine intellect that gives form to matter.11 In this

8Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah,
Genesis I-VI8, trans. Israel Abrahams (1961; reprint, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, The
Hebrew University, 1989), 1920; and Claus Westermann, Genesis 111: A Commentary, trans.
John J. Scullion, S.J. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 9497 and 10210.
9Thus, the Priestly writers insistence of the creaturely status of the sun and even light
itself reflects his concern with the ancient worship of the sun. Later biblical writers, how-
ever, would equate light with the divine itself; cf. 1 Jn. 1:5, 1 Tim. 6:16, Js. 1:17, and Ps. 104:12,
with Westerman, Genesis 111, 114.
10If verse one is understood as introductory to the entire narrative, then any specula-
tion about a primeval fall of angels, etc., between the first two verses is just that: specula-
tion read into the text rather than emergent from the text (see von Rad, Genesis, 5051).
Even the most recent and sophisticated argument for seeing the fall of angels in this cre-
ation accountStephen Webb, The Dome of Eden (Eugene, Ore.: Cascade Books, 2010)is
unconvincing to me; see my The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the
Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination, Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Grand Rapids and Cam-
bridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011), ch. 6, esp. 210n100.
11Peter Ochs, Genesis 12: Creation as Evolution, Living Pulpit 9:2 (Apr.June 2000):
810; quote from 9. See also Max Pulver, The Experience of the Pneuma in Philo, in
Joseph Campbell, ed., Spirit and Nature: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks, Bollingen Series
30.1, trans. Ralph Manheim (1954; reprint, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1982),
10721, who discusses Philos view of the pneuma as an intelligent cosmic principle. For
contemporary science and religion writers who have deployed the metaphor of fire to
62 chapter three

case, not only does the divine spirit restrain and reshape the primeval
chaos, but also this chaos is itself neither vacuum nor literal void. Of
course, those who afffirm the traditional doctrine of creatio ex nihilo would
understand the void to be purely chaotic and, hence, indeterminate and
in that sense indistinguishable from nothing.12 Yet the Priestly author
indicates that the ruah of God hovered not over pure nothing, but over
the waters.13 Better, then, to understand the primeval chaos to connote a
state of maximal plenitude, in which all things are churning, boiling, but
without the discrete unities and form that enable the stufff of this world
to obey laws and enter into networks of relationship.14 Referring not
only to the chaos of disorder and randomness (the void), but also to that
of overflowing plenitude (or plenum), tohuwabhohu arguably anticipates
also the chaos of modern science with its unpredictable and nonlinear
movement from simple perturbations of potentialities and possibilities to
complex outcomes.15 From this, the working of the breath of God pro-
ceeds to order or divide light from darkness, evening and morning, on

denote the spiritual or religious dimension that points to the secret order through which
God sustains the world, see George Johnson, Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search
for Order (New York: Knopf, 1995); Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations: Science Reli-
gion & Search For God (Philadelphia: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004); and Adam
Frank, The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 2009).
12For a more traditional defense of Genesis 1 as supporting the creation out of noth-
ing doctrine, see Paul Copan and William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Bibli-
cal, Philosophical, and Scientific Exploration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004). Those
who argue Genesis 1:2 supports instead a creation out of chaos include Jon D. Levenson,
Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (New York:
Harper & Row, 1987); Sjoerd L. Bonting, Chaos Theology: A Revised Creation Theology
(Ottawa, Canada: Novalis and St. Paul University Press, and Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third
Publications, 2002); and Catherine Keller, Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (New
York: Routledge, 2003).
13I agree with Westermann, Genesis 111, 10910, when he says that the debate between
creatio ex nihilo and creation out of chaos cannot be settled from Genesis 12. The Priestly
writer intended neither of these ideas which arose in Judaism much later when it wrestled
with Greek thought during the Intertestamental period. Yet, the primordial plenitudes
analogical parallel with nothingness is not only compatible with creation ex nihilo, but also
parallels the Buddhist doctrine of shunyata. I will return to this point later.
14Ochs, Genesis 12, 8; cf. Archie Lee Chi-Chung, Creation Narratives and the Move-
ment of the Spirit, in John C. England and Alan J. Torrance, eds., Doing Theology with
the Spirits Movement in Asia, ATESEA Occasional Papers 11 (Singapore: ATESEA, 1991),
1526, and for full length theological argumentation, James E. Huchingson, Pandemonium
Tremendum: Chaos and Mystery in the Life of God (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2001), esp.
chs. 56.
15See Trinh Xuan Thuan, Chaos and Harmony: Perspectives on Scientific Revolutions of
the Twentieth Century, trans. Alex Reisinger (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), ch. 3
on chaos.
 spirit and creation 63

the first day (vs. 45), and separate the upper and lower waters, and the
waters and the dry land, on the second day (vs. 67). We therefore see
the creation emerging from out of primordial chaos through processes of
division, distinction, differentiation, and particularization, beginning with
the separation of light from darkness and continuing in the separating out
of species of plants and types of animals, each in its own or after its own
kind (1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25).16 These primordial divisions have not only onto-
logical significance, but also epistemological and linguistic implications,
thus providing for the possibility of thought (the Logos) and of language
(the naming of things) as well.17
Second, note the interactivity and synergy between the divine and the
creation along with its creatures.18 There is not only the commandment
breathed out by and from God and the responsive performance of the
created order throughout the creation narrative, but at a few points, God
even seems to allow the creation to take the initiative. So, while in each
case God lets be or allows the creation to organize and produce, not in
all cases is the let there be... followed by the statement that God then
acted. Thus God actively makes the dome and separated the waters (1:6);
God makes the great lights and sets them in the skies (1:1617); God cre-
ates the great sea monsters and the birds of the sky (1:21); and God makes
the animals on the ground (1:25). However, in some cases, it should not be
overlooked that God creates by saying (emphases mine): Let the earth put
forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees...that bear fruit...
(1:11); Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures... (1:20); and
Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind... (1:24). In the
first and third case (but not the second), Gods command is followed by
an, And it was so, before indicating Gods response and activity. Further,

16Leon R. Kass, Evolution and the Bible: Genesis 1 Revisited, Commentary 86 (1988):
2939. For more on pneumatology and the distinctiveness, concreteness and particularity
of created things, see George Hendry, Theology of Nature (Philadelphia: The Westminster
Press, 1980), 16970, and Colin Gunton, The One, the Three, and the Many: God, Creation
and the Culture of Modernity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 180209.
17This point is made by Westermann, Genesis 111, 123, following Franz Delitzsch. See
also Alexei V. Nesteruk, Design in the Universe and the Logos of Creation: Patristic Syn-
thesis and Modern Cosmology, in Niels Henrik Gregersen and Ulf Grman, eds., Design
and Disorder: Perspectives from Science and Theology (London and New York: T & T Clark,
2002), 171202, esp. 198: all things are differentiated in creation and at the same time the
principle of their unity is that they are differentiated. In particular, it provides a common
principle for the unity of intelligible and sensible creation....
18Here, I have been greatly helped by Michael Welker, What is Creation? Rereading
Genesis 1 and 2, Theology Today 48 (1991): 5671; and Welker, Creation and Reality, trans.
John F. Hoffmeyer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999).
64 chapter three

on the third day, the dry land is allowed to appear and God proceeds only
then to call it Earth (1:910). Subsequently, the earth itself is said explic-
itly to bring forth vegetation (plants, fruits, and trees), and God responds
evaluatively, seeing and afffirming this to be good (1:1112).
This leads, third, to the observation that the text emphasizes, on the one
hand, God as reactiveseeing, naming and responding to creationand,
on the other, creations own environmental activity and agency in bring-
ing forth and (re)producing various heterogeneous forms of life-processes.
The creator-creature distinction certainly should not be blurredthat is,
in large part, the main point of the creation account. At the same time,
God also creates by calling forth the world as co-creator and enabling the
creation and its creatures to participate in the processes of production and
reproduction.19 Some would suggest that in this reading the debate over
evolution shifts to a diffferent plane since the created order is considered
not only to be fully gifted with evolutionary capacities from the begin-
ning, but also to be equipped to make whatever adjustments are needed
along the way.20 While this would reflect the unfathomable creativity and
resourcefulness of the divine wisdom, it would also be open to the charge
of deism unless (as I suggest here) creations work is set within a robust
pneumatological framework that preserves the ongoing creative activity
of God (creatio continua). The pneumatological hypothesis I am propos-
ing is that the processes of separation, diffferentiation, division, and dis-
tinction seen in the creation narrative reflects the character of the divine
spirit clearly articulated elsewhere in Scripture as the dynamic, particular-
izing, relational, and life-giving presence of God.21 To develop this thesis,
I will show how the rereading of Genesis 1 suggested above is compatible
with and even complementary to theories of emergence which have been
formulated in the sciences over the past few generations.

19Including humankind, as wonderfully portrayed by Philip Hefner, The Human Factor:

Evolution, Culture, and Religion (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1993), esp. ch. 2, titled
A Theology of the Created Co-Creator.
20E.g., Howard Van Til, The Fully Gifted Creation (Theistic Evolution), in J.P. More-
land and John Mark Reynolds, eds., Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 159218.
21These categories are not, of course, entirely absent from the creation narrative. I
develop the biblical background in Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in
Trinitarian Perspective (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and
Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002), ch. 1.
 spirit and creation 65

3.2Spirit and Emergence

Two stages of emergence theory should be clearly demarcated. The for-

mer, developed primarily during the first half of the twentieth century,
attempted to provide a theory of the evolution of mind from material and
biological life. Representative at this stage was Lloyd Morgans (18521936)
thesis, advanced over two courses of Giffford Lectures from 19221923.22
Morgan suggested that the creations processes of development had pro-
ceeded through a series of qualitative leaps (anticipating later theories
of punctuated equilibrium) toward increasing complexitywhat he
called emergent evolution23culminating in human beings with men-
tal capacities at the apex (at least so far) of the evolutionary pyramid.
In the process, Morgan also retrieved and pressed into service the then
not-widely known concept of supervenience.24 What this referred to was
new kinds of relatednessnew terms in new relationshitherto not in
beingemergent in the evolutionary process.25 For Morgan, such super-
venient relationships could be seen in lifes various forms, mentality, and
even the divine life and mind. Thus, deity is also understood as a quality
supervenient on reflective consciousness: For better or worse, I acknowl-
edge God as the Nisus through whose Activity emergents emerge, and the
whole course of emergent evolution is directed.26 As such, the process of
emergencefrom atoms to molecules to solids to life to mindincludes,
finally, spirit.

22Lloyd C. Morgan, Emergent Evolution: The Giffford Lectures Delivered in the University
of St. Andrews in the Year 1922 (New York: Henry Holt and Company, and London: Wil-
liams and Norgate Ltd., 1927), and Life, Mind, and Spirit, Being the Second Course of The
Giffford Lectures Delivered in the University of St Andrews in the Year 1923 under the General
Title of Emergent Evolution (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1926). Morgans dialogue
partners were Samuel Alexander, Henri Bergson, C.D. Broad, John Dewey, Albert Einstein,
J.H. Haldane, William James, Henri Poincar, Bertrand Russell, Wilfrid Sellars, Alfred North
Whitehead, and Wilhelm Wundt, among others.
23As Philip Clayton notes, by this Morgan thought he had identified a new kind of evo-
lutionary process; in hindsight, however, it is better to talk not about emergent evolution
but about emergence in evolution. See Clayton, Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to
Consciousness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 85.
24Supervenience appears to have first entered philosophical and theological literature
with Leibniz. For an overview of its history, see the essay, Supervenience as a philosophi-
cal concept, in Jaegwon Kim, Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 13160. This concept plays an ever-increasingly
important role in contemporary philosophy of mind (see ch. 4).
25Morgan, Emergent Evolution, 19.
26Morgan, Emergent Evolution, 36. Shades of Teilhard de Chardin (see 2.1) should not
be surprising, as Morgan and de Chardin were working within the same intellectual era.
66 chapter three

The problem with the emergentism of Morgan and others during

this time was its being constrained (still) by the late nineteenth century
debates between vitalism with its invocation of quasi-theistic inputs into
the evolutionary process and mechanism with its naturalistic presupposi-
tions. As such, advances in quantum mechanics and molecular biology
have called into question many of the details of the early twentieth cen-
tury emergentist project.27 Nevertheless, the more recent revival of emer-
gence theories stands on the shoulders of Morgan, et al., in the attempt to
find a way to talk not only about the appearance of life and mind in the
evolutionary process, but also about the emergence of order and complex-
ity in general.
It is in this latter domain that fresh proposals that understand emer-
gence in terms of realities whose properties are configurations and struc-
tures of wholes rather than of their individual parts have inundated the
contemporary scientific landscape. Building on the work of Morgan and
others (in particular, Joseph Needham), scientist-theologian Arthur Pea-
cocke has formulated a taxonomy of the origins of living things in eight
stagesfrom self-reproducing organic systems active cell-like bacteria
and blue-green algae divided nuclei like flagellates and other proto-
zoa multicellular and cell-diffferentiated organisms like sponges, fungi
and algae diffferentiated systems of organs/tissues like coelenterates,
flatworms and higher plants organized central nervous system with
developed limbs and sense organs as in anthropods and vertebrates
homoiothermic metabolistic mammals and conscious planners like
homo sapiens28while biologist Max Pettersson has identified nine major
levels of emergence: fundamental particles (1) atoms (2) molecules
(3) intermediate entities, centered on chromosomes (4) ordinary
cells with nuclei (5) multicellular organisms (6) one-mother family
societies (7) multifamily societies (8) societies of sovereign states (9).29
Each level is composed of entities at the next lower level (except the low-
est level), of which some bond together to constitute an entity at the next
higher level (except the highest level). More recently the notion has also

27Brian P. McLaughlin, The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism, in Ansgar Becker-
mann, Hans Flohr and Jaegwon Kim, eds., Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects
of Nonreductive Physicalism (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 4993, esp.
5455.
28Arthur Peacocke, God and the new Biology (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986); see
the appendix on Thermodynamics and Life, 13360.
29Max Pettersson, Complexity and Evolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1996).
 spirit and creation 67

been popularized, with sience writers like Steven Johnson following emer-
gence from the bottom-up: from ants to colonies; from brains to minds;
from persons to neighborhoods and cities; and even from software to the
artificial emergence of the World Wide Web, etc.30
Even more extensively elaborated is the classification of biologist
and longtime researcher on complexity, Harold Morowitz. Twenty-eight
steps of emergence of wholes from antecedent parts, and irreducible to
those parts, are distinguished:

1.something from nothing (the big bang)

2.the nonuniform universe
3.the stars
4.the periodic table of elements
5.solar systems
6.planetary structures
7.geospheres
8.metabolism (the biosphere)
9.cells
10.cells with organelles
11.multicellularity
12.neurons and neural networks
13.animalness
14.chordateness
15.vertebrates
16.fish-amphibians
17.reptiles
18.mammals
19.arboreal (niches and niched) mammals
20.primates
21.great apes
22.hominids
23.toolmaking
24.language
25.agriculture
26.technology
27.philosophy
28.spirit

30Steven Johnson, Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software
(New York: Scribner, 2001).
68 chapter three

For Morowitz, emergence at each level is characterized by unpredictabil-

ity, even while what emerges is foundational for the next emergent level
(in retrospect) and adds something new to the universe which cannot be
explained in terms of its constitutive parts.31
The preceding overview implies that at the step level of emergence
theory, ongoing research can produce in the infinite long run an indefi-
nite number of emergent realities, each more complex than the preced-
ing. It is therefore at the conceptual level that these proposals are most
relevant for our purposes. Not only does emergence theory emphasize the
whole as greater than the sum of the parts and as irreducible to them, it
also may illuminate the processes from the evolutionary primeval chaos
to complexity, from relative disorder to increasing order. The primeval
chaos, insofar as existent in some way, could only be if ordered, even in
some miniscule level (complete disorder would be equivalent to indeter-
minate nothingness), according to some organizing features and energetic
inputs.
John Hollands research on simple and complex systems explores pre-
cisely these issues. Complexity theorists generally agree that a small
number of rules or laws can generate systems of surprising complexity.32
Holland shows that localized activity in a system exposed to prolonged
interconnections with other systems both build indefinite memory and
make possible, if not probable, the re-organization and transformation of
the original system. In some cases, because emergence is dynamic, small
fluctuations or changes governed or constrained at the beginning by a
succinct list of rules or laws can complexify greatly over time and lead
to radically diffferent resulting states or outcomes. These chaotic systems
(including even that of the primeval chaos?!) which exhibit ever increas-
ingly complex patterns of transformation would then be systems of activ-
ity governed by laws which complexify exponentially as they proceed
up the levels of emergence. Further, emergent phenomena are dynamic

31Harold J. Morowitz, The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Ch. 32 on the emergence of spirit takes a basically
Teilhardian interpretation, thus conceiving of spirit in terms of the present and future of
the evolutionary process, rather than being involved in what has emerged so far. See also
Morowitz, Emergence of Transcendence, in Niels Henrik Gregersen, ed., From Complex-
ity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003),
17786.
32John H. Holland, Emergence: From Chaos to Order (Reading, Mass.: Helix Books,
1998), 3. Holland is professor of psychology, electrical engineering, and computer science
at the University of Michigan, and also author of Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds
Complexity (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1995).
 spirit and creation 69

patterns or codes including even changing pieces and components, and

this in unpredictable directions. Their environments may shape both their
functions and their trajectories, but because interactions of emergent pat-
terns enables increasing competence, their evolution operates according
to laws of probability rather than deterministically.33 Finally, because
wholes are greater than the sum of their parts, emergence theory not
only allows but also leads inevitably to what classical mechanics could not
entertain: the possibility and even reality of causation proceeding from
the top down, from wholes to the varying levels of parts they envelop.
From all of this, it is clear that the evolutionary process is driven by the
interactivity of various dissipative (open rather than closed or isolated)
systems or environments, each exchanging codified information with
other systems, resulting in the potential emergence of ever-increasingly
complex and systemic wholes.
Against this backdrop, the value of emergence theory for a pneuma-
tological theology of nature can begin to be delineated. Charles Raven,
himself a contemporary of Morgan, saw the emergence thesis intersecting
with the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Yet he introduced an impor-
tant modification to Morgans theory such that spirit is not emergent
only at the end of the evolutionary process, but rather sustains the pro-
cesses of creative integration altogether. Sure, the supreme experience of
such unity is life in the Spirit.34 However, supreme signals a diffference
of degree, not of kind. Put in more contemporary idiom, if emphasis is
placed on the working of the divine spirit from below, then emergent pro-
cesses are those in which a complex set of relations is transformed not
in a monohierarchical way, but in a divine working on many individual
constellations and relations simultaneously. In emergent processes they
are freed to interact with each other in surprisingly new ways and to bring
forth complex new constellations.35

33The rate of emergence would be unpredictable, given the nonlinearity of exchange

involved. As James Gleick, Chaos: Making a New Science (New York: Viking, 1987), has
shown, whereas in classical physics, diffferences in input were correlated (in a one-to-one
manner) with diffferences in output, in the new chaos theory, diffferences in input produce
exponential diffferences in output. The result is that while simple systems behaved simply
in classical science, simple systems give rise to complex behavior and complex systems can
give rise to simple behavior in chaos theory.
34Charles E. Raven, The Creator Spirit: A Survey of Christian doctrine in the Light of Biol-
ogy, Psychology and Mysticism (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1928), 88.
35Michael Welker, in his dialogue with John Polkinghorne, in Polkinghorne and
Welker, Faith in the Living God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 97. See also Welkers
70 chapter three

Emergence theory therefore intersects with the pneumatological

rereading of the creation narrative. Can we say loosely, following Pan-
nenberg, that the creation is a field of the divine spirits presence and
activity, itself constituted by, from the viewpoint of Genesis 1:2 onwards,
ascending levels or fields of complexity? Is there an overarching paral-
lel between the processes from the primeval chaos (tohuwabhohu) to the
emergence of humankind and the evolutionary process as hypothesized
by emergence theory? Granted, the creation narratives provide neither a
strict chronological account nor a rigorous scientific description. Yet does
not its testimony to the interactivity between God and creation on the one
hand, and between the varying orders and domains of creation itself on
the other, provide complementary perspectives on the holism uncovered
by emergence theory? Can the various domains called and brought forth
in the creation narrative be further explicated or specified in terms of the
complex fields of interactions posited by emergence theory? How might
the interchanges both vertically (between God and creation) and hori-
zontally (within creation itself) be illuminated even further by advances
made in the areas of dynamics as detailed in classical and quantum field
theory or of systems interrelatedness research as developed in contem-
porary systems theory? What is encouraging, of course, is that quantum
field theory and systems theory are two sides of explanation concerning
the micro- and macro-worlds respectively. In what follows, I propose to
further our investigation by bringing systems theory explicitly into the
conversation.36

3.3Spirit, Systems Theory, and Divine Activity

I suggest that if emergence theory attempts to follow the movements

of the breath of God from the primordial chaos toward complexity, sys-
tems theory may provide an enriched account of the divine spirit as the
field that envelops the various levels or orders of creation.37 Combining

extensive work in pneumatology: The Holy Spirit, Theology Today 46 (1989): 520, and
God the Spirit, trans. John F. Hofffmeyer (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).
36Connections between field theory and systems theory are overviewed in Diarmuid
OMurchu, M.S.C., Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics (New York:
Crossroad, 1997), 6672, and Rupert Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past (New York: Times
Books, 1988). The work of Joseph Bracken, S.J., to which I will return later (8.2), is also
pertinent to this question.
37In other words, my pneumatological reading of nature in dialogue with science
is neutral with regard to which theory is finally decided to provide a better ultimate
explanation of how things are. Here, I follow Michael Heller, Creative Tension: Essays on
 spirit and creation 71

emergence with systems theory with the pneumatological rereading of

Genesis 1 may advance Pannenbergs intuition that a pneumatological
theology of nature developed in dialogue with field theory enables the
overcoming of a dualistic and static substance metaphysics no longer
viable for our time.
Systems theory has emerged largely over the last two generations in the
work of Ervin Laszlo and his contemporaries.38 Its central concepts can be
conveniently summarized. First, systems can be classified hierarchically as
suborganic (atomic and quantum), organic (cells and persons), and even
superorganic (groups) fields or wholes with properties that are irreduc-
ible to their parts considered separately. As hierarchically conceived, each
system is constituted by sub-systems (and so on, down) and is in turn a
constituent of a larger system (and so on, up).
Second, systems are self-maintaining and self-stabilizing in a chang-
ing environment, and self-creative and self-organizing in response to its
environment. The relationship between any system and its environment
can be described as involving feedback loops wherein inputs are received
from the environment and decisions made (outputs) that in turn impact
the environment. Going beyond the one-way causal relations of classical
mechanics, these feedback processes involve the exchanging, decoding/
encoding, memorizing (or retaining), forgetting (or discarding), con-
verting, reproducing, channeling, and distributing of matter/energy and
information.39
Third, mind represents the cognitive domain of any system which
governs its capacity to organize itself according to certain patterns, to

Science and Religion (Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2003), esp.
the very helpful ch. 2, On Theological Interpretations of Physical Creation Theories (esp.
1315), where he suggests that this is the better route to go rather than to univocally equate
a theological idea with a specific scientific theory.
38See Ervin Laszlo, The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New
Developments in the Sciences (New York: George Braziller, 1972); Introduction to Systems
Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary Thought (1972; reprint, New York:
Harper Torchbooks, 1973); and A Strategy for the Future: The Systems approach to World
Order (New York: George Braziller, 1974).
39Recognizing here the anthropomorphic language applied to the self-organizing pro-
cesses of systems. See Paul Cilliers, Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Com-
plex Systems (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), esp. 9193; cf. also John A. Dillon,
Jr., Foundations of General Systems Theory (Seaside, Calif.: Intersystems Publications, 1983),
ch. 11, on living systems, and Roger Lewin, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), ch. 2, on biological systems. On the one-way cau-
sality of classical mechanics versus the multi-directional causality of the new physics, see
Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment (Cambridge, Mass.,
and London: Harvard University Press, 2000), 99105.
72 chapter three

behave in line with its codes of functionality, and to exchange informa-

tion with its environment. Laszlo explores the ontological framework of
systems as irreducibly mental and physical, to be understood bi-perspec-
tivally as both natural and cognitive. The latter dimension establishes
the epistemic framework for any systems interactivity and adaptability
beyond objectivistic dualism or subjectivistic solipsism. Systems are in
constant perceptual, aesthetic, and more-or-less reasonableinvolving,
that is, the exchange of informationinteraction with their environ-
ments. In human systems, of course, freedom becomes a central mode of
such interactions.
Finally, the relationship between a system and its environment is akin
to the criss-crossing force fields of classical field theory which can produce
either the kinds of fluctuations leading toward entropy on the one hand
or stable patterns of interactions leading perhaps to the (gradual or sud-
den, depending on whether or not these are chaotic systems) emergence
of complexity on the other. Together, the emergence of systems theory
denotes a shift from quantitative to qualitative explanation, from parts to
wholes, from objects to relationships, from substances to patterns.
In each case, complementaries can be discerned with the reading of the
creation narrative sketched above that builds on Pannenbergs synthesis
of pneumatology and field theory. First, the hierarchy of systems finds its
theological counterpart in the creation narratives portrayal of the emer-
gence of plants, animals, and human beings from the earth. Not only does
each system includes elements contributed by lower systems, all systems
are interrelated and interdependent, each with its own important role
and function in relationship to the others. Here, the theme of the divine
spirit as the relational field which energizes and organizes the systemic
interconnections of the creation comes to the fore. In the words of Jrgen
Moltmann, All things are created in order to reflect Gods life, beauty,
and community. The spirit of God fills the earth and holds all things
together. This is the creation-community. Gods creation is a community
of creatures. Each creature in its own way participates and contributes
to the rich and colorful community. The universe is not a monarchical
pyramid..., but rather a covenanted, democratic community, consisting
of living beings and environments.40

40Jrgen Moltmann, Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology,
in M. Douglas Meeks, ed., Trinity, Community, and Power: Mapping Trajectories in Wesleyan
Theology (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2000), 11125; quote from 125.
 spirit and creation 73

Second, creations systems are not only interconnected, but they are
also open to each other in real self-transcending ways. More precisely, in
the creation narrative, the worlds creatures are open both horizontally
to one another in terms of cosmological interrelations and vertically to
(the breath of) God in terms of the ontological grounding and teleologi-
cal direction of creation as a whole. God not only creates and calls forth,
but also interactively responds to, names, directs (commands), and eval-
uates. Can it be hypothesized from a pneumato-theological perspective
that apart from this latter ontological and teleological relationship, the
world would be a closed system constrained by the entropic processes
of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? I will return to this question in
a moment.
Third, and building from the second, is not the discernible presence of
mind in creation complementary with the rabbinic understanding of the
divine ruah as the worlds creative intellect? Even granting the anthro-
pomorphic language, the fact is that in both theology and science we are
dealing with models and metaphors for understanding reality. And insofar
as mind or mentality signifies both distinctions, differentiations, and divi-
sions on the one hand, and organization, patterns, codes, and the flow of
information on the other, and insofar as there is a complementarity of
the creation narratives and contemporary systems theory, to that extent,
a pneumatological reading of Genesis 1 shows itself to be illuminating.
Finally, creations systemic openness implies as well its intrinsic
openendedness. In the creation narratives, this openendedness is signified
especially in the dynamic relationships of the worlds emergent processes,
producing unpredictable emergences on the one hand and entropic waste
on the other amidst the created orders struggle for stabilization and equi-
librium. Entropic processes are implicit in the ambiguity of the primordial
chaos (tohuwabhohu), the darkness separated out from the light on the
first day, the continued presence of darkness each night, the transitionary,
uncertain, and unpredictable periods of each evening and morning,41 and
the indeterminate and unfinished character of humankind (of which more
will be said in the next chapter). In this way, the outcome of the story
remains to be told. From a pneumatological perspective, this opens up
to the eschatological vision of the Spirits final work of ushering in the

41This is pointed out by Robert Sacks, The Lion and the Ass: A Commentary on the
Book of Genesis (Chapters 110), Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 8:23
(1980): 29101, esp. 36.
74 chapter three

reign of Godanother central biblical themewhich completes and ful-

fills the divine project of creation and recreation.42
Of course, from the perspective of science, this correlative reading of
pneumatology, the creation narrative, emergence theory, and systems
theory opens up other questions. Three sets of related issues are espe-
cially pertinent to this project. First, does not systems theory lose the indi-
vidual in the whole? This is the question raised by those who see systems
theory as an ideology that totalizes and marginalizes, that mechanizes
and systematizes subjectivity, and that bureaucratizes social problems
and issues.43 An initial response is that an emphasis on concrete rather
than large-scale systems actually could counter this potential misuse and
abuse of systems theory, even while it would resonate with postmodern
emphases on the particular. Theological resources could point to the par-
ticularity of created things emergent from the processes of separation,
division, and diffferentiation so clearly enunciated in the Genesis account.
Following from the point made earlier, the creator spirits universal pres-
ence cannot and should not neglect or under-emphasize the divine spirits
particularizing activity. Within a broader theological account, of course,
the creation as the field of the Spirit does not imply that particular fields
of the Gods presence and activitye.g., in the person and work of Christ
and the body of Christdo not exist or are unimportant.
The second question is more momentous. Is the optimism of emergent
evolution, systems theory, and a pneumatological theology of creation
undermined by the laws of entropy? Put in terms of the Second Law of
Thermodynamicswhich stipulates that in any isolated system far from
equilibrium, disorder either increases or remains the samehow can gen-
uine emergence occur when systems seek homeostasis and equilibrium
above all else?44 Is there not a contradiction between the nonreversible,

42See my The Spirit of Creation, esp. chs. 34, for a more complete argument.
43E.g., Robert Lilienfeld, The Rise of Systems Theory: An Ideological Analysis (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1978).
44See esp. M. Hossein Partovi, Entropy and Quantum Mechanics, and H.D. Zeh,
Quantum Measurements and Entropy, both in Wojciech H. Zurek, ed., Complexity,
Entropy and the Physics of Information: The Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Complex-
ity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information Held MayJune, 1989, in Santa Fe, New Mexico,
Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity 8 (Redwood City, Calif., and Read-
ing, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), 35666 and 40522 respectively;
also N. Katherine Hayles, Making the Cut: The Interplay of Narrative and System, or What
Systems Theory Cant See, in William Rasch and Cary Wolfe, eds., Observing Complex-
ity: Systems Theory and Postmodernity (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota
Press, 2000), 13762.
 spirit and creation 75

linear process of evolutionmuch less that of the eschatological direc-

tion of creation anticipating the reign of Godand the reversible, non-
linear, and interrelational processes that are at work in chaos, systems,
and quantum field theories? This opens up, of course, to the perplexing
question regarding the nature of time, among other things.
Responses to this set of questions need to proceed at a variety of lev-
els. First, the distinction needs to be made between closed and isolated
systems versus open systems. If the Second Law is limited to the former
and not necessarily the latter, then there could be pockets of evolutionary
emergence within space-time even if the universe as a whole is subject to
the laws of entropy. Yet on the cosmic scale, even an open and expanding,
universe is anticipated to result in a cold death.45 Second, and related to
the first, even if the field of entropy is universal, knowledge of that fact
is information that recognizes, identifies, and at least in those senses if
not others, introduces order into the same universe, thus resisting entro-
py.46 If measurements at the quantum level leading to the collapse of
the wave function include the observers interactions as part of the pro-
duction of knowledge, then a subjective process of information increase
occurs alongside the objective processes of thermodynamic entropy. This
allows for consideration of the Anthropic Principlethat the universe is
so finely tuned to have allowed the emergence of conscious creatures like
ourselvesas a parallel or perhaps superior trajectory within the universe
if not pertaining to it as a whole.47 It also makes eminent sense from a
theological perspective, of course, since the Christian faith understands
the universe as a whole to be open to God who transcends it and the
Second Law, and whose observations of and interactions with the world
serve as inputs of at least informationthe divine spirits intellective
and creative presencewhich direct the world toward the coming reign
of God.48

45Robert P. Kirshner, The Extravagant Universe: Exploding Stars, Dark Energy and the
Accelerating Cosmos (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).
46This is the intriguing argument of Arie S. Issar and Robert G. Colodny, From Primeval
Chaos to Infinite Intelligence: On Information as a Dimension and on Entropy as a Field of
Force (Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1995).
47Most extensively presented in John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, The Anthropic
Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, and Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1986).
48Put in terms of chaos theory: High energy input at first increases randomness and
chance, that is, chaos. Chaos may lead to previously undetermined possibilities. Sometimes
a bifurcation point is reached. At this point the system may disintegrate into further chaos.
Or it may leap to a new, more diffferentiated and higher level of order. The fluctuating
76 chapter three

Finally, however, going in this direction assumes that the universe

is moving irreversibility toward a divinely appointed endthe reign of
Godthus negating the possibility of reverse movements toward the
hypothesized Big Crunch or Cold Death. Here, of course, emergence
theory re-enters the picture, converging with the work of physicists
and theologians exploring time as irreversible within the framework of
the Anthropic Principle.49 Certainly, there are physical and theological-
religious theories which support the notion of time either as set within the
framework of eternality, if not defending the reversibility thesis itself
e.g., McTaggarts B-series or Einsteinian relativity theory on the one hand,
and neo-Platonic or Brahmanic theories of time as the moving image of
eternity on the other; there are also, however, temporalist options in both.
We will return to this question later (see 9.2). For now I simply note
that pneumatology itself invites consideration of an eschatological and
teleological perspective on the direction of the cosmos which counters
the entropy that otherwise threatens the world.50 This would be a spe-
cifically theological position that is informed by, albeit not limited to, the
mathematical predictions regarding the end of the world prevalent across
the most recent cosmological sciences.
Responses to these first two sets of questions moves us from emergence
theory, and its emphasis on bottom-up causality (the dominant model
in the classical framework), to the question regarding the possibility of
top-down causality. This would certainly be an issue within a theistic

chaos becomes the source out of which new order emerges.... In short, chaos in an open
system can be creative; see Ted Peters, God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in
Divine Life (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 160. For more on systems, mea-
surements, outside observers, minds, and God, see Stephen M. Barr, Modern Physics and
Ancient Faith (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003), ch. 24, and Wolfgang
Smith, The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key (Peru, Ill.: Sherwood Sugden & Com-
pany, 1995), ch. 6. Cf. also the essays of Arthur Peacocke, Chance and Law in Irreversible
Thermodynamics, Theoretical Biology, and Theology, Polkinghorne, The Metaphysics of
Divine Action, and Jrgen Moltmann, Reflections on Chaos and Gods Interaction with
the World from a Trinitarian Perspective, all in Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy and
Arthur R. Peacocke, eds., Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action
(Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theol-
ogy and the Natural Sciences, 1995), 12343, 14756, and 20510 respectively.
49E.g., esp. Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physi-
cal Sciences (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1980), and Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle
Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Mans New Dialogue with Nature (Toronto: Bantam Books,
1984).
50On this point, see also the pneumatological argument by David Bradnick, A Pen-
tecostal Perspective on Entropy, Emergent Systems, and Eschatology, Zygon: Journal of
Science and Religion 43, no. 4 (2008): 92542.
 spirit and creation 77

perspective, even if some theologians fear that such talk of Gods top-
down causation or action in the world objectivizes the divine to the
point of reducing the divine spirit to just another agent within the uni-
verse. Further, how can we talk scientifically about the cosmos receipt
of information/energy from outside since we are unable to observe and
thereby quantify such exchanges? The problems here revolve around the
question of whether or not science can identify any kind of causal joint
with regard to Gods action in the world.51 While these important cau-
tions should be heeded, they do not mean that reflection on this issue is
no longer important, especially given the pneumatological motifs we are
concerned to explore.
Here, the concept of supervenience introduced earlier in the emer-
gentism of Lloyd Morgan and refined since may have something to offfer.
In more recent discussion, supervenience theory as it has made its way
into moral reflection and philosophy of mind has been more precisely
defined: a set of properties A supervenes on another set of properties B
if and only if two identical objects with B properties are also identical
or indiscernible with regard to their A properties. The following three
features of this definition of supervenience are noteworthy. First, mental
facts or events A are dependent upon physical facts or events B, but not
reducible to them. As such, mental events (supervenient A properties) can
be correlated with physical events (subvenient B properties) in such a way
that changes in the latter produce changes afffecting the former. However,
second, this nonreductive dependence relationship avoids the Cartesian
dualism of mind and brain even while afffirming the central claims of sys-
tems theory that the whole is greater than the parts. Finally, then, emer-
gent mental events A behave in such a way as to be able to influence
physical events B in turn. Hence, given a certain level of development,
emergent minds are not only influenced by brain and neural events but
also can afffect them.
My interests in contemporary supervenience theory are driven by the
motivation to find a coherent way to talk about the possibility of top-down

51I have taken up such questions at some length in my articles, The Spirit at Work
in the World: A Pentecostal-Charismatic Perspective on the Divine Action Project,
Theology & Science 7:2 (2009): 12340, and How Does God Do What God Does? Pente-
costal-Charismatic Perspectives on Divine Action in Dialogue with Modern Science, in
Amos Yong and James K.A. Smith, eds., Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Engagement
with the Sciences (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2010), 5071, while develop-
ing an eschatological or teleological theory of divine action. See also The Spirit of Creation,
chs. 34.
78 chapter three

causation. For some theologians, application of the supervenience model

to this issue represents a significant advance from talking about divine
action either in terms of mystery or in terms of laws of nature that are cur-
rently unknown to us.52 These theological intuitions, however, capture an
essential insight into the motivations of those exploring models for under-
standing top-down causality: the conviction that in principle, at least,
dualistic models and the empiricism of classical mechanics cannot finally
explain aspects of personhood like consciousness (mental references),
intentionality, promise-making, caring, and mental causation.53 Further,
contrary to the failed attempts of utilitarians to quantify the realm of eth-
ics and morality, the idea of normative obligations also cannot finally be
reduced to biological and brain phenomena.54 In these arenas of mental
causation and ethical activity, there is no one-to-one correspondence that
connects mental phenomena with brain phenomena. Those in quest of
laws explaining the relationship between supervenient properties (mental
states) and subvenient realities (brain states) have neither the conceptual
nor mathematical tools to pull offf the reduction simply because knowledge
required to explicate such reduction is necessarily infinite.55 On the other

52John Polkinghorne, Chaos Theory and Divine Action, in W. Mark Richardson and
Wesley J. Wildman, eds., Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue (New York and
London: Routledge, 1996), 24352.
53Philip Clayton, Neuroscience, the Person, and God: An Emergentist Account, in
Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, Theo C. Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib, eds., Neu-
roscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory Publications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,
1999), 181214, esp. 18889. See also Theo C. Meyering, Reduction and Explanation in the
Mind/Brain Sciences, CTNS Bulletin 19:1 (1999): 512, who argues for the autonomy of the
psychological sciences to get at mind and cognition as domains ontologically distinct from
that of the brain.
54Nancey Murphy, Supervenience and the Nonreducibility of Ethics to Biology, in
Robert John Russell, William R. Stoeger, S.J., and Francisco J. Ayala, eds., Evolutionary
and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory Publications, and Berkeley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,
1998), 46389. Also, Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Per-
spectives on Science, Religion, and Ethics (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997), ch. 10, and
Nancey Murphy and George F.R. Ellis, On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cos-
mology, and Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).
55See Jim Baggott, The Meaning of Quantum Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992), 178. More explicitly, as Daniel Bonevac explains, psychophysical laws are such
only in the mind of God; they may not be expressible in any humanly learnable lan-
guage. Supervenient causation...requires necessary biconditionals linking properties
of the supervening level to properties of the base level.... [T]hey require necessary
biconditionals [which] may require a language with infinitely long sentences; the
infinite disjunctions involved, reflect multiple realizability.... The psychophysical
laws this strategy generates, therefore, may not be expressible in any finite, recur-
 spirit and creation 79

side, of course, reductionists counter with the suggestion that the issue
is epistemice.g., the connections are indecipherable simply because
their complexity has not yet been unraveled by current researchnot
that there are emergent or nonreducible diffferences between the mental
and the physical which are ineliminable with further research.56 There
are related concerns that recourse to supervenience ideas in philosophy
of mind is parallel to intelligent design arguments that ultimately reflect
a questionable God of the gaps position.
The issue at hand, of course, is that of divine presence and activity,
more specifically that of the ruah of God which is said to have swept
over the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2). Discussion on this matter toward
developing a pneumatological theology of nature has raised the possibil-
ity of downward causation and has in turn brought us into the thickets of
philosophy of mind. I propose to explore further this question, then, by
turning to a discussion of philosophical and theological anthropology in
pneumatological perspective.

sively generated language. If we think of laws as relations between properties, then

supervenient causation..., applied to the mind-body problem, yield psychophysical
laws. If we think of laws as sentences of a humanly learnable language, however, they
do not yield such laws.
See Bonevac, Reduction in the Mind of God, in Elias E. Savellos and mit D. Yalin, eds.,
Supervenience: New Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 12439, quote
from 137.
56The most persistent and articulate being Jaegwon Kim, The Non-Reductivists
Troubles with Mental Causation, in John Heil and Alfred Mele, eds., Mental Causation
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 189210; The Myths of Nonreductive Materialism, in
Richard Warner and Tadeusz Szubka, eds., The Mind-Body Problem: A Guide to the Current
Debate (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1994), 24260; Downward Causation
in Emergentism and Nonreductive Physicalism, in Ansgar Beckermann, Hans Flohr and
Jaegwon Kim, eds., Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physi-
calism (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 11938; and Kim, Supervenience
and Mind, esp. 14060.
 CHAPTER FOUR

SPIRIT AND HUMAN NATURE: THE BREATH OF LIFE, GENESIS 12,

AND THE NEUROSCIENCES

So far in this part of the book we have moved from a more general discus-
sion of the role of pneumatology in the theology and science dialogue to a
more specific consideration of a pneumatological reading of the creation
narratives in light of modern science. The preceding discussion has thus
focused more broadly on the cosmological question related to the doc-
trine of creation (for the more theologically inclined) or to the philoso-
phy and theology of nature (for the more scientifically interested). Along
the way, I have suggested that a pneumatological reading of Genesis 1
provides complementary perspectives on what the sciences of emergence
and systems theory say about the nature of an evolutionary world. From
a theological perspective, one might say that such a cosmos is alive with
the divine breath, although from a scientific point of view one should be
rightly wary about of the vitalist implications of such theological language
and rhetoric.1
Building on the preceding discussion, three related paths of inquiry
converge in the following discussion. First, a pneumatological reading of
divine presence in the creation of the world (Genesis 1) leads to further
inquiry about divine presence in human createdness. Second, the ques-
tion about the possibility of divine causation within a top-down model
of causality has led to issues in the philosophy of mind which we hope
the discussion of human personhood and neuroscientific and psychologi-
cal approaches to the mind-body relation can further illuminate. Finally,
of course, the overarching quest in this volume to explore the Christian-
Buddhist-science trialogue by way of pneumatology should not be

1Vitalism refers to the early twentieth century idea that living organisms were
imbued with a life principle distinct and apart from their biological and biochemical reac-
tions; biologists, especially, were rightly concerned that such beliefs, which they saw as
connected with theistic apologists, threatened to undermine their work. For further dis-
cussion of the issues, see Peter J. Bowler, Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in
Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press,
2001), 16677.
 spirit and human nature 81

forgotten. We proceed from biblical interpretation (4.1) through neuro-

scientific commentary (4.2) toward synthesis (4.3).
I should clarify that our goal here is not to resolve major issues in phi-
losophy of mind or the cognitive sciences such as what some have called
the hard problem of consciousness.2 I do think that over the course of
this volume as a whole, some theological headway indeed may be made
on this topic, particularly in dialogue with our Buddhist interlocutors. For
now, however, my more limited objective is simply to bring pneumato-
logical perspectives into dialogue with the cognitive sciences, as mediated
through a contemporary reading of the biblical text. Might the cognitive
sciences illuminate what the author of Genesis calls the breath of life and
might pneumatological perspectives on human nature similarly provide
insights into the mysterious nature of human mind and subjectivity?

4.1Genesis and the Emergence of the Human

I begin our explorations in this chapter by returning again to the Gen-

esis text and focusing especially on the clues to the anthropological self-
understanding embedded in the creation narrative. Our focus here is on
the spiritual dimension of the human phenomenon. I highlight this aspect
not because I think this is what set human beings apart from animals or
other creaturely forms of life in any absolute sense, although that does not
mean that we should deny the uniqueness of the human species either.
The relevant text concerning the creation of ha adam in the creation nar-
rative is Genesis 1:2631 and 2:7.
1:26 Then God said, Let us make humankind in our image, according to our
likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the
earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
27 So God created humankind in his image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply, and
fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and
over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the
earth. 29 God said, See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall

2See, e.g., Jonathan Shear, ed., Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem (Cam-
bridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997).
82 chapter four

have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of
the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the
breath of life I have given every green plant for food. And it was so. 31 God
saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there
was evening and there was morning, the sixth day....
2:7...then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living
being.
A few observations are in order.3 First, beginning with the Yahwist account
(2:7), ha adam is formed out of and thereby emergent from the dust of the
ground. Ha adam, however, becomes a living being only with the breath
of the Lord.4 This is certainly consistent with the rest of the biblical wit-
ness (e.g., Job 34:1415; Eccl. 12:7; Ps. 104:2829; Ezek., 37:114; Luke 23:46;
Rom. 8:11 and 1823). A canonical hermeneutic enables a combined read-
ing of the Priestly and Yahwist creation accounts which in turn sustains a
robust pneumatological theology, with regard to the creation and evolu-
tion of human beings.
Second, and now moving back to the Priestly narrative, human beings
are created in relation to God, in the divine image and likeness. As such,
humans are both capable of being blessed and being addressed by God. To
be blessed is to receive the divine favor. To be addressed is to have ones
response elicited and to imply the capacity to take responsibility and to be
under obligation. The fish of the sea and the birds of the air are also blessed
and commanded to be fruitful and multiply (1:22).5 But, human beings are
given further instructions regarding subduing and taking care of the earth.
In this respect, human beings represent the unfinished dimension of the
creation, with the potential to fulfill creations purposes, but also with
the potential, given the greater dimension of freedom they are endowed
with, perhaps to sabotage the divine intentions. It is noteworthy that the

3My own theological anthropologywhich is physicalist, relational, and yet not deny-
ing of a spiritual component or dimensionis sketched in a section of my book, Theology
and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity (Waco, Texas: Baylor Uni-
versity Press, 2007), 18091. The following provides some of the exegetical considerations
for the more theological discussion in the previous book.
4See John H. Levison, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009).
5I suggest, building on the observation of Lawson Stone, that the fish and the birds
are also addressable by God because they also have the breath of life in them (1:30); see
Lawson G. Stone, The Soul: Possession, Part, or Person? The Genesis of Human Nature in
Genesis 2:7, in Joel B. Green, ed., What about the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthro-
pology (Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 4761, esp. 5152.
 spirit and human nature 83

phrase, And it was so, does not follow the creation of ha adam as it does
elsewhere (vs. 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, and 30), further implying the openendedness
rather than definiteness of the human path or way to be.6 This ambiguous
nature of what it means to be human may be the reason why God does
not specifically see and immediately pronounce ha adam as good, as God
had done with the work of days three through five.7 The later narrative of
the fall (Gen. 3) reflects human freedom exercised against, rather than
in harmony with, the nature of things, thereby breaking the relationships
among humanity and God, creation, and one another.
Third, ha adam is created as a relational being, representing the divine
image and likeness. Of course, the divine relationality in the creation nar-
ratives derives not from the allegedly proto-trinitarian, Let us make...
(1:26), but from the God-world and God-humankind relationships. More
specifically, the divine image is revealed in the creation of ha adam as
male and female. Here, the testimony of the later biblical traditions that
the Spirit makes present the divine love within human hearts (Rom. 5:5)
and replicates the fellowship of the triune God amidst the people of God
(2 Cor. 13:13) fills out the pneumatological content of ha adam given the
breath of life to embrace each other as well as their creator. And of course,
human relationality does not stop with God and human beings. Rather, as
a close reading of 1:26b30 reveals, the sexual diffferentiation of ha adam
points both to interpersonal sociality and to inter-creaturely relationality.
Ha adam as male and female are told not only to multiply and fill the
earth, but also to subdue and care for the created order.8 This clear rela-
tionship among human beings, the animals, and the earth itself, especially
in light of the formation of ha adam from the dust of the ground, reflects
the symbiotic and ecological character of what it means to be human.
Before moving on, however, some further observations need to be
registered about what has gone wrong with human nature. After all, as
already noted above, the Genesis account of creation is followed by the

6See Robert Sacks, The Lion and the Ass: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis
(Chapters 110), Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 8:23 (1980): 29101, esp.
3839.
7See Leo Strauss, On the Interpretation of Genesis, LHomme 21:1 (1981): 520, esp.
1819.
8This point is clearly argued by Welker, Creation and Reality, trans. John F. Hofffmeyer
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 6469. See also John McIntyre, The Shape of Pneu-
matology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997), 19093,
for the thesis that, The Holy Spirit is God the Creator himself setting us in a right and
responsible relation to the animal and natural order (quote from 93).
84 chapter four

narrative of the expulsion from the primeval Garden, what the theologi-
cal tradition has called the Fall into sin. Reinhold Niebuhr might have
suggested that the Fall of humanity is the most empirically verifiable of
all Christian doctrines,9 although by this it is certainly not the case that it
can be confirmed scientifically, at least not in terms of any conventional
understanding of science. From a pneumatological perspective, I would
suggest that the human Fall into sin concerns the disobedience exercised
in resistance against the promptings of the divine breath of life given to
every living creature. The Christian doctrine of redemption, then, pneu-
matologically conceived, involves the fresh blowing and even gift of the
Spirit of God that softens, turns, and transforms the human spirit so as to
render it more docile and responsive to that which is pleasing to God.
A few additional comments should be made regarding the human
constitution in anticipation of the discussion to follow. The traditional
reading of Genesis 2:7 through the lenses of a Platonic and neo-Platonic
soul-body framework has noticed (and emphasized) the duality of human
beings as dust of the ground and breath of God. In light of the preced-
ing, this duality needs to be refracted through the Priestly perspective in
which human nature is constituted by and explicated in terms of webs of
relationsdivine-human, human-human, human-animals, human-earth,
etc. So Claus Westermanns conclusion is adaptable for our purposes: The
person as a living being is to be understood as a whole and any idea that
one is made up of [only] body and soul is ruled out.10 But more impor-
tant, such an anthropology is also consistent with contemporary perspec-
tives which go beyond traditional (Platonist and, especially, Cartesian)
dualist definitions of humans as disembodied souls toward ontological
holist understandings of human beings as emergent, inter-personal, inter-
relational, and cosmologically and environmentally situated creatures.11

9This is one of claims of Niebuhrs argument his Giffford Lectures, The Nature and
Destiny of Man, 2 vols. (19411943; reprint, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1964).
10Claus Westermann, Genesis 111: A Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion, S.J. (Minne-
apolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 207.
11E.g., Joel B. Green, BodiesThat Is, Human Lives: A Re-examination of Human
Nature in the Bible, in Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, eds.,
Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Min-
neapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 14973, and Green, What Does It Mean to Be Human?
Another Chapter in the Ongoing Interaction of Science and Scripture, in Malcolm Jeeves,
ed., From Cells to Soulsand Beyond: Changing Portraits of Human Nature (Grand Rapids
and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2004), 17998. A book length argument is presented in
Greens Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2008).
 spirit and human nature 85

4.2Mind, Body, and the Neurosciences

Yet it was inevitable that the Hebrew understanding of human natureas

dust of the ground filled with the divine breath of lifewould be compli-
cated by later developments. Certainly, during the Hellenistic and Second
Temple periods, Jewish perspectives were challenged by ancient Greek
notions of pneuma as well as by Platonic views of the nous (mind) and the
psyche (soul).12 By the time we get to the first century ce, Hellenist Jews
like St. Paul could thus invoke: May the God of peace himself sanctify
you entirely; and may your spirit [pneuma] and soul [psyche] and body
[soma] be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Chris (1 Thess. 5:23). Some Christians traditions have concluded from
this Pauline formulation toward a tripartite anthropology. Arguably, the
monism of the ancient Hebrew self-understanding is being stretched not
only in a dualist direction (by the Platonic legacy) but also in a triadic
perspective (through a certain reading of St. Paul) as well.
The major streams of Christian thought since the apostolic period,
then, have emphasized a body-soul/spirit dualism, largely as a result of
the influence of Hellenistic cultural and philosophical patterns of thought.
Since the patristic period and especially after Descartes, human beings
have been understood in terms of a material body and a non-material
soul or spirit, with the latter being more fundamental than the former
to human identity. More contemporary retrievals of this view have tem-
pered, but not rejected, the body-soul dualism either by seeking a more
robust account of the role of embodiment or by depicting the body as
necessary albeit insuffficient for human personhood. These recent dual-
ist theoriese.g., holist dualism, substance-dualism, compound-dualism,
interactionismhave been revived in part because its advocates do not
think reductionistic and naturalistic accounts provide satisfactory expla-
nations either for the self-conscious subjectivity of the human person or
for the phenomenon of top-down causation.13 For some who hold to a

12For these associations, see Marie E. Isaacs, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma
in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament, Heythrop Monographs 1 (Lon-
don: Heythrop Journal, 1976); Hendrika Vende Kemp, The Tension between Psychology
and Theology: The Etymological Roots, Journal of Pastoral Psychology and Theology 10:2
(1982): 10512, esp. 1056; and Paul S. MacDonald, History of the Concept of Mind: Specula-
tions about Soul, Mind and Spirit from Homer to Hume (Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, Vt.:
Ashgate, 2003), chs. 13.
13E.g., Charles Taliaferro and Stewart Goetz, The Prospect of Christian Materialism,
Christian Scholars Review 37:3 (2008): 30321, and John Turl, Substance Dualism or Body-
Soul Duality? Science & Christian Belief 22 (2010): 5780.
86 chapter four

dualism of whatever sort, the solution in these views is anchored in the

afffirmation of the ontological priority of the soul: human beings do not
have souls, but are souls, with bodies.14
Yet these dualistic renditions of human personhood are increasingly
unpopular. The failure of naturalism to explain the phenomena of mind
and top-down causation means neither that other explanations are more
successful nor that non-dualistic models are in retreat. On both counts,
there are still vigorous effforts being made to understand mind and body
in monistic terms, usually reducing the former to the latter. In such cases
we have either a naturalistic or mechanistic view of mind as an epiphe-
nomenon of neurophysical brain states or we have a reductionist view
of mind as supervenient upon, but finally explicable in terms of, brain
activity.15
There are also views which are neither reductionistic nor materialistic
nor dualistic, but at the same time also not easily categorized. This would
include parallelists or synchronists who emphasize the functionality of
mind and brain together; dual-aspect theorists who see mind and brain
as two sides of one reality but decline to identify this one reality in dualis-
tic or monistic, psychological, or materialistic, terms; and dipolar monist
theorists who similarly understand the relationship between mind and
brain within the framework of process philosophy. It also includes those
who either think the nature of mind is in principle impenetrable by human
beings or will be understood as variously as there are disciplinary perspec-
tives and approaches to it, none being finally more definitive than any
other. The dividing questions for all of these not-easily-categorized pro-
posals remain the two fundamental problems in the philosophy of mind,

14See also Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness
and the Human Brain (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); Richard Swinburne, The
Evolution of the Soul (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986); J.P. Moreland and Scott B. Rae, Body
and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000);
John W. Cooper, Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-
Dualism Debate, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); and the essays (except for Wil-
liam Haskers) in Kevin Corcoran, ed., Soul, Body and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics
of Human Persons (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2001). The interactionism
of Karl R. Popper and John C. Eccles, The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism
(New York: Springer International, 1977), however, does not use soul-language.
15See, e.g., Owen Flanagan, Consciousness Reconsidered (Cambridge, Mass., and Lon-
don: Bradford Book/The MIT Press, 1992), and Gerhard D. Wassermann, A Philosophy of
Matter and Mind: A New Look at an Old Major Topic in Philosophy (Aldershot, UK, and
Brookfield, Vt.: Avebury, 1994). Mark Rowlands, Supervenience and Materialism (Aldershot,
UK, and Brookfield, Vt.: Avebury, 1995), uses supervenience rhetoric to formulate a mate-
rialist theory of mind.
 spirit and human nature 87

neurobiology, and neuropsychology: that pertaining to the phenomenon

of consciousness and the nature of mental causation.16
It is precisely at this point that I want to return to the supervenience
proposals (3.3) regarding the mind-body relationship, but doing so in
light of the discussion regarding the creation and evolution of ha adam.
Our rereading of the creation narrative highlighted human beings as en-
spirited and yet emergent from the dust of the ground, as capable of being
addressed and of taking responsibility, and as interpersonal, social, and
environmentally constituted. A supervenience theory of mind provides
an account of consciousness that is emergent from, intimately connected
with, and dependent on, but finally irreducible to the material workings
of the brain, even while providing a viable model for understanding the
phenomenon of mental causation.17 Set within a pneumatological frame-
work, a supervenience theory of mind is transformed into a relational and
systems theory of minds and bodies in interdependence with each other
and with natures processes. Let me fill this out in three broad steps.
First, it is certainly the case that mental activities are emergent from
and in that sense dependent upon brain functions. Recent advances in
the neurosciences have clearly shown this. Thus a healthy prefrontal cor-
tex is requisite for short-term memory with regard to performance, verbal
memory and analytic reasoning. Frontotemporal degeneration, especially
in the left frontal and anterior temporal brain regions and defective cere-
bral profusions in inferior parietal and superior temporal regions (com-
mon in Alzheimers patients) both afffect the use of language. Lesions or
atrophy in the frontal lobe (e.g., in Huntingtons Disease) influence atten-
tion, concentration, planning and memory. Last, but not least, a Williams
Syndrome score close to Down Syndrome (in the 50s60s on IQ tests)
because of the loss of the end of fifteen (or more) genes in one of the cop-
ies of chromosome 7 results in limited writing and arithmetic abilities, but

16Ably summarized by Jaegwon Kim, The Mind-Body Problem after Fifty Years, in
Anthony OHear, ed., Current Issues in Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1998), 321. See also the discussion of the status quaestiones in Morton Wagman,
Cognitive Science and the Mind-Body Problem: From Philosophy to Psychology to Artificial
Intelligence to Imaging of the Brain (Westport, Conn., and London: Praeger, 1998).
17Here, I assume the overall thrust of the supervenience model as including, poten-
tially, a variety of articulations ranging from Mario Bunges emergent materialism to
David Ray Grifffins nonreductive physicalism and panexperientialism. See Mario Bunge,
The Mind-Body Problem: A Psychobiological Approach (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1980), and
David Ray Grifffin, Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body
Problem (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). Other proponents will be noted
in what follows.
88 chapter four

also heightens the capacity to recognize faces and facial features and to
develop superior musical ability (except without being able to read written
music). In all of this and more, Philip Clayton correctly observes: Results
such as these present a clear challenge to those who would rend thought
and afffect from its physical substratum. The influences are both deep and
bidirectional; they involve the deepest areas of mental functioning.18 My
claim is that such a relational framework of the mind and body is also
understandable within a deeply pneumatological anthropology. The spiri-
tual dimension of what it means to be human does not require the mind
or souls to be set offf from the body since, as the Genesis narrative informs
us, human beings are nothing less than en-spirited dust.
Second, however, it is also the case that humans are spiritual beings,
dust en-spirited and enlivened by the divine breath.19 Living beings are
defined biologically by the properties of reproduction, adaptive capac-
ity, irritability, mobility, and nutrition (including ingestion, digestion,
absorption, transport, metabolism, exchange of gases, excretion). Unde-
niably, Living organisms are radically new systems of physical entities
which are more complex and obey other laws than inanimate objects.20
The diffference, I suggest, is that the exchange of information proceeds
not only in one direction, but in multiple directions. So, molecular biolo-
gists are beginning to point out that natural selection on its own fails to

18Philip Clayton, Neuroscience, the Person, and God: An Emergentist Account, in

Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, Theo C. Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib, eds.,
Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City State:
Vatican Observatory Publications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natu-
ral Sciences, 1999), 181214, esp. 18284, quote from 184. See also Clayton, Neuroscience,
the Human Person, and God, in Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett, eds., Bridging Science
and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 10720; and Malcolm Jeeves, Mind Fields:
Reflections on the Science of Mind and Brain (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), ch. 3. A full
length argument can also be found in Philip Clayton, In Quest of Freedom: The Emergence
of Spirit in the Natural World, Religion Theologie und Naturwissenschaft / Religion Theol-
ogy and Natural Science 13 (Gttingen: Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2009).
19For a more philosophical analysis of the connection between the Spirit and life, see
Philip J. Hefner, Self-definition of Life and Human Purpose: Reflections upon the Divine
Spirit and the Human Spirit, Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 8 (1973): 395411.
Extensive theological argumentation is provided by Jrgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A
Universal Afffirmation, trans. Margaret Kohl (London: SCM Press, 1992), and The Source of
Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Augsburg
Fortress, 1997).
20J. Seifert, On the Irreducibility of Life to Chaotic and Non-chaotic Physical Systems,
in Bernard Pullman, ed., The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry,
and Biology: Proceedings Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2731 October
1992, Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia 89 (Vatican City: Pontifical Acad-
emy of Sciences, 1996), 33958, quote from 347.
 spirit and human nature 89

explain the evolutionary process in its entirety insofar as it relies on a

mechanistic and deterministic model of causality. Rather, spontaneous,
self-ordering systems and natural selection work together, the former per-
mitting, enabling, and limiting the latter while the latter molding the for-
mer, resulting in contingent and emergent wholes of complexity.21 More
specifically, it is now being confirmed that while DNA structures certainly
transfer information needed for protein formation (in efffect, the trajectory
of bottom-up causation), the role of the environment in switching on
genetic activity leading to the development and growth of bodily organs
(for example) cannot be ignored (top-down causation).22 Clearly, the
information continuously being exchanged at the molecular and neuro-
logical levels is coded to engage what goes on in the higher-level systems
of the organism and the environment, and vice versa.
So, if the problematic question is that of why subvenient properties do
not finally govern supervenient onese.g., why neurobiological events do
not finally govern mental statesthe response is that supervenient prop-
erties participate in higher order networks and therefore have functional
properties which include the provision of environmental feedback to the
subvenient levels. As such, intellectual or mental states receive informa-
tion from lower (including neural brain) orders but at the same time also
function to exert top-down influence on the brain and body through the
feedback loops, thereby even reshaping...the agents neural pathways.23
Gregory Peterson does caution that, These top-down influences are not
causes in the literal sense and do not contradict the causal laws of phys-
ics but should be understood as a downward flow of information or as
a structuring cause that constrains the behavior of any local event or, in
the case of the brain, local groups of neurons.24 But if we take top-down
causation seriously, I wonder if we could find a via media between bot-
tom-up and top-down models of causality, perhaps what Niels Gregersen

21See Stuart A. Kaufffman, The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolu-
tion (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), an imposing, massive and tech-
nical book containing 650 pages of dense, fine print argumentation, and almost 50 pages
of bibliography reaching perhaps to 1200 sources.
22See Ian G. Barbour, Nature, Human Nature and God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2002), esp. chs. 23.
23Nancey Murphy, Neuroscience and Human Nature: A Christian Perspective, in Ted
Peters, Muzafffar Iqbal and Syed Nomanul Haq, eds., God, Life, and the Cosmos: Christian
and Islamic Perspectives (Aldershot, England, and Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2002), 35789,
quote from 384.
24Gregory R. Peterson, Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003), 63.
90 chapter four

calls a third possibility, which focuses on the changeability of the prob-

ability patterns throughout evolution. The point here is that the dice of
probabilities are not loaded once and for all but are constantly reloaded
in the course of evolution.25
I suggest that this reloading would occur at various (all) levels, even
while it captures the pneumatological dynamism of the God-world rela-
tionship. At the micro-level of neural transmission, a quantum mechanical
model of mind which understands the synaptical firing of electrochemical
pulses to be indeterminate opens up toward the possibilities of both men-
tal and agent causation.26 Electrochemical indeterminacies are the loops
through which mind could be seen to influence the material world. Now if
this is the case, does it not open the door also to the possibility of divine
causation or influence through the divine spirits interaction with the
human spirit? At the macro-level of the human person, it would suggest,
at least in part, why humans are signified not only by organic bodies, but
also in and through the powers of self-determination, teleological direc-
tion, dynamic self-understanding, and the capacity to overcome entropic
processes.27 These are emergent features of the human beings as whole
systems exhibiting both neurobiological and mental causation, and in
that sense, resisting reductionistic explanations. Put in terms of quan-
tum theory, human beings are under-determinate wave/particle dualities
manifest as minds and brains (bodies) on the one hand, and as dynamic
relatedness and thingness (individuality) on the other.28 I suggest that
such correlates with the subvenient (brain) and supervenient (mind) fea-
tures a pneumatological anthropology that can account for the unity of
human experience.

25Niels Henrik Gregersen, From Anthropic Design to Self-Organized Complexity, in

Gregersen, ed., From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2003), 20634, quote from 225.
26E.g., Casey Blood, Science, Sense and Soul: The Mystical-Physical Nature of Human
Existence (Los Angeles: Renaissance Books, 2001), chs. 1011 and 15.
27Suggesting, of course, a holistic view of the human, as in Arthur Peacocke, God and
the New Biology (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1986). Arguably, contemporary holist
anthropologies capture Thomas achievement of an Aristotelian synthesis of human beings
as hylomorphic creatures including both essential form and quantitative shape without
the vitalistic implications and liabilities of the thirteenth century articulation. See Anton
Charles Pegis, St. Thomas and the Problem of the Soul in the Thirteenth Century (Toronto:
St. Michaels College, 1934), ch. 4, for a summary of Thomas understanding. For contem-
porary restatements of Thomas Aristotelianized views, see Ric Machuga, In Defense of the
Soul: What It Means to Be Human (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2002), esp. chs. 2 and 7.
28See Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the
New Physics (New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990), esp. chs. 79.
 spirit and human nature 91

But third, human beings as mental agents interact not only with their
natural environments, but also with each other. The former is signifi-
cant in that it opens up to a field theory of consciousness which locates
the knowing individual simultaneously as subject and object within his
or her environments.29 William Hasker suggests, analogically, that as
a magnet generates its magnetic field, so the brain generates its field
of consciousness.30 Herein we discover a thoroughgoing and dynamic
continuity between perceptions and perceived, between sensations and
sensed, between mind and nature, between memories and experience,
between attention (to) and judgment (of). Of course, we pick out cer-
tain things in paying attention from a wider field, and our judgments of
these things are also selective. However, the notion of pure objectivity,
if attainable, would estrange us from ourselves, since human selves are no
less than their locatedness in the concrete facticity of their environments.
This means that life, knowledge, activity, etc., is ambiguous, an adventure
in discerning the horizons of our identities. Thus the field of conscious-
ness points to the flux of ourselves-in-the-world, and calls attention to the
public domain of ourselves as selves.
Further, however, human beings as mental agents interacting with
one other also lead to a field theory of intersubjectivity which locates the
knowing individual as an interpersonal and social being. To have focused
almost exclusively only on the mind-brain problematic is to deal with
only one-half of the problem. This is because this level of brain science
tells us practically nothing regarding the relationship of mind and other
minds, which is precisely the sociality and cultural reality we experience.
If mind is created as a kind of social practice,31 then what we need is

29On the links between philosophies of mind and the biology of organisms and their
environments, see Peter Godfrey-Smith, Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). For phenomenological analyses, see Mau-
rice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception, trans. Colin Smith (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul; New York: The Humanities Press, 1962), esp. part I, and Aron Gurwitsch,
The Field of Consciousness (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press, 1964).
30William Hasker, The Emergent Self (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press,
1999), 190.
31See Leslie Brothers, Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain Problem Reconsidered (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2001), chs. 810; quote from 75. For more on the
social character of human mentality, see also essays by Niels Henrik Gregersen, Gods
Public Trafffic: Holist versus Physicalist Supervenience, and John A. Teske, The Social
Construction of the Human Spirit, both in Niels Henrik Gregersen, Willem B. Drees, and
Ulf Grman, eds., The Human Person in Science and Theology (Grand Rapids: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 15388, and 189211
respectively.
92 chapter four

research into neuropsychosociology which will enable us to talk not only

about bottom up causation, but also about horizontal (interpersonal and
social) mental causation. And opening up the discussion in this direction,
of course, raises not only questions regarding corporate identity but also
questions of a theological and pneumatological nature which converge in
ecclesiology, or the doctrine of the Church.
While we will return to explore this matter in more depth momen-
tarily, the point is that nonreductive supervenience is holistic in seeing
whole sets of properties as basic to the supervenient set of properties.32
It is certainly the case that we should be cautious in assuming that the
plausibility of mental causation in the above argument secures the theo-
logical right to talk about divine downward causation.33 Yet I suggest that
the pneumatological approach being developed here resists the various
dichotomiese.g., top-down versus bottom-up; mental v. physical; self v.
otherprecisely because of the relationality intrinsic to its concept. As
such, it provides an explanatory framework for both the mind-mind and
the mind-body relationship that enables (rather than demands) analogous
understandings of the divine spirits presence and activity.

4.3Divine Presence and Contemporary Theological Anthropology

It is time to pull together the various threads of discussion. My thesis is

that a rereading of the creation narratives through a pneumatological
lens (motivated in part in dialogue with Wolfhart Pannenberg and oth-
ers) leads to insights that are, at significant points, complementary with
the most recent advances in the cosmological and the cognitive sciences.
Allow me to summarize the preceding by way of suggesting how a field
theory of organization, relationality, and transcendence can contribute to
the articulation of a contemporary pneumatological theology of human
nature.

32Robert Stalnaker, Varieties of Supervenience, in Jaegwon Kim, ed., Supervenience

(Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, Vt.: Dartmouth and Ashgate, 2002), 189209.
33This, I take it, is the center of Dennis Bielfeldts concerns in his, The Peril and Prom-
ise of Supervenience for the Science-Theology Discussion, in Niels Henrik Gregersen, Wil-
lem B. Drees, and Ulf Grman, eds., The Human Person in Science and Theology (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000),
11752. As such, Bielfeldt is led to argue for intra-level but not inter-level causation, even
while attempting to salvage the concept of supervenience in theological articulation by
steering between materialism and dualism on the one hand, and avoiding the peril of
creation determining the creator on the other.
 spirit and human nature 93

We began by overviewing Pannenbergs proposal to understand the

creation as analogous to a field of divine presence and creativity. I have
attempted to provide further exegetical underpinnings for this suggestion
by way of rereading the creation narratives as events of the divine ruah
from the beginning (hovering over the primeval chaos) to its culmination
(gifting ha adam with life). Within this framework, we saw that the uni-
versal presence and activity of the breath of God is precisely what ener-
gizes, organizes, and produces the distinctions, divisions, separations, and
particularities which constitute the world. Creaturely things are thereby
fields of self-organization concentrated in this way and not that. At the
same time, of course, creatures are also thisses in relationship to thats.
Thus, universality and particularity are conjoined in this pneumatological
cosmology and ontology. As important, spirit and matter remain distin-
guishable, but are no longer dualistically conceived.
This is most clearly seen, of course, in the age-old quest to understand
the mind-body problem. The neural system of the brain can be under-
stood as a self-organizing field of activity through which the body interacts
with its environment. The human mind is in this sense not only super-
venient upon the brain, but arguably supervenient upon the processes
of the entire body that is environmentally situated. As such, the mind is
embodied, receiving input from the bodys subsystems through the neural
transmitters of the brain. There is therefore not only a somatic dimension
to cognition, but also emotive and afffective impulses.34 Each dimension
retains its irreducible particularity, organized according to its own distinc-
tive fields of activity. Yet each is related to and also partly constitutive of
the emergent and self-organizing field of mind.
But, a pneumatological cosmology and ontology provides not only for
the self-organization of creaturely realities, but also for what I call their
self-relational character. The Spirit not only constitutes the divine pres-
ence and hence relates God and the world, but also gifts creation with its
relational structures. The mind, for example, is not only self-organized,
but is self-organized in part through the various fields of consciousness
convergent therein. Arguably, these fields of consciousness are precisely

34On thinking and the body, see George Lakofff and Mark Johnson, Philosophy in the
Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought (New York: Basic Books,
1999). On the connection between the passions and the mind, see Antonio R. Damasio,
Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (New York: Grosset/Putnam, 1994),
and William J. Wainwright, Reason and the Heart: A Prolegomenon to a Critique of Passional
Reason (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995).
94 chapter four

what root our corporeality amidst the concreteness and specificity of the
perceptual world. In other words, the embodied mind is not only pri-
mordially anchored with and inherent in the world, but informed by its
responses to the worlds solicitations. For this reason, human beings are
best characterized as interrelational and intersubjective fields of pres-
ences and presencing.35
More explicitly, my suggestion is that humans are interrelational and
intersubjective beings at least in part because they are spiritual beings.
Here the pneumatological model opens up to and draws inspiration from
the trinitarian understanding of God. The Spirit not only participates in
the eternal perichoretic dance of the divine life, but is also the bond of love
between the Father and the Son. Similarly, human beings are relationally
constituted.36 As en-spirited (given life through the breath of God), human
persons achieve full potential only in and through interactive and inter-
subjective relationship and participation with other creaturely fields
e.g., of conscious persons (whether diffferentiated sexually or structured
communally), of animals (cf. their naming in the creation narrative), and
of nature (cf. the command to care for the earth). But, the Spirits open-
ness to the world produces an open space wherein all creatures (and not
just human beings) find themselves precisely as becoming-in-relationship.
A pneumatologically configured world is a thoroughly relational, pericho-
retic confluence of self-organizing fields of activity that participates with
each other in composing a more-or-less harmonious creaturely response
to Gods letting be.
But, creaturely openendedness to other creatures is suggestive not only
of the self-relational character of things in the world and the world as a
whole, but also of the self-transcending aspect of such interactivity and
intersubjectivity. The mark of self-transcendence signals first the emer-

35This derives from Merleau-Ponty; see Monika M. Langer, Merleau-Pontys Phenom-

enology of Perception: A Guide and Commentary (Tallahassee, Fl.: The Florida State Univer-
sity Press, 1989), 14977, esp. 166, for an summary discussion.
36Amy Pauw Plantinga, Personhood, Divine and Human, Perspectives: A Journal of
Reformed Thought 8:2 (1993): 1214, Nicholas Lash, Recovering Contingency, in John
Cornwell, ed., Consciousness and Human Identity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998),
197211, and Stanley J. Grenz, The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology
of the Imago Dei (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001)all draw from trinitarian
imagery in their discussion of human personhood and identity. See Calvin O. Schrag, The
Self after Postmodernity (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997), for more
philosophical analysis, and F. LeRon Shults, Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the
Philosophical Turn to Relationality (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 2003), for theological elucidation.
 spirit and human nature 95

gent, transformative, and transforming nature of self-organizing and self-

relating creatures. As we have seen previously (3.2), the relational inputs
coming from various directions enable the emergence of novelty. When
this happens, creaturely self-transcendence occurs. This is also the case
with human self-transcendence, at least as naturalistically conceived.37
Such self-transcendence is dramatically engaged when human persons
encounter the divine. This is possible, of course, because the gift of divine
ruah to human beings is the presence and activity of the Spirit that makes
possible human relationship with God. Not without reason, the Greek
poets also confessed that, In him we live and move and have our being
(Acts 17:28).38
Most immediately and most often, this presence and activity are con-
cretely experienced in the fellowship of the Spirit that emerges in human
community in general and in ecclesial communities more specifically.39
Individuals find their true particularity and identity in Christ precisely
in being poured out on behalf of others and receiving from others. The
Church emerges from the individuals who are gathered under a particu-
lar form of life inspired by Jesus. While the Church is both informed by
a received linguistic grammar and embodied in the specific set of mate-
rial practices initiated from the Day of Pentecost, at the same time the
larger corporate bodyof common humanityalso shapes the language

37Thus there are also naturalistic (in some cases also reductionist) accounts of brain
science and religion, including that of Michael A. Persinger, Neuropsychological Bases of
God Beliefs (New York: Praeger, 1987); Pascal Boyer, The Naturalness of Religious Ideas:
A Cognitive Theory of Religion (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994); and Ilkka
Pyysiinen, How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion, Cognition
and Culture Book Series 1 (Leiden, Boston and Kln: Brill, 2001).
38Hence, the work of brain scientists can be helpful in their mapping of some of the
neurobiological means through which human beings engage the divine on this side of
the eschaton. See, e.g., James Ashbrook, The Human Mind and the Mind of God: Theologi-
cal Promise in Brain Research (Lanham: University Press of America, 1984); Ashbrook, ed.,
Brain, Culture, and the Human Spirit: Essays from an Emergent Evolutionary Perspective
(Lanham: University Press of America, 1993); Ashbrook and Carol Rausch Albright, The
Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet (Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1997);
Eugene G. DAquili and Andrew B. Newberg, The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of
Religious Experience (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); and Andrew B. Newberg, Eugene G.
DAquili and Vince Rause, Why God Wont Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
(New York: Ballantine Books, 2001).
39C.A. Scott Anderson, What Happened at Pentecost, in B.H. Streeter, ed., The Spirit:
God and His Relation to Man Considered from the Standpoint of Philosophy, Psychology and
Art (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1935), 11758. See also Aaron Sang-won Son, Corpo-
rate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in
the Light of Pauls Usage and Background, Analecta Biblical 148 (Rome: Editrice Pontificio
Istituto Biblico, 2001).
96 chapter four

and practices which constitute the catholic and ecumenical church, even
while the church transforms the habits of the individuals who comprise
it.40 Christians therefore transcend themselves in the body of Christ even
while they are transformed by participation in that form of life.
But such self-transcending transformation does not stop within the
boundaries of the Church institutional, of course. Christian mission brings
the body and its members into the world, empowering activity directed
toward the transformation of social structures and the establishment of
justice in human societies.41 And accomplishment of these goals requires
intersubjective participation and input from the human community as
a whole. So our giving a cup of water to those in prison is our giving to
Christ (Matt. 25:3140, esp. 35),42 even as our receiving the cup of water
from the Samaritan (and those not of faith or even those in other faiths)
is our receiving from the Spirit of Christ (Luke 10:2937).43 In this way, the
concrete and specific field of activity belonging to those empowered by
the Spirit of Jesus of Nazareth interacts mutually with the various other
natural and socio-historical fields of activity as each is being redeemed
by God.44
So, we have the embodied mind as a self-transcending reality precisely
in its relationship with other minds and with its environment, and we
have the social self transcending itself precisely in relationship with other
ecclesial and social selves. But, insofar as creation itself can be said to
be teleologically directed by the Spirit toward the consummation (e.g.,

40The liturgical account of the Church as worshipping community provided by David

F. Ford, Self and Salvation: Being Transformed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1999), points to the material dimension of ecclesial identity, while the supervenience
account of the Church provided by Brad J. Kallenberg, All Sufffer the Afffliction of the One:
Metaphysical Holism and the Presence of the Spirit, Christian Scholars Review 31:2 (2001):
21734, highlights its emergentist and socially directed character.
41Samuel Rayan, The Holy Spirit: Heart of the Gospel and Christian Hope (Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 1978).
42Which I explicate in my book, The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision
of the People of God (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2011), ch. 5.
43As detailed in my The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility
of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 6.1.2; see also my Hospitality
and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor, Faith Meets Faith series
(Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008).
44I provide a pneumatological account of the doctrine of redemption understood
in political and public terms in my In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political
TheologyThe Cadbury Lectures 2009, Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Post-
modern Age series (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 2010), ch. 4.
 spirit and human nature 97

Rom. 8:1923), human beings and communities are also directed eschato-
logically toward their creator.45 Yet this eschatological transcendence and
transformation will retain some continuity with the embodied and social
character of the initial creations structures. Herein we anticipate that the
same Spirit who raised Christ from the dead will give life to [our] mortal
bodies (Rom. 8:11), not only in the existentiality of this life but also in the
concreteness of the next (1 Cor. 15), even as we confess that the Spirit is
the pledge of the redemption of the people of God (Eph.1:1314 and 2 Cor.
1:22) precisely through the social reconciliation to be accomplished at the
eschatological judgment.46 In this way, the redemption of the world will
be its transformation, not destruction. The ruah elohim who hovered over
the primeval chaos will in the eschaton be the communal, intersubjective
figure, a personal power emerging out of many persons..., the wholeness
toward which the oneness of God is pointing.47
The preceding, I suggest, sufffices at least to make plausible the pos-
sibilities of a pneumatological contribution to the Christian theology and
science dialogue. Our focus, as given impetus by Pannenbergs proposal
to unite pneumatology and field theory, has been specifically on bringing
biblical pneumatology and anthropology into discussion with the cosmo-
logical and the cognitive sciences. What has emerged is a sketch of a two-
pronged theological vision informed by a pneumatological hermeneutic
and imagination on the one side, and a scientific understanding of crea-
turely reality on the other. In the words of Robert Potter,
Pannenberg is able to connect a modern scientific image of the world as a
series of contingent fields to an ancient religious image of the world as a
manifestation of spirit. Everything exists in a hierarchy of contingent fields;

45While using soul language, Keith Wards anthropology is consistent with the emer-
gentist model sketched here. He writes: ...the soul by nature transcends; it is oriented
away from itself, to what is beyond itself; it is directed, finally, toward relationship with
God, the true end of the soul, and in this sense, its goal, its proper purpose and true
nature; Keith Ward, Defending the Soul (Oxford: Oneworld, 1992), 143 and 151.
46See Ted Peters, Resurrection of the Very Embodied Soul? in Robert John Russell,
Nancey Murphy, Theo C. Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib, eds., Neuroscience and the Per-
son: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action (Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Pub-
lications, and Berkeley: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1999), 30526,
and Miroslav Volf, The Final Reconciliation: Reflections on a Social Dimension of the
Eschatological Transition, Modern Theology 16:1 (2000): 91113.
47Peter C. Hodgson, Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian Theology (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 172. I should note that while Hodgson seeks an escha-
tological trinitarianism which is neither modalistic nor tritheistic, in the process he denies
the primordiality of the triune life of God. My quoting him at this point should not be
taken as endorsing the particulars of his trinitarian reconstruction.
98 chapter four

transcendence is the mechanism of the emergent relationship of one field to

another; relationship to the final field is what gives meaning to the totality
of all fields; theology is the science of the relationship to the final field, God:
the all-determining reality.48
Of course, argument is never complete this side of the eschaton, even as
my own effforts to solidify Pannenbergs intuitions probably have produced
just as many questions as answers. In fact, one can write whole books on
many of the preceding topics, certainly on each of the three chapters in
this part of the volume. My goal, however, has been both to recognize
and engage the complexity of spiritual and religious life in a scientific
world. In that case, while there may be place for explicitly Christianor
ecclesial, to refer to the Barthian project of Church Dogmaticsreflection
on any of these matters, the present project is intentionally designed to
take up the task of Christian theology in an interdisciplinary and public
context.
But, there is more. As indicated in our introductory chapter, we live
not only in a world awash with modern science but also in a pluralis-
tic world. In order to further inquiry, then, we have to think not only
in interdisciplinary terms but also in the presence of religious others.
I therefore propose to bring a third party into the existing conversation:
the religious tradition of Buddhism. The next three chapters will focus on
explicating Buddhist views of science, of the world, and of human nature,
before returning in part III to ask if Buddhist understandings can mediate
the Christian theology and science dialogue on the one hand, even while
the Christian-Buddhist dialogue can be furthered in conversation with sci-
ence on the other.

48Robert Potter, Self-Transcendence: The Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit, in Carol
Rausch Albright and Joel Haugen, eds., Beginning with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart
Pannenberg (Chicago, Ill.: Open Court, 1997), 11646, quote from 146.
 PART TWO

SHUNYATA: NATURE AND SCIENCE IN MAHAYANA BUDDHISM

100 part two

In part I of this book, we overviewed the present state of the Christian

theology-science encounter in general and the pneumatology-science dis-
cussion more specifically, and explored ways in which complementary
analogies between pneumatological categories and science advanced our
thinking about divine presence in the creation as a whole and in human
beings more specifically. In part two, we will traverse a similar trajectory
from the religion-science encounter through cosmology to anthropology,
but do so in conversation with the Buddhist tradition. The complexities
of the discussion between Christian theology and science already encoun-
tered in the preceding pages should alert us to similar challenges in the
Buddhist-science dialogue. Two contemporary Mahayana Buddhist tradi-
tions, the Tibetan and the Japanese Kyoto School, have been most vis-
ibly involved and interested in science and its implications for Buddhist
thought and practice. I have had a greater (although by no means exten-
sive) familiarity with the latter, particularly related to the long-standing
dialogue between members of the Kyoto School and Western Christian
philosophy and theology dating back to the later Meiji period (18681912).
At the same time, the emergence of the Tibetan dialogue with the sciences
over the last thirty years means that there will be points where input from
this direction will be helpful, and at those junctures we will heed develop-
ments especially as they have been spearheaded by His Holiness the Dalai
Lama, the widely recognized leader of the Tibetan government in exile.
But, whereas a pneumatological hermeneutic informed the engage-
ment with science in part I, that motif is absent from and cannot be used
directly to interpret the Buddhist tradition in this part of the book. Just
as it was important to wrestle previously with categories central both to
Christian theology and to contemporary science, so it is in this discus-
sion as well. What we need is either another central symbol or idea that
is just as primordial to the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, and that can
serve as a hermeneutical lens for our engagement with it. I suggest that
the Mahayana notion of shunyata/sunyata (Sanskrit and Pali respectively,
literally meaning emptiness) has the potential to illuminate the Buddhist
encounter with science and with Christian theology. More specifically,
I propose that both Tibetan and East Asian Buddhist understandings of
the world (nature) and human beings as ultimately emptiness (without
self-substantiality) will open up surprising connections both to the cos-
mological and cognitive sciences, and to the pneumatological theology of
nature we are attempting to develop. Although the symbol of shunyata
is of minor import throughout Theravada Buddhism tradition and even
 shunyata 101

has been neglected in some parts of the Mahayana tradition, its crucial
role in some of the canonical Mahayana texts suggests it may hold prom-
ise for contemporary retrieval. Interestingly, that shunyata is a minor
theme overall in Buddhism suggests that it can serve as a valuable com-
parative category since, as we have seen, pneuma has also been somewhat
neglected in the main lines of Christian thought. In efffect, this volume
explores the possibility of whether two relatively marginal motifs in the
Christian and Buddhist traditions not only can enable a fresh engagement
with the religion-and-science conversation but also can reinvigorate the
Buddhist-Christian dialogue. (While this book does not attempt to show
that shunyata has been as inappropriately marginalized in Buddhism as
my corpus of work has argued pneuma has been in the Christian tradition,
my hunch is that the appearance of books with emptiness in their titles in
Buddhist studies is an indication of its growing prominence and retrieval;
this volume is meant as a meager contribution to a reconsideration of the
meaning of shunyata in our time.)
Our explicit comparative work will have to wait until part III of this
book. Our goal here is to delve into the interface of Buddhism and science
in order to understand it first on its own terms so as to lay the ground-
work for our later task. Like our discussion of the role of pneuma in the
dialogue between Christian theology and science, we will focus here on
how the idea of shunyata has facilitated the encounter between espe-
cially Mahayana traditions of Buddhism and modern science. It will be
important to provide both socio-historical, philosophical, and religious
perspectives on this encounter in order to identity appropriate and ade-
quate comparative categories for our task. As in part I, we will be covering
a good deal of ground; but we should be expecting nothing less in our
effforts to formulate a philosophical understanding of nature that recog-
nizes the value of the many voices not only in the sciences but also in a
religiously pluralistic world.
One caveat ought to be registered before proceeding. Some Western
readers may be approaching this material assuming that Buddhist tra-
ditions are more introspective than attentive to the natural world, least
of all to engaging the world scientifically. This stereotype may still be
true for some forms of Buddhism focused on contemplative practice.
In any case, as we shall see, Buddhists are now increasingly global citi-
zens who inhabit a thoroughly scientific and technological world, and an
increasing number are rethinking Buddhist teachings in light of modern
science. Of course, many Christians remain both anti-intellectualistic and
102 part two

anti-science in their overall posture. This book neither attempts to con-

vince such Christians of the import of this task nor tries to interact with
like-minded Buddhists.
In the context of the overall argument of this book, then, readers who
think the religion and science dialogue is important and especially those
familiar with Buddhism and the Buddhist-science discussion should be
on the lookout for conceptual bridges into the Christian theology and sci-
ence conversation, even if such will not be made explicit until part III of
this book. In particular, preliminary observations can be made about the
dynamic nature of shunyata and how that both enables the Buddhism-
science dialogue on the one hand and yet also invites comparisons with
the Christianity-science conversation on the other hand. Similarly, just as
pneuma has been presented as a suffficiently vague and general category
that can be specified variously in the Christian dialogue with the sciences,
might it also be the case that shunyata is comparatively vague and gen-
eral so as to be useful for Buddhist approaches to the sciences? Last, but
not least, as pneuma has invited consideration of the divine mind in rela-
tionship to how God is present to and active in the world, does shunyata
invite reflection on the nature of Buddha Mind, or consciousness, as the
ultimate form of reality? These major questions will guide our inquiry.
 CHAPTER FIVE

BUDDHISM AND CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE

My hypothesis in this part of the book is that the Mahayana Buddhist

understanding of the dynamically empty and self-emptying nature of all
things (shunyata) will serve a threefold function methodologically ame-
nable to the purposes of this volume.1 First, it is a central idea of at least
the early Mahayana Buddhist tradition, particularly as interpreted from
some Tibetan and East Asian Buddhist perspectives.2 Second, it resonates
in various ways with and may potentially serve as a bridge to the catego-
ries of contemporary physics, especially quantum field theory and con-
temporary philosophy of mind. Finally, my hopes are that it will also serve
the purposes of the Buddhist-Christian dialogue insofar as comparisons
with a pneumatological approach are discernible. Of course, my readers
will have to determine whether my intuitions about Buddhist shunyata in
each case cashes out. It may be that while shunyata is a central Mahayana
Buddhist motif and connects with the discourse of contemporary science,
it may not correlate well with Christian pneumatology. Judgment should
wait until the comparative analysis in part III.
In this chapter I introduce the idea of shunyata and its role in the
Buddhism-science dialogue. We begin with an overview of the Buddhist-
science encounter (5.1), proceed to delve into some of the details of this
encounter particularly as reflected in the current Mind and Life dialogues

1Many English texts rightly translate shunyata as emptiness. But, as we shall see later,
this reified noun form is misleading since English language interpreters are led then to
believe that shunyata is a kind of thing. Instead, as Zen philosopher Masao Abe notes,
This total dynamic movement of emptying, not a static state of emptiness, is the true
meaning of Sunyata.... Sunyata should not be understood in its noun form but in its ver-
bal form, for it is a dynamic and creative function of emptying everything and making alive
everything; see Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, in John B. Cobb, Jr. and Chris-
topher Ives, eds., The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (Maryknoll:
Orbis, 1990), 365, quotations from 28 and 33. For this reason, by and large in this book,
I talk about emptying rather than emptiness, although the latter appears often enough,
at least when I am citing other scholarship.
2I touch some on Theravadan perspectives in 7.1, but then only in the discussion of
Buddhist views of no-self; for an overview of the Theravadan encounter with science, see
Richard H. Jones, Science and Mysticism: A Comparative Study of Western Natural Science,
Theravada Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, and
London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1986).
104 chapter five

held by Tibetan Buddhists and Western scientists (5.2), and conclude

with a basic sketch of the complementarities between shunyata and mod-
ern science especially as that has played out in the Kyoto School (5.3).
This discussion will land us at the heart of the contemporary Buddhist
engagement with modern science.
At the same time, we should also be mindful that the following cannot
pretend to be exhaustive in its coverage. Our selection of what to include
and what to leave out is guided in part by our focus on developments
in the Mahayana tradition, and even then, especially on the Tibetan
and Japanese fronts. These lenses are certainly limitations that preclude
generalizations for the entirety of the Buddhist tradition. However, they
are also reminders that as historically situated beings we have no choice
but to begin with particularity, and that itself provides concreteness to
discussions that might otherwise evaporate in a steam of philosophical
abstractions.

5.1The Buddhist-Science Dialogue: An Overview

What is the current state of the relationship between Buddhist thought

and science? How do Buddhists understand the application of Buddhist
categories to the sciences, and how do scientists view the attempts to find
resonances between the two domains of discourse? What are some of the
questions and potential problems that have been identified in the conver-
sation? These are important prolegomena issues that can help situate our
reflections of what shunyata means in an age of science.3
The question of Buddhism and its relationship to modern science can
be understood in part against the backdrop of the occidental discov-
ery of and fascination with the exotic East in the nineteenth century.
At the same time that Max Mller (18231900) and others were begin-
ning to translate Buddhist texts into English (in the Sacred Books of the
East series), members of the Theosophical Society were traveling East

3Succinct introductions to the Buddhism-science dialogue are Richard K. Payne, Bud-

dhism and the Sciences: Historical Background, Contemporary Developments, in Ted
Peters and Gaymon Bennett, eds., Bridging Science and Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 2003), 15372, and the essays by Jose Ignacio Cabezn and Thupten Jinpa in B. Alan
Wallace, ed., Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2003). Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago
and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2008), is less a conventional history than it
is vignettes especially into ideological aspects of the encounter.
 buddhism and contemporary science 105

to explore its wisdom. Insofar as the West itself was wrestling then with
what it meant to be both religious and scientific, it was inevitable that
similar questions were asked of the Eastern religious and philosophical
traditions. At the 1893 Parliament of Religions of the Worlds Fair in Chi-
cago, Shaku Soyen (18601919), the first Zen teacher in the United States,
spoke about the rationality of the law of cause and efffect, as taught by the
Buddha, and Anagarika Dharmapala (18641933), a major reformer and
modernizer of Sinhalese (Sri Lankan) Buddhism, waxed eloquent about
Buddhisms sublime psychology and its compatibility with evolutionary
theory.4
Shortly thereafter, one of the first books was published that argued not
only for the compatibility of Buddhism to science, but also for the formers
superiority.5 Two main theses were presented. First, Western science is
not as diffferent from Christian faith insofar as it has emerged in the West
both as an apologetic strategy in the hands of persons of faith and as hav-
ing its own faith presuppositions; as such, science (understood by the
author as Western science) has served to fill in the gaps of knowledge
in faiths striving to know the divine and the realm of the transcendent.
Second, and by way of contrast to the first thesis, it is Buddhism alone
which provides satisfactory assurance, not by the creation of any new
knowledge [science] but by bringing to an end a beginningless ignorance.6
As such, Buddhism is the true science which provides the most satisfac-
tory (hypothetical) worldview for our engaging and experiencing reality.
The author then proceeds in the attempt to demonstrate the superiority
of Buddhism (the Buddhas dharma and teachings) to the sciences of his
timee.g., physics, physiology, biology, cosmology, and epistemology/
rationality.
Similar effforts at Buddhist apologetics vis--vis the claims of science
have continued since. The rhetoric of these effforts expands on the argu-
ment that Buddhism is the true science in large part because it provides

4Shaku Soyen, The Law of Cause and Efffect, as Taught by Buddha, and Anagarika
Dharmapala, The Worlds Debt to Buddha, both in Richard Hughes Seager, ed., The
Dawn of Religious Pluralism: Voices from the Worlds Parliament of Religion, 1893 (LaSalle,
Ill.: Open Court, 1993), 4069 and 41019 respectively. Not surprisingly, of course, Dhar-
mapalas connections with the Theosophists were quite strong; see Tessa Bartholomeusz,
Dharmapala at Chicago: Mahayana Buddhist or Sinhala Chauvinist? in Eric J. Ziolkowski,
ed., A Museum of Faiths: Histories and Legacies of the 1893 World Parliament of Religions,
Classics in Religious Studies 9 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 23550, esp. 23742.
5Paul Dahlke, Buddhism and Science, trans. Bhikkhu Slcra (London: Macmillan, 1913).
6Dahlke, Buddhism and Science, 81; italics orig.
106 chapter five

not only for a rigorous empirical method, but also because it is more inclu-
sive than science with its therapeutic and existentialist dimensions.7 Now
of course there has always been resistance put up against this marriage
of Buddhism and science, especially insofar as Buddhism is understood
primarily as either a religious and existential philosophy or worldview.8
Yet even in cases like this, what comes to the forefront is the dimension of
Buddhism that includes an extensively developed psychology or method
of cultivating the mind, thus leading in some ways back toward conver-
gence via this route. Against this background, it is understandable that the
need to legitimate Buddhism in a colonialist world dominated by techno-
logical (read: scientific) progress led Buddhist intellectuals to apologetic
strategies that engaged with rather than discounted the sciences.9
Thus, the twentieth century has seen a spectrum of claims regarding
Buddhism not only as superior to science, but also as at least compat-
ible and in harmony with science. In the latter cases, advocates have also
urged, in light of the threats of technological advance which were begin-
ning to be realized, that wisdom is needed to handle the deliverances of
science and that such wisdom was available in the Eastern traditions. So
Buddhist mysticismspecifically the kind productive of wisdom, not of
the superstitious kindwas important to guide the future progress of sci-
ence as a whole.10
But Buddhisms contribution was not limited, of course, to its wisdom.
There were also many who were convinced that the overturning of clas-
sical physics and the dawn of quantum mechanics provided evidence for
the truth of Buddhist claims concerning the nature of the cosmos through
the ages. Those in this camp thought about Buddhism and science not in
terms of superiority but in terms of each being complementary or parallel

7K.N. Jayatilleke, Robert F. Spencer and Wu Shu, Buddhism and Science: Collected
Essays (Kandy, Ceylon: Buddhist Publication Society, 1958), and various essayists in Bud-
dhadasa P. Kirthisinghe, ed., Buddhism and Science (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984),
make these claims.
8For example, R.G. de S. Wettimuny, Buddhism and Its Relation to Religion and Science
(Colombo: M.D. Gunasena and Co. Ltd., 1962).
9A more recent volume in this genre is Mahinda Weerasinghe, The Origin of Species
according to the Buddha (Colombo, Sri Lanka: Stamford Lake Publication, 2002), which
argues that the Pali canon introduces ideas related to sensory becoming that anticipate
as well as provide a more comprehensive explanation for evolutionary paths than the
Darwinian theory on its own.
10E.g., R.G.H. Siu, The Tao of Science: An Essay on Western Knowledge and Eastern Wis-
dom (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1957); Hideki Yukawa, Creativity and Intuition: A
Physicist Looks at East and West (Tokyo: Kodansha, 1973); and Mansel Davies, A Scientist
Looks at Buddhism (Sussex, England: The Book Guild Ltd., 1990).
 buddhism and contemporary science 107

to the other. However, they did not doubt that the central ideas of the
Buddhist tradition could contribute to a deeper understanding of the new
physics, especially in terms of providing reliable models for imaging, con-
ceptualizing, and articulating the realities engaged in the micro-world.
Buddhism was, in this case, understood to be at least parallel to mod-
ern science, both in terms of its methods and approaches to the natural
world, and in terms of the content of knowledge delivered. And this was
especially the case with explorations in philosophy of mind and quan-
tum physics.11 As one Buddhist writer put it: the ancient Buddhist insis-
tence on knowledge as the key for salvation suggests an anticipation of
the information age.12 Not surprisingly, then, this genre of literature has
inevitably featured some optimism about the possibilities of a synthesis
between Buddhism and science, in part in order to establish the creden-
tials of Buddhism in the modern world, but also in part in order to salvage
and redeem the scientific enterprise for those with religious and spiritual
commitments shaped by the traditions of the East.
The work of three contemporary Buddhists is illuminating in this
regard. Trinh Thuan is a widely published professor of astronomy at the
University of Virginia who has explored the Buddhism-and-science inter-
face with Matthieu Ricard, a Nobel prize-winning scientist trained in cel-
lular genetics, who left the laboratory to pursue life as a Buddhist monk.13
Their book together dialogues widely across scientific and metaphysical

11The literature is now staggering. For a sampling, see Michael Talbot, Mysticism and
the New Physics (New York: Bantam Books, 1981); Ken Wilber, ed., The Holographic Para-
digm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading Edge of Science (Boulder and London:
Shambhala, 1982); Jeremy W. Hayward, Shifting Worlds, Changing Minds: Where the Sci-
ences and Buddhism Meet (London: New Science Library, and Boston: Shambhala, 1987);
Norman Friedman, Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements in David Bohms Physics,
the Perennial Philosophy and Seth (1990; reprint, St. Louis, Mo.: Living Lake Books, 1994);
Paul Barrows, Beyond the Self: Consciousness, Mysticism and the New Physics (London: Janus
Publishing Company, 1998); and Gay Watson, Stephen Batchelor and Guy Claxton, eds.,
The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science, and Our Day-to-day Lives (York Beach,
Me.: Samuel Weiser, Inc., 2000).
12Tsung-I Dow, Modern Science and the Rediscovery of Buddhism, in Ramakrishna
Puligandla and David Lee Miller, eds., Buddhism and the Emerging World Civilization:
Essays in Honor of Nolan Pliny Jacobson (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press,
1996), 11324; quote from 124.
13E.g., Trinh Xuan Thuan, The Secret Melody: And Man Created the Universe, trans.
Storm Dunlop (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; reprint, Philadelphia and London:
Templeton Foundation Press, 2005), and Chaos and Harmony: Perspectives on the Scientific
Revolutions of the Twentieth Century, trans. Axel Reisinger (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2001; reprint, Philadelphia and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2006), and many
other books.
108 chapter five

issues including the question of design, quantum physics, time, chaos,

consciousness, beauty, and many other topics.14 What emerges is a con-
temporary scientific apologetic for Buddhism, especially of the Tibetan
Mahayana version practiced by Ricard. While both Thuan and Ricard
reject a materialistic interpretation of the world, the volume illuminates
diffferences in how both engage the big metaphysical questions. Thuan
the astrophysicist had, at least in his earlier work, admitted an openness
to thinking about the First Cause of the universe in theistic terms (as
vague as such were),15 while Ricard opts instead for a non-theistic view of
consciousness in relationship to an evolutionary universe.
At one level, this book can be understood as documenting Thuans
own re-encounter with the Buddhism of his youth, and his attempts to
explore the compatibility of the scientific worldview at the turn of the
twenty-first century with contemporary retrievals and reappropriations of
the Buddhist tradition. If read in this light, the rhetorical shifts in Thu-
ans metaphysical speculations are noteworthy. In contrast to the much
more explicit theistic language in his other works, Thuans language in
The Quantum and the Lotus is tempered in the direction of the mystical,
if not explicitly pantheistic, sensibilities of Spinoza and Einstein. He thus
clearly states: I do not personally believe in a personified God, but rather
in a pantheistic principle that is omnipresent in nature.16 At the same
time, given the fine-tuned initial conditions and physical constraints of
our present world, Thuan also suggests that such a principle of organiza-
tion did produce laws of nature that have taken on most if not all of the
traditional attributes of the personal God of monotheistic traditions: uni-
versality, absoluteness, timelessness, and omnipotence (in terms of being
all-efffecting).
Ricards Buddhist commitments, however, lead him to explain the laws
of nature, along with the finely tuned constants, as simply reflecting the
interdependence of natures phenomena. If Thuan insists that such a prin-
ciple of organization is, if not personal, nevertheless intentional in terms
of creating a world with conscious and intelligent observers such as our-
selves, Ricard recourses instead to the non-theistic albeit deeply Mahayana
Buddhist category of consciousness as providing a more satisfying ulti-
mate form of explanation. Thus Ricard presumes a beginning-less succes-

14Trinh Xuan Thuan and Matthieu Ricard, The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the
Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet, trans. Ian Monk (reprint, New York: Three
Rivers Press, 2004).
15See Thuan, The Secret Melogy, 249, and Chaos and Harmony, 33132.
16Thuan and Ricard, Quantum and the Lotus, 50.
 buddhism and contemporary science 109

sion of moments of consciousness so that the universe and consciousness

have always coexisted.17 If some might think this notion of universal
consciousness is compatible with Thuans universal creative principle,
Ricard insists both that the primordial cosmic consciousness is certainly
not personal, omnipotent, or creator out of nothing, and that there is the
further assumption regarding some kind of cosmic dualismthe physical
universe and consciousnessin the Buddhist tradition. But note that in
the end, Ricards compatibilistic understanding of Buddhism and mod-
ern science is deeply informed by the meditative practices of the Tibetan
tradition. For Ricard, the question of spiritual practice and even soteriol-
ogy, if such can be generalized from the Christian to the Buddhist tradi-
tion that speaks not of salvation but of awakening and enlightenment, is
not bracketed when discussing issues in the current encounter between
religion and science from the Buddhist perspective. Instead, it is precisely
such meditative practices that illuminate how the ultimate nature of the
world can be understood in terms of consciousness that is yet not theistic
in character.
Theoretical astrophysicist Vic Mansfield taught at Colgate University
from 1973 until his death in 2008. Although widely published in Buddhism
and science,18 his last book is most pertinent for our purposes.19 Tibetan
Buddhism and Modern Physics explores the parallels and disjunctions
between quantum mechanics and Buddhist compassion, and introduces
the Madhyamaka or Middle Path tradition of Mahayana Buddhism. Now
Mansfield is careful to warn against attempting to prove the truths of
Buddhism by appeal to physics or science. Yet the apologetic temptation
is undoubtedly diffficult to hold offf completely, as wheneven if such
statements appear only sporadicallywe read that no other major reli-
gious worldview has such an arresting and detailed connection to modern
physics.20
The heart of Mansfields argument consists of attempts to further the
dialogue between the notion of quantum nonlocality and Buddhist emp-
tiness, to take up the challenge regarding non-causality that quantum

17Thuan and Ricard, Quantum and the Lotus, 42.

18Besides a wide range of articles, Mansfield has also published Synchronicity, Science,
and Soul-Making: Understanding Jungian Synchronicity through Physics, Buddhism, and
Philosophy (La Salle, Ill.: Open Court, 1995), and Head and Heart: A Personal Exploration of
Science and the Sacred (Wheaton, Ill.: Quest Books, 2002).
19See Vic Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics: Toward a Union of Love and Knowl-
edge (West Conshohocken, Penn.: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008).
20Mansfield, Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, 45.
110 chapter five

mechanics poses to the Tibetan tradition, and to explore the puzzles

posed by relativity theory for both scientific and Buddhist understand-
ings of time and temporality. Notable aspects of the discussion include
his observation that the incomprehensible and impossible (according
to Newtonian physical laws) quantum fact of simultaneous action at a
distance reflects the Buddhist notion that nothing has independent or
self-inherent existence, even as quantum nonlocality may illuminate
the mystery of inter-personal knowledge we have of other persons, not
to mention the feelings of compassion and love we have for and receive
from others. It is the parallels of such a quantum mechanically confirmed
notion of interdependence with Mahayana Buddhist ideas which is sug-
gestive of what Mansfield calls a physics of peace21or what we might
also call an ontology of primordial peace (as opposed to the Darwinian
characterization of nature red in tooth and claw). Further, the quantum
mechanical problem that there is no causal explanation for the collapse
of the wave function is confronted head-on. This finds extension in the
basically a-teleological character of biological (Darwinian) evolution, but,
Mansfield acknowledges, it is simultaneously problematic for a Buddhist
tradition that is deeply indebted to a robust view of causality. On this
issue, Mansfield courageously admits he can only hope that holding this
tension with intensity and integrity will allow some synthetic and satis-
fying point of view to arise, but there is no guarantee that such a view
will come to pass.22 Last but not least, the cosmologically expanding uni-
verse driven by the laws of entropy are suggested to be congruent with
the decay and impermanence of the world that is announced in the first
Nobel Truth that all is duhkha (or sufffering).
Is it possible to view the Buddhist encounter with science as an attempt
to identify a convergence of love and knowledge in the world, as suggested
by the subtitle of Mansfields last book? Throughout his oeuvre, Mans-
fields quest is neither only for scientific understanding on the one hand
nor only for religious or philosophical clarity on the other, but always for
perspective on how the two are either complementary or divergent, as
the cases may be. Thus he seeks to hold onto the tension of quantum
a-causality and bioevolutionary a-teleology as part of the most recent sci-
entific consensuses, but yet still insists such must be only partial truths
given the human conviction that love and sufffering are deep truths of

21Mansfield, Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, 90.

22Mansfield, Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, 128.
 buddhism and contemporary science 111

spiritual life, that they are pivots around which our moral actions turn.23
Herein one senses that Mansfield embraces rather than resolves the ten-
sion of engaging science without abandoning his Buddhist convictions. At
the same time, the sought-after union of love and knowledge always has
moral implications: as all philosophic principles must have moral conse-
quences, so also the truth of emptiness must be expressed in compas-
sionate action.24
The work of Thuan and Ricard, as well as of Mansfield, press various
methodological and material questions related to the Buddhist encounter
with science. From the Ricardian perspective, what is the nature of con-
sciousness in relationship to our understanding of the fundamental nature
of the world? In both caseswhether regarding Mansfields quest for the
links between love and knowledge or Ricards resolution to the relation-
ship between religion and sciencewhat role might Buddhist practices,
either meditative or practical-moral-ethical, play in the dialogue between
Buddhism and science? There are certainly other questions, and we will
return to many of these later.
But, for now, how does one go about engaging and assessing this volu-
minous literature on the Buddhist encounter with modern science which
increases daily? The same problem which Thuan, Ricard, and Mansfield
confront directly exists, of course, for those wishing to enter into the
Christian theology and science discussion. While in part I the guiding
motifs which enabled our navigation through that material were insights
and categories drawn from pneumatology, here I propose a similar strat-
egy, one suggested although not developed extensively by Mansfield: that
of relying upon one central Buddhist ideathe self-emptying character of
all things (shunyata)as a primary category to help steer our inquiry.25
Might this Mahayana notion of shunyata not only be suggestive for human
morality or ethics but also hold the key to understanding the nature of the
cosmos from a Buddhist perspective? This will actually accomplish two
purposes. First, it will allow us to detect and highlight certain issues in
the Buddhist and science dialogue that are informed by this important
notion. Second, my hypothesis is that the ideas tracked will also serve to

23Mansfield, Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, 127.

24Mansfield, Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics, 162.
25Shunyata, as understood by the Madhyamaka, is the central idea of Buddhism,
according to T.R.V. Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika
System, 2nd ed. (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1960). On the other hand, despite
Murtis claims, this idea remains relatively neglected in large strands of the Buddhist tradi-
tion. I provide some historical perspective in the next chapter.
112 chapter five

undergird the bridge partially erected in part I of this book. Before we

commit ourselves to this path of inquiry, however, let us observe how
other Tibetan Buddhists have navigated their encounter with science and
the modern world.

5.2Mind and Life: Contemporary Tibetan Buddhism and Science

I want to turn now to what is the most sustained set of dialogues between
Buddhists and scientists, that facilitated by the Mind and Life Institute
which has been bringing together in conversation Tibetan Buddhist prac-
titioners, including His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, and Western scien-
tists and philosophers for almost the last thirty years. Established in 1985,
the Mind and Life Institute has held over twenty conferences, with book
publications resulting from almost every one. In this section, I very briefly
summarize some of the volumes,26 with an eye toward thinking about
how Buddhists have approached both the methodological issues related
to their dialogue with science and what we have called the philosophy of
nature.
At the heart of the Tibetan encounter with science has been what
Ricard has referred to: the nature of consciousness. Not surprisingly, then,
the contemporary science of consciousness has featured prominently in
considerations related to the cognitive neurosciences, experimental neu-
ropsychology, philosophy of mind, artificial intelligence, evolutionary
biology, neurobiology, psychiatry, memory, mental health and illness,
and psychopharmacology.27 Of specific concern has been the question
of the relationship of consciousness to the brain. Buddhists have not
accepted the dominant neuroscientific tendency of reducing the mind to
the brain.

26I provide a more in depth overview of the dialogues and the published volumes
through about 2006 in my review essay, Mind and Life, Religion and Science: The Dalai
Lama and the Buddhist-Christian-Science Trilogue, Buddhist-Christian Studies 28 (2008):
4363.
27Note, for example, the earliest conference publications: Jeremy W. Hayward and
Francisco J. Varela, eds., Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on the Sci-
ences of Mind (Boston and London: Shambhala, 1992), and Zara Houshmand, Robert B.
Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with
the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1999). See also the
related publication, derived from a symposium involving His Holiness and sponsored by
the Mind/Body Medical Institute of Harvard Medical School and the New England Dea-
conness Hospital, in conjunction with the Tibet House of New York: Daniel Goleman and
Robert A.F. Thurman, eds., MindScience: An East-West Dialogue (Boston: Wisdom, 1991).
 buddhism and contemporary science 113

However, His Holiness explanations of the Tibetan Buddhist view

have also revealed nuances. On the one hand, His Holiness has indicated
that consciousness is dependent, at least to some degree, on objects cog-
nized: a subjective agent...has the potential to arise correspondent to an
object that appears to it. Through the force of the stimulus of the object,
consciousness has the ability to arise in an aspect corresponding to the
object.28 In a sense, consciousness defines objects retroactively; put alter-
natively, objects are teleologically determined, and consciousnesses make
such determination. In either case, in the neuroscience-and-Buddhist
dialogue, perceivers and objects arise simultaneously or co-dependently.
Yet on the other hand, His Holiness has also afffirmed a more genuine
interdependence between consciousness and its object: consciousness is
understood as a multifaceted matrix of events. Some of them are utterly
dependent on the brain, and, at the other end of the spectrum, some of
them are completely independent of the brain. There is no one thing that
is the mind or soul.29 Herein we also see the fundamental Tibetan Bud-
dhist understanding of consciousness at multiple levels: what the Bud-
dhists called gross consciousness is brain and body-dependent, while the
more subtle levels of consciousness provide a metaphysics or ontology
for karmic reincarnation without positing a personal mind or soul that is
carried over from life to life.
This question regarding the nature or ontology of consciousness has
been a central feature of the Mind and Life dialogues. The conversations
have touched on various aspects of this important issue: the interrela-
tionship between the emotions, the brain, and the body; the correlations
between mindfulness and behavior as medicinal factors; the relationship
between gross and subtle levels of consciousness; the consciousness of
sleeping, dreaming, and dying; the nature of compassion, empathy, and
altruism, as well as of destructive emotions, in psychosocial, neurobiologi-
cal, and consciousness research; and neuroplasticity as related to learning
and brain transformation, among other topics. It is important to note that
throughout, His Holiness has been a vibrant dialogue partner, although by
no means the dominant voice. Thus, His Holiness models a dialogical pos-
ture and a willingness to listen to and learn from (Western) scientists and
philosophers about matters that have been treated at great depth over the

28In Hayward and Varela, eds., Gentle Bridges, 194.

29In Houshmand, Livingston, and Wallace, eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads, 40.
114 chapter five

centuries by Tibetan Buddhist adepts, scholars, and philosophers.30 There

are certainly occasions when His Holiness and the Tibetan monks would
push back against the dominant scientific fronts, e.g., against materi-
alistic theories of mind or consciousness, or reductionist or epiphenom-
enalist explanations of the emotions, or a bifurcated two worlds view of
science and ethics. Yet these are part and parcel of a dynamic discussion,
with no sense that His Holiness is exercising any ultimate authority to
speak on matters contested not only by scientists but also across Buddhist
traditions.
Methodologically it is important to note that Buddhist perspectives
have come to play a more and more prominent role in the dialogues.
When the dialogues first began in the mid-1980s, there were few engaged
in scientific research who also embraced a Buddhist way of life. Over the
course of the dialogues, however, more of such scholar-scientist-practitio-
ners have been identified. Part of the result is that Buddhist contemplative
practices are no longer just being talked about; instead they are becom-
ing more and more both the object and subject of experimental research.
What has happened over time is that the repeated Buddhist insistence
on the centrality of the role of introspection for the sciences of the mind
and of consciousness has been gradually heeded. This has become pos-
sible as greater numbers of the scientists are also practicing Buddhists. So,
whereas in previous generations introspection had been considered and
rejected for fear of compromising the objectivity of the science of psychol-
ogy, the dialogues have given further momentum to what is being increas-
ingly recognized in the wider scientific community: that strict objectivity
is an illusion and that there is an element of subjectivity, for example
that involved in self-introspection, related to all scientific experimenta-
tion that needs to be controlled, but can nevertheless also be gainfully
deployed for the purposeful advance of knowledge and the sciences. We
will return to pick up on this important discussion of the science of con-
sciousness later (7.2).
I now turn to a consideration of a volume uniquely focused on the
harder natural sciences, especially physics.31 In this book the discussants

30At one point, His Holiness said, if you find from your own scientific perspective any
arguments against a particular issue asserted in Buddhism, I would like you to be very
frank, because I will learn and benefit from that (in Houshmand, Livingston, and Wallace,
eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads, 48).
31Arthur Zajonc, ed., The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
 buddhism and contemporary science 115

engage directly how the paradoxes of quantum physicse.g., wave-particle

duality, nonlocality and quantum entanglement, the measurement prob-
lemthe nature of time and space-time relativity, and the cosmological
and astrophysical sciences relate to especially Tibetan Buddhist philoso-
phy, logic, and cosmology. The topics thus covered are by far the most
wide-rangingfrom physics to metaphysics, ontology, philosophy, epis-
temology, and logicof the Mind and Life dialogues and their resulting
publications.
I want to focus my comments on the question of cosmic origins, partly
because that has dominated the Christianity-science dialogue, but also
partly because they illuminate the seamlessness of the Buddhist world-
view. On the one hand, the team of physicists involved in the dialogue pre-
sented the status quaestiones of their fields with regard to various debates
in current cosmology, such as the notion of a finite but unbounded uni-
verse. This notion is also related to the idea that the moment of T=0 (the
big bang) was a centerless explosion that occurred everywhere at once
but yet with infinite velocity (i.e., faster than the speed of light, contrary
to the universal constraints of the post-inflationary period of the earliest
moments in the history of the cosmos), resulting in a temporally finite
but perhaps spatially infinite world without a boundary or edge. From
this emerges the paradox that the expansion of the universe is the same
everywhere, yet from various frames of reference, the galaxies closest to
the observer are receding at a slower pace while those furthest away are
moving away most rapidly. These and other puzzling astrophysical and
cosmological phenomena were extensively discussed.
In each case, however, the entire group, Western scientists (and phi-
losophers) and Tibetan Buddhists, wrestled with the implications of
these theoretical postulations with regard to fundamental philosophical
questions such as causality, the nature of space and time, and the ori-
gins and ultimate nature of the world. For example, is either space or
time or space-time absolute? Some physicists would say yes to some or
all of the above, others similarly no. Interestingly, in other Buddhism-and-
science conversations that His Holiness has been a part of, the notion of
an absolute and irreversible time based on thermodynamics, the genera-
tion of electromagnetic radiation, and the expansion of the universe have
been defended by Eastern scientists.32 This in turn raises the Dalai Lamas

32See, e.g., Jayant V. Narlikar, Concept of Time in Science, in L.L. Mehrotra, ed., Sci-
ence, Spirituality and the Future: A Vision for the Twenty-First CenturyEssays in Honour of
116 chapter five

question of how the notion of absolute functions in discussing this set

of questions.
At various points in the conversation, His Holiness clarified some of the
basic features of Buddhist cosmology. Three in particular are of interest at
this juncture. First, His Holiness was inclined to say that the universe is
infinite or without absolute beginning, since to say otherwise requires an
uncaused first moment, which notion is contrary to Buddhist intuitions.
Alternatively, all things arise interdependently from space particles
(which were catalytically energized by karmic forces so as to produce the
big bang and the subsequent evolutionary history of the world), which is
postulated especially in the Kalachakra (literally, wheel of time) school
of Tibetan Buddhism, the most complex set of Buddhist teachings pre-
sented in the Dalai Lamas Geluk tradition. Finally, the boundarylessness
of the world implies either what scientists have called an oscillating uni-
verse (an innumerable sequence of big bangs followed by universal col-
lapses) or that our universe with its beginning at the big bang is part of
an infinite multiverse (as implied by the many universes theory related
to the measurement problem suggested by some quantum cosmologists)
with an incalculable number of worlds coming and going, albeit gener-
ally physically disconnected from one another.33 These are clearly heady
and speculative subjects, a far cry from Shakyamuni Buddhas reply, when
asked about the origins of the world by inquiring disciples, regarding the
uselessness of such matters for the purposes of curing human sufffering.
Yet in the spirit of the Buddha, this conversation closed with a clear afffir-
mation of knowledge, even the knowledge affforded by the natural sci-
ences, as a means to reduce the sufffering of sentient beings.
His Holiness has also recently published an autobiographical work
reflecting on his dialogues with scientists over the last three decades.34 In
this, he reflects on how his widespread travels have persuaded him that
Tibetan Buddhist practices, spirituality, and ethics, which were always
connected, could also combine with science to transform the world and

His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (New Delhi: Mudrit, 1999), 10312,
esp. 10910.
33See Lee Smolin, The Life of the Cosmos (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999),
and Ervin Laszlo, Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything, 2nd ed.
(Rosemont, Vt.: Inner Traditions, 2007), esp. 8293, for examples of how such ideas are
being entertained by those working out of the Western scientific tradition.
34His Holiness the Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Sci-
ence and Spirituality (New York: Morgan Road, 2005).
 buddhism and contemporary science 117

make it a better and more hospitable place for all people.35 Hence there is
a complementarity between Buddhism and science, each with established
traditions, perspectives, and goals, but yet also revisable and focused on
better understanding the world. This complementarity is seen through-
out His Holiness reflections on his life with science. Whether considering
such esoteric topics as quantum physics, the big bang, the evolution of
life, and the nature and science of consciousness, his insistence on the
interrelationship of ethics, spirituality, and science for human life in the
twenty-first century is always palpable.
While many of the topics and themes from the Mind and Life dialogues
reappear amidst these autobiographical reflectionse.g., on karma as
the driving engine of the evolutionary history of the world; the reality of
downward causation from mind to brain; the notion of brain plasticity
what is noteworthy is His Holinesss acknowledgments about how his
own mind has changed either as a result of those dialogues or since then,
based on further inquiry. One example of the latter is his connecting the
Kalachakra theory of space particles with the emerging view of the big
bang as deriving from the thermodynamic instabilities that physicists
have recently termed a quantum vacuum.36 Here His Holiness shows a
willingness to reinterpret traditional Buddhist metaphysical and cosmo-
logical ideas according to developments in modern cosmology.
Yet what is of prime import is not the what of the Buddhist encounter
with science but, as we saw in Mansfields work, the so what? Throughout
his autobiography, there is a conscious attempt to show how science and
Buddhist spirituality is connected (as indicated by the books subtitle).
As already noted, what is most important is how both science and Bud-
dhism are focused on the formation of a better world, one in which there
is less and less sufffering, and in which there is more happiness present as
a result of our being here.
What then can we say in light of the Mind and Life dialogues about
the methodological tensions between science as providing a universal
perspective and Tibetan Buddhism as providing a particular (religious or
philosophical) vision? His Holiness has repeatedly said that the claims of
the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, if true, are empirically and experientially
confirmable quite apart from what Buddhism says. In that sense, his has

35These are themes that His Holiness emphasized early in the Mind and Life dia-
loguese.g., Houshmand, Livingston, and Wallace, eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads,
15052.
36The Dalai Lama, The Universe in a Single Atom, 8587.
118 chapter five

always been the quest for a universal and secular ethics, one that is not
tied down to any one religious or philosophical system. In his view, it is
precisely science as a cross-cultural enterprise that is in the best position
to identify an ethical posture based on nature itself. Interestingly, while
many scientists also think that theirs is the quest for a universally true
viewpoint (or that the domain of science is distinct from that of ethics
a minority position defended by a smaller number of scientists involved
in the Mind and Life dialogues), some of them challenged the idea of a
naturalistic ethics shorn of religious or philosophical presuppositions.37
What is increasingly realized is both that science itself operates accord-
ing to assumptions derived from elsewhere, and that the fact-valueand
nature-ethicsdichotomy is problematic.
What is not agreed upon is the precise nature of the relationship
between religious and/or philosophical (in this case, Tibetan Buddhist)
traditions and science. On the one hand, the Dalai Lama has no interest
in promoting Buddhism in any kind of classically understood missionary
sense (hence, note, his autobiography is entitled Science and Spirituality,
not Science and Buddhism);38 on the other hand, as a practicing Buddhist,
there are certain motivating apologetic issues such that scientific legiti-
mation for Buddhist beliefs and practices is embraced whenever such is
discerned as present. I suggest this is unavoidable in cases when world-
views (or religious or philosophical systems) initially come into contact
with science: there is an instinctive reaction to find confirmation from sci-
ence for apologetic purposes, even while there is at least an initial sense
or recognition of the parochial and sectarian nature of ones religious or
philosophical tradition. It is only natural that the recent emergence of
Tibetan Buddhism on the world stage has brought with it these evident
tensions.
The focus on the nature of consciousness throughout much of the
Mind and Life conversations has resulted in marginal rather than cen-
tral attention to the notion of shunyata or dynamic self-emptying. The

37For extensive accounts of the back-and-forth interactions on this issue, see Daniel
Goleman, ed., Healing Emotions: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Mindfulness, Emo-
tions, and Health (Boston and London: Shambhala, 1997), 1731 and 24350; Richard J.
Davidson and Anne Harrington, eds., Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan
Buddhists Examine Human Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 21422; and
Anne Harrington and Arthur Zajonc, eds., The Dalai Lama at MIT (Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard University Press, 2006), 19094, 20610, 21418, 23641, and passim.
38Elsewhere in the dialogues, His Holiness explicitly rejected any missionary moti-
vations with regard to Tibetan Buddhist traditions; see Davidson and Harrington, eds.,
Visions of Compassion, 245.
 buddhism and contemporary science 119

Dalai Lama, for example, recognizes the importance of the doctrine of

shunyata when thinking about relativity theory and quantum mechan-
ics, but these more speculative endeavors are ultimately subservient to
the ethical task of forging a humane common future.39 If anything, the
Tibetan focus has been what might be called soteriologicalon awaken-
ing and enlightenmentrather than metaphysical. Matters related to the
philosophy (or ontology or metaphysics) of nature are less important than
are ethical concernsthat is the whole point behind the Mahayana insis-
tence that we do not cling to our theories or doctrines about things. Thus,
for example, contrary to the stereotypical Western view that the Buddhist
idea of non-self included the rejection of selfhood, it is afffirmed that
there is a distinctively Bodhisattvic self-identity which allows for self-sac-
rifice benefiting other sentient beings.40 The point here is to minimize
the philosophical debates in favor of thinking specifically out of Tibetan
Buddhist sensitivities and commitments. The reverse is more obviously
the case when we transition to think about the Kyoto School of Zen in
the twentieth century.
What then are some of the ways in which the idea of the self-emptying
character of all things has emerged from and perhaps even contributed
to the Buddhist-science dialogue? While we will return in due time to a
more historically oriented analysis of the Buddhist concept of shunyata
(ch. 6), for our present purposes, we turn to the Kyoto School of Japanese
Buddhism. One of our goals is to observe how shunyata has emerged as
a central philosophical category in the Buddhist-science dialogue and to
map some of its primary insights. The other objective is to explore how
Buddhists have attempted to adjudicate the methodological issues inher-
ent in their engagement with science. As we have already seen in the case
of the Mind and Life dialogues, Buddhists can neither allow the sciences
to dominate the conversationto do so would be to risk losing the dis-
tinctive and essential commitments of the beliefs and practices long cen-
tral to their way of lifenor ignore the advances of science altogether. To
explore further the issues, we engage next with the ideas of Keiji Nishitani,
a Kyoto School philosopher who was concerned both with the Buddhist
encounter with science and with the retrieval and reappropriation of the
traditional concept of shunyata.

39Ch. 2 of His Holiness the Dalai Lamas The Universe in a Single Atom is titled, Empti-
ness, Relativity, and Quantum Physics, but the idea of shunyata does not appear in the
remainder of the book.
40See Goleman, ed., Healing Emotions, ch. 9, The Roots of Self-Esteem, esp. 201.
120 chapter five

5.3Emptiness, Science, and the Kyoto School

Nishitanis dates (19001990) locate him and the period of his mature
reflections not only during the years of Japanese modernization, but also
squarely amidst the horrors and aftermath of the Second World War.
Taught by Kitaro Nishida (see 6.2), Nishitani, along with Hajime Tanabe
(18851962), another Nishida student, and Masao Abe (19152006), a more
recent thinker, stands within a distinguished line of what has come to be
known as the Kyoto School.41 Central to the Schools endeavors has been
the attempt to bring Japanese Buddhist thought into dialogue with West-
ern philosophy and theology.42
It was Nishitani, however, who, by the second half of the twentieth cen-
tury, first addressed science from the decidedly Buddhist and increasingly
sophisticated perspectives of the Kyoto School. An overview of his thinking
is provided in his essay, Science and Zen.43 Here, Nishitani articulated
the commitment of the School to a completely open dialogue with the
West, especially regarding the convergence of modern science, existential-
ism, secularization, and, operational (if not formal) atheism. In his rather
acute reading of science and its fruits in the Weste.g., the elimination
of teleology, spirit, soul, and even God not only from scientific discourse,
but also from the depths of the cultural conscienceNishitani was led
to conclude: ...it is the field of emptiness...or absolute nothingness
or what may perhaps be called the None in contrast to, and beyond the
Onewhich enables the myriad phenomena to attain their true being
and realize their real truth.44

41There is no space here to deal with the questions some Buddhists have raised about
the legitimacy of the Kyoto Schools belonging within the Buddhist lineage. The issues,
however, are rightly noted as extending far beyond the Kyoto School to the Chan and Zen
traditions as a whole since they involve the authenticity of ideas such as Buddha-nature
and original enlightenment. For an overview of the debate and the response of those who
would (rightly) defend both Chan and Zen as authentically Buddhist, see Jamie Hubbard
and Paul L. Swanson, Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism (Honolulu:
University of Hawaii Press, 1997).
42See James Fredericks, The Kyoto School: Modern Buddhist Philosophy and the
Search for a Transcultural Theology, Horizons 15:2 (1988): 299315, and James W. Heisig,
Philosophers of Nothingness: An Essay on the Kyoto School (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 2001). Heisigs volume has been especially helpful for nuancing my discussion of the
Kyoto School.
43Nishitani, Science and Zen, in Frederick Franck, ed., The Buddha Eye: An Anthology
of the Kyoto School (New York: Crossroad, 1982), 11137.
44Nishitani, Science and Zen, 128.
 buddhism and contemporary science 121

What is this true being and real truth referred to by Nishitani? It

is that which emerges beyond either science or religion left on its own,
and even beyond the dualism of science and religion. On its own, science,
at least as popularly understood coming out of the nineteenth century
advances in medicine and technology, promulgated an optimistic view of
human progress and thus appeared to many as promising the salvation
of humankind. It has delivered, instead, the mass destruction of WWII,
the impersonalism of natures laws, and the mechanization and technolo-
gization of modern life. On its own, religion had also promised salvation.
Especially in its modernist and post-Enlightenment guises, religion had
delivered, instead, a narcissistic kind of subjectivism complicated by the
strange incapacity to deal with the problems of existence confronted by
modern persons. Arguably, these failures were linked, and that precisely
because of the warfare that had emerged between science and religion.
The former operated only within an objectivist framework which could
not bear within it the existential and mythological orientation of the lat-
ter. In contrast, the latter sought to resist the explanatory power of the
former through defensive-minded and reactionary strategies. While each
in some senses required the other for the betterment of the human con-
dition, they were unable to accomplish this reconciliation on their own
terms. Instead, the antagonism and hostility between the two had forged
a new kind of nihilism, one deeper than that which rejected this world
for the rewards of the afterlife. At least in this latter otherworldly orienta-
tion, there was still the hope of the life beyond. In the radical nihilism
of modernity, however, even this transcendental or after-worldly dimen-
sion was lost since its guarantor, God, could no longer be envisioned.45 In
short, the problems confronting modern persons had emerged from the
abyss or the chasm signified by the fragmentation of the cultural experi-
ence of science against religion and vice versa. Both God is dead and
science is deadthis was the situation facing Nishitani and philosophy
in the middle of the twentieth century.46

45Nishitani devoted an entire book to the question of nihilism after the War (published
in Japanese in 1949). His chief dialogue partner was Nietzsche, the consummate nihilist
who embodied the loss of the soul and the divine in the very depths of his existence.
See Nishitani, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, trans. Graham Parkes and Setsuko Aihara
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990).
46See Hase Shoto, Nihilism, Science, and Emptiness in Nishitani, Buddhist-Christian
Studies 19 (1999): 13954, esp. 153; cf. Steven Heine, The Buddha or the Bomb: Ethical
Implications in Nishitani Keijis Zen View of Science, in Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Sandra
A. Wawrytko, eds., Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society: An International Symposium,
122 chapter five

The way forward lies in seeing the other side of both science and
religion. Sensing the bankruptcy of scientific rationalism (scientism) and
objectivism, Nishitani urged a paradigm change that he believed was
capable of recognizing the subjective dimension of science most clearly
seen in the perspectival framing of hypotheses and in the anthropocen-
tric interests which science was understood to serve. On the other side,
religion itself needed to come to grips with natures impersonal laws, and
with the God beyond God who causes the sunshine and the raindrops
indiscriminately and without partiality. But how could either science or
religion recognize their other or far sides without being transformed at
their very cores? Can science recognize its subjective dimension without
destroying itself? Can religion embrace impersonalism without under-
mining itself? These were both possible, if at all, Nishitani suggests, only
on the more encompassing field of shunyata, the field of Absolute Noth-
ingness or Emptiness that enables the healing of the hostilities between
science and religion.47
It is important to note here that shunyata cannot be a third field along-
side the domains of science and of religion. The disparity of the latter two
realms is precisely the cause of the nihilistic abyss of the modern experi-
ence. Further, if shunyata were just another field, it would complicate the
problem since now, potentially, there would be three dividesbetween
shunyata and religion, between shunyata and science, and between sci-
ence and religionwhen before there was just one (between religion and
science). No, shunyata had to be the self-emptying nature of all things,
beyond the nihilism of science and the nihilism of religion, which not
only allows them to be what they are but also brings into relationship
what was before antagonistic hostility. Shunyata is that where afffirmation
and negation meet, resulting not in another thing, but in the coincidence
between absolute negation and what the Zen tradition called the Great
Afffirmation. In fact, shunyata is where nihilism meets with existence,

Contributions to the Study of Religion 31 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1991),

28195, and Philosophy for an Age of Death: The Critique of Science and Technology in
Heidegger and Nishitani, Philosophy East and West 40:2 (1990): 17593. Louis Roy, O.P.,
Mystical Consciousness: Western Perspectives in Dialogue with Japanese Thinkers (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 2003), 16263, reminds us that Nishitanis study under
Heidegger in the 1930s influenced both his analysis of the world situation and his progno-
sis for how to best proceed.
47Nishitanis, Religion and Nothingness, trans. Jan Van Bragt (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1983), was written during the early 1950s, and would come to be acclaimed
as his magnum opus.
 buddhism and contemporary science 123

where nothingness meets with being, where the unconscious (or non-
consciousness) meets with consciousness, etc. In each case, what meets
are the relatives which are defined only in opposition or contrast to each
other. Thus, emptiness is the field on which an essential encounter can
take place between entities normally taken to be most distantly related,
even at enmity with each other, no less than between those that are most
closely related.48 As such, it is also the home-field or the home-ground
for (relative) nothingness and (relative) being.
Nishitani also called this the field of circuminsessional interpenetration.49
Here he was consciously drawing on both Western and Eastern resources.
Circuminsessional derives from the patristic fathers, utilized to compre-
hend the relational subsistence of the members of the Trinity within
each other in an eternal dance. This was seen also, for Nishitani, in Leib-
nizs monads and in the Huayen Schools Jewel Net of Indra (see 6.2).
In both cases, the monads and the jewels each reflected all other monads
and jewels like dynamic mirrors in the universe. Only shunyata, the field
of Absolute nothingness and emptiness, could allow for each monad or
mirror to do what it does without interference, just as only shunyata could
comprehend the individuality and particularity of the three persons as
the one God. And only shunyata could allow science and religion to fulfill
their respective teloi even while healing their divisions:
Now the circuminsessional system itself, whereby each thing in its being
enters into the home-ground of every other thing, is not itself and yet pre-
cisely as such (namely, as located on the field of sunyata) never ceases to be
itself, is nothing other than the force that links all things together into one.
It is the very force that makes the world and lets it be a world. The field of
sunyata is a field of force. The force of the world makes itself manifest in the
force of each and every thing in the world.50
Understandably, then, Nishitani is enabled to speak, in typical Mahayana
and Zen fashion, of shunyata as the field of nirvana-and-samsara (where
enlightenment and freedom from rebirth meet the conventional world
of sufffering and desire), of history-and-the-eschaton, of time-and-eternity,
and of God-and-creation.
Note then that Nishitani has to accomplished a reconceptualization of
science and religion and the relationship between the two on the one

48Nishitani, Religion and Nothingness, 102.

49Nishitani, Religion and Nothingness, ch. 3, 6, and passim.
50Nishitani, Religion and Nothingness, 150.
124 chapter five

hand, and a retrieval of the liberational and existential notion of shunyata

on the other. His hope, of course, is to save not only ourselves as needy
human beings, but also science and religion, to liberate each from nihilistic
impulses, and restore and purify them toward their original impulsesall
by relocating each within the larger horizons of shunyata.51 Whereas the
West had sought to transcend dualism via a third way, Nishitani assumed,
within the Buddhist framework, a primordial nondualism. His is precisely
the middle way of emptiness, of voidness, mutually dependent arising,
circuminsessional interpenetration, and interdependent origination.52
What is the relevance of Nishitanis contributions for the Buddhist
encounter with modern science? In this final part of this chapter, I briefly
sketch how three interrelated main ideas of shunyatathat of void-
ness, that of transitoriness, and that of the causal interdependence of all
thingshas found expression in the contemporary Buddhist-science dia-
logue in general, and in application to the realm of quantum mechanics
particularly.
In the first place, Buddhist self-emptying or self-voidness refers not to
the absence of anything, but to the absence of a substantial, essential,
or intrinsic nature of any and everything. This voidness begins to appear
when, for example, the new physics indicates that atoms are practically
empty: the nucleus is 99.9% of an atoms mass, but a thousandth of a tril-
lionth of its volume.53 It is surrounded by a cloud of negatively-charged
electrons and positively-charged protons, held together through the
strong nuclear force by neutrons without charges that provide the stabil-
ity needed to keep the atom from disintegrating from the same-charged
particles which repulse each other. Put in this way, as Thuan and Ricard
note, all the matter around us, that sofa, the chair, the walls...is almost
totally empty. The only reason we cant walk through walls is that atoms
are linked together by the electromagnetic force.54 Thus also Henning
Genz writes:

51The three chapters on Nishitanis view of science and religion by Cora-Jean Eaton
Robinson, Sten H. Stenson and Robert A.F. Thurman in Taitetsu Unno, ed., The Religious
Philosophy of Nishitani Keiji: Encounter with Emptiness (Berkeley, Calif.: Asian Humanities
Press, 1989), all approach this issue from various perspectives.
52This is in part how Abe describes Nishitanis engagement with science; see Masao
Abe, Christianity and BuddhismCentering around Science and Nihilism, Japanese Reli-
gions 5:3 (1968): 3662.
53Thuan and Ricard, The Quantum and the Lotus, 94.
54Thuan and Ricard, The Quantum and the Lotus, 95.
 buddhism and contemporary science 125

...the line that separates something from nothing, matter from empty space
is blurred.... The universe is but one immense unit; it cannot be separated
into spatial domains that are totally empty and others that are completely
filled with matter. Matter and space can be distinguished from each other,
but where we draw the blurred line between them is largely a matter of
taste. Our notions of something and nothing, of matter and empty space,
cannot be separately discussed.55
But does not even the atomic nucleus, however miniscule, call into ques-
tion the Buddhist notion of all things as void or empty? Well, we should
consider further several aspects of this matter. First, atoms are less sub-
stantive things than they are dynamic bits of energy.56 Put more pre-
cisely: at the subatomic level of quantum physicsremember that atoms
are divisiblequantum objects are neither things nor should they be
pictured as things. Rather, as previously discussed (3.3), they should be
understood as potentialities or probabilities. Measurement collapses the
wave function so that we can determine only either its momentum (wave)
or its location (particle), but not both. To observe a wave turns out a par-
ticle, and in that sense the energy fields of particles and their waves are
forever beyond actual description. So, according to the Copenhagen Inter-
pretation, quantum mechanics tells us not about what quanta actually
are in themselves, but about correlations in our experiences, and about
how we relate to our world, in this case, the subatomic world. One-to-one
correspondence goes out the window at the quantum level. Instead, the
Copenhagen Interpretation informs us about our relationship with aggre-
gates, and about the laws of probability that depict these relationships.
This leads, second, to the notion of Buddhist self-emptiness or self-
emptying (anatman or shunyata) as describing the transitoriness of all
things. If the physical world is reduced in quantum theory ultimately to

55Henning Genz, Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space, trans. Karin Heusch (Read-
ing, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1999), 305. Genz is theoretical physicist at the University of
Karlsruhe.
56A generation ago, science popularizers like Gary Zukav could write that atoms are
hypothetical entities constructed to make experimental observations intelligible. No one,
not one person, has ever seen an atom. More recently, however, the existence of atoms
appears indisputableimages of atoms and molecules can even be seen with the aid of
field-ion, electron or scanning tunneling microscopes. See Gary Zukav, The Dancing Wu Li
Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (1979, reprint; Toronto: Bantam Books, 1980), 107,
and Peter Coveney and Roger Highfield, The Arrow of Time (New York: Fawcett Columbine,
1990), 108. The book by Zukav along with those of Fritjof CapraThe Tao of Physics (1975,
reprint; New York: Bantam Books, 1977), and The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the
Rising Culture (New York: Bantam Books, 1983)were forerunners in terms of making
widely accessible the idea of ancient Buddhisms complementarity with modern science.
126 chapter five

potentialities of fluid and dynamic quantum fields or waves, then the

ground of the physical world is the flux of constant change and becom-
ing.57 This transitoriness can be imaged variously in light of quantum
mechanics. One image is that of the quantum world as consisting of
nothing more or less than an incessant dance of interacting and collid-
ing subatomic particles, of mass changing to energy and vice-versa. Given
Einsteins fundamental equation of e = mc2, we can see the paradox that
neither mass nor energy nor light are since each can be defined by or
seen to consist of the other two.58 Another image could be that of see-
ing subatomic particles as interactions between quantum fields. Fields,
like waves, both spread out over areas larger than particles (which are
restricted to specific locations), and fill given spaces (for example, the
earths gravitational field surrounds the planet). It is the interaction of
two fields that create what we call particles (at the quantum level) or
things (at the macro level). Either image results in the paradox of quan-
tum mechanics: there is the interaction of energy and mass, the continual
transformation of things devoid of their own self-existence.
This leads, finally, to the Buddhist notion of self-emptying understood
as the interdependence of all things (pratityasamutpada). Also known
variously as the doctrine of interdependent or interdependent origina-
tion, the emptiness of all things is hereby construed positively so as to
identify the interrelationality of all things: Thus when this exists, that
comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist,
that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases.59 At
its most basic level, Bohrs Complementarity Principle showed that the
wave-particle duality of light belongs not to light in and of itself, but to
our interactions with it. In this case, not only is there neither light (which

57Todd Lorentz, Replanting the Bodhi Tree: New Paradigms for Buddhist Philosophy
from Quantum Physics, Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1:2 (2000):
22742.
58This raises the question, of course, about the constancy of the speed of light. To
pursue this question would take us too far afield. Sufffice to say that the recent research in
this area has explored the possibility of the existence of particles called tachyons which
allegedly emerge as already traveling faster than the speed of light. Further, the possibility
of nonlocal communication continues to challenge the assumptions regarding the speed
of light. Finally, current researchers are exploring the possibility of the speed of light as
being of almost infinite velocity during the earliest moments of the big bang. On especially
this last matter, see Joo Magueijo, Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific
Speculation (Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Book Group, 2003).
59Samyutta Nikaya 12.3.21, from Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans., The Connected Discourses of the
Buddha: A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya, 2 vols. (Boston: Wisdom Publications,
2000), 1.552.
 buddhism and contemporary science 127

speed is the square root of energy over mass) nor energy (mass times the
speed of light squared) nor mass (understood in relativity theory as noth-
ing more than space-time curvature), but also that neither light nor any-
thing at the quantum level has properties of self-existence independent of
some kind of interaction. But to say this is not to say that nothing exists
since relativity theory has shown that we observe dynamic relations and
interactions, and quantum theory has defined these relations and interac-
tions in terms of potentialities, possibilities, and even probabilities. In this
way, contemporary physics reveals the field of emptiness at the quantum
level to be not nothingness simpliciter, but a creative and dynamic poten-
tiality. So the world consists of interactions of possibilities and potentiali-
ties rather than of independently existing things. Things are what they are
not because they have their own essentiality or substantiality, but because
of the creative temporal nexus of relationships and interactions through
which they manifest novelty.
Far from being an exhaustive account, the foregoing serves only as a
very selective sample introducing how the Buddhist idea of self-emptying
opens up to some of the parallels which have been observed between
Buddhism and science. Given these observations, it is easy to see how
enthusiastically some have championed the possibility of envisioning
a synthesis of ancient Buddhism and modern science. Yet criticisms of
this enterprise should not be overlooked.60 Even those sympathetic with
the project have usually begun by insisting on acknowledging the sote-
riological dimension at the core of the Buddhist tradition, a dimension
usually neglected or ignored in the Buddhism-science dialogue. (Again, I
use the concept of soteriology here not in the Christian sense but in the
religious or existential sense that is applicable to any religious tradition
that identifies a fundamental human problem as well as provides for a
resolution to that problemwhich Buddhism does both.) Now while the
Buddhist framework resists the dichotomizing of religion from philosophy
from spirituality, etc., yet it is clear that the Buddhist-science dialogue has
proceeded as if emptiness could be pressed into service apart from its

60I rely in the following on Ethan Mills, Buddhism and Science: A Comparison of
Methods (M.A. Thesis, Hamline University, 1999); Martin J. Verhoeven, Buddhism and
Science: Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Reason, Religion East and West 1 (2001):
7797; and, esp. Sal P. Restivo, Parallels and Paradoxes in Modern Physics and Eastern
Mysticism: IA Critical Reconnaissance, Social Studies of Science 8:2 (1978): 14381; and
idem., Parallels and Paradoxes in Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism: IIA Sociologi-
cal Perspective on Parallelism, Social Studies of Science 12:1 (1982): 3781.
128 chapter five

implications in these other dimensions. As such, critics have warned that

while similarities between Buddhism and science at the level of obser-
vation should be recognized, the diffferent frameworks of these two dis-
courses for interpreting this data should not be glossed over.
These two major concerns together highlight the methodological dif-
ficulties percolating amid the dialogue. Here, the questions are not only
that of how comparisons are generated, or why do we pick out just these
similarities that are noted. Rather, the question is whether the soteriologi-
cal and hermeneutical framework of shunyata has been either muted or
lost completely in the interface with science. Has not the Buddhist or East-
ern side of the comparative equation in all its diversity and particularity
been compromised by the discourse of science? More to the point, at the
ontological level, how do we know that Buddhism mystical experiences
of shunyata and contemporary quantum physics refer to the same experi-
ences or levels of reality when, for example, Buddhist insights are primar-
ily existential and soteriological rather than cosmological or ontological?
We will return to some of the topics in later chapters. For the moment,
note that Nishitani certainly redeems the soteriological dimensions of
shunyata lacking in the popular Buddhism-science literature. In doing so,
Nishitanis project amounts, at the end of the day, to that of saving Bud-
dhism. But is he as much help for those either doing or seeking to do sci-
ence? On the other side, the parallelists were also scientists who thought
that Buddhist categories illuminated the discoveries and the discourse of
science. Is there no middle way between these two activities, as legitimate
as they may be on their own? Can the soteriological respects of shunyata
be maintained even while it is pressed into inquiring after cosmology and
the way the world is, and after human beings and who and what they are?
The discussion can proceed only with the assumption that an afffirmative
response to this question is still possible.
 CHAPTER SIX

SHUNYATA: THE NATURE OF THE WORLD IN

MAHAYANA TRADITIONS

I propose to test the plausibility of this afffirmative response to the ques-

tion about whether the religious dimension of Buddhism can be retained
in the Buddhism-science dialogue by returning to the question of cos-
mology and nature of the world in the Buddhist tradition, but this time
within a more historical framework. More specifically, I wish to explore
certain streams of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition as it has wrestled
with fundamental metaphysical and ontological questions. The Mahayana
path literally refers the great vehicle of the bodhisattvas whose vows to
save all sentient beings advance the cause of enlightenment in the world
much more rapidly than does the Theravadin path of ascetic renuncia-
tion.1 Although rooted in the sayings of the Buddha, the Great Vehicle
was spread primarily through translations of various sutras after the first
century ce, even as it was given impetus by the work of the Indian scholar
Nagarjuna (about whom we will have much more to say soon) about that
same time. Over the last two thousand years, the Mahayana tradition has
taken firm hold in Tibet, China, East Asia, and part of Southeast Asia such
as Vietnam.
My hypothesis is that the doctrine of shunyata has indeed been sug-
gestive and valuable for Buddhist perspectives on nature in ways which
compromised neither its essentially religious character nor the empirical
mindedness of those Buddhists for whom this was a central category.2 In

1For a brief overview, see Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism (New York and
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), ch. 9, or any other scholarly introduction to the
Buddhist tradition. An accessible overview is Beatrice Lane Suzuki, Mahayana Buddhism:
A Brief Outline, 3rd ed. (1959; reprint, New York: Macmillan, 1969), although it does not
discuss the Tibetan expressions of the Mahayana tradition.
2I hedge my bets on this thesis in part because shunyata is perhaps better understood
as a devotional orientation grasped by wisdoma spiritual attitude, eventhan an
intellectual doctrine accessed through rational analysis. As such, shunyata is best repre-
sented in the compassion of the bodhisattva whose realization of self-emptiness leads to
the vow to postpone entry into nirvana until all sentient beings also come to realize the
self-emptying nature of reality. See Moti Lal Pandit, Snyat: The Essence of Mahyna
Spirituality (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1998).
130 chapter six

order to see this, we will retrace our steps from Nishitani back through his
teacher Nishida (6.3) and the Huayen School (6.2) of the Tang Dynasty
(618907) to the ideas of Nagarjuna (6.1), who stands at the fount of
the Madhyamaka tradition. However, we will proceed in historical and
chronological order and therefore begin with the last first. In each case,
of course, we can do no more than highlight the major points pertinent
to our inquiry. What emerges, though, will be the contours of a Mahayana
Buddhist cosmology, which in turn sheds light on how Buddhists in this
tradition see the nature of the world ultimately in terms of shunyata.
One point of clarification before proceeding. Any references to reality
or ultimate reality are practically synonymous with what is known in the
West as ontology. However, since Buddhism has what might be called an
ontology of becoming rather than that of being (the Greek, ontos, as
the participle form of to be), I prefer to talk about Buddhist views of the
nature of the worldin short, cosmology or metaphysicsrather than of
Buddhist ontology. Certainly, in the Western traditions, especially those
informed by Alfred North Whiteheads organismic cosmology, there has
also emerged a process metaphysics that is very conducive to the dia-
logues with science and with Buddhism.3 In any case, the dynamism at
the heart of Buddhist cosmological theories leads me to prefer here the
nomenclature of nature rather than the rhetoric of ontology, liable as is
the latter to degenerate into onto-philosophical constructs that lack the
capacity to nurture self-critical perspective.

6.1Madhyamaka and the Emergence of Shunyata

The notion of shunyata makes its more visible appearance with the solidi-
fication of the Mahayana tradition around the beginning of the Christian
era. The Indian monk, Nagarjuna (ca. 150250 ce), of whom not much is
known personally, is widely recognized as its primary systematizer.4 For

3Such a point of departure, from the process philosophical and theological perspec-
tive, has been urged for the Christianity-Buddhism-science trialogue by Paul O. Ingram,
Buddhist-Christian Dialogue in an Age of Science (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield,
2008). My own pneumatological approach to similar matters is itself informed by process
perspectives (see 8.2), although, as I will register there, I have some misgivings about
process theology.
4The literature on Nagarjuna continues to grow. An overview of his philosophical sys-
tem derived from works determined authentic to Nagarjuna is provided by Chr. Lindt-
ner, Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna, Indiske Studier IV
(Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982), 26477. The standard book-length introduction
 shunyata 131

our purposes, his project, as well as those of his disciples and followers, was
twofold. First, the endeavor was made to retrieve two related ideas of the
original Buddha: that concerned with the non-substantiality of the soul,
and that about being wary of needless speculation regarding metaphysi-
cal questions. In the hands of the late canonical Abhidharma material,
the former doctrine of non-soul (anatman) was certainly preserved, but
extensive energy was expended in the attempt to define the fundamental
constituents of reality itself in pluralistic terms of both atomic compo-
nents (dharmas) and personal elements (skandhas). The emergence of the
Perfection of Wisdom literature (Prajnaparamita sutras) around the turn
of the Christian era, however, extended the anatman doctrine rigorously
so as to see all things and not just human persons as being empty and
devoid of self-being or self-subsistence.5
Nagarjuna synthesized this material and turned it into a polemic
against the Abhidharmic system. His most important work, the Mulama-
dhyamakakarikas (MMK), literally, root verses on the middle, remains
central to the Madhyamaka or Middle Path canon and philosophical tra-
dition.6 The MMK is a forceful dialectical analysis of central ideas of the
tradition handed down to hime.g., causality, irreducible elements, time,
sorrow (duhkha), self-existing things (svabhava), release (moksha), karma,
the nature of errors, the Four Noble Truths, and even nirvanaresulting
in the deconstruction of these basic categories, at least as construed by
the Abhidharma literature. To take just one example, that of causality,
it is incoherent to say that entity A causes entity B since such implied
self-existence can only be understood apart from all relations, including
causal ones. At the same time, neither can it be said that A does not cause
B if in fact B arises as a fruit of or from A. There has to be, then, a way
between or beyond either causation or noncausation. Hence only the self-
voiding nature of both A and B can deliver the AB relationship, whether

remains Frederick J. Streng, Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning (Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1967). A more recent and popular guide is Stephen Batchelor, Verses from the Center:
A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime (New York: Riverhead Books, 2000).
5On the Abhidharmic doctrines, see Th. Stcherbatsky, The Central Conception of Bud-
dhism and the Meaning of the Word Dharma (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970). On the
Prajaparamita sutras, see Kajiyama Yuichi, Prajaparamita and the Rise of Mahayana,
in Takeuchi Yoshinori, ed., Buddhist Spirituality: Indian, Southeast Asian, Tibetan, Early
Chinese, World Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 8 (New York:
Crossroad, 1995), 13754.
6For a brief introduction to Nagarjuna and his Madhyamaka or middle path philoso-
phy, see John P. Keenan, et al., Grounding Our Faith in a Pluralistic World: With a Little Help
from Ngrjuna (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2009), ch. 3, esp. 5271.
132 chapter six

understood in terms of causality or otherwise. The prominence of shu-

nyata in this response to the Abhidharma comes to be the central feature
of the Madhyamaka Middle Way system of philosophy as synthesized
by Nagarjuna.
Second, however, was not to say that all things are empty or void also
to say something about all things? Did Nagarjuna therefore proclaim a
positive teaching regarding the shunyata of all things? In response to this
question, interpreters of Nagarjuna and the Madhyamaka tradition are
divided, and that precisely because of diffferent possible readings of his
corpus in general and the MMK more specifically. On the one side are
those who focus on Nagarjunas intention to do away with all arguments
and views, concluding with him that the task of refuting self-existence
did not need to assume a self-existent standpoint and that precisely
because all other statements are themselves non-self-existent.7 On the
other side, however, Nagarjuna clearly recognized and wished to avoid
the nihilistic implications of his deconstructive project. In response, he
begins by afffirming the traditional epistemological distinction between
conventional and ultimate reality (MMK 24:810). To confuse the two
could be disastrous: A wrongly conceived sunyata can ruin a slow-witted
person. It is like a badly seized snake or a wrongly executed incantation
(MMK 24:11).8 From here, however, he goes on to deny that the alterna-
tive is the reificationist, absolutist, and eternalist view of the world. To
say that all things are empty is to say also that eternalism, nihilism, and
even emptiness itself are empty (hence the greater accuracy of translat-
ing shunyata dynamically with regard to the self-emptying nature of all
things than as a noun where it risks being reified as something). More
importantly, to deny self-existence is not for its own sake, but for the sote-
riological purpose of recognizing the transitoriness and momentariness
of all things on the one hand, and their interrelationality and interde-
pendence on the other: We declare that whatever is relational origina-
tion is sunyata. It is a provisional name (i.e., thought construction) for the

7This reading appeals to Nagarjunas Vigrahavyavartani (Averting the Arguments),

verses 2128; see the translation in Streng, Emptiness, Appendix B, 22127, esp. 22324.
8Various English translations of the MMK are available, each being the product of dif-
ferent hermeneutical perspectivese.g., phenomenological (Frederick Strengs), Tibetan
(Jay Garfields), Theravadin and pragmatist (David Kalupahanas), Kantian (Mervyn
Sprungs). Given the scope of our interests here in working with the Kyoto School, unless
otherwise noted I rely on Kenneth Inadas translation informed by the perspective of the
Zen tradition: Nagarjuna: A Translation of His Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Introduc-
tory Essay (Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970).
 shunyata 133

mutuality of being and, indeed, it is the middle path (MMK 24:18). Here,
we come to the heart of Nagarjunas argument: that realization of the self-
emptying nature of all things, including emptiness itself, is to walk the
middle way between self-existence and eternalism on the one side and
the denial of conventional realities or nihilism on the other.
The diffficulty here is whether the overcoming of epistemological dis-
tinction between conventional and ultimate realityalso known as the
two truths theoryis itself only epistemological or also ontological. If
the former, then have we enlightened upon the middle way, or have we
reduced such to a set of epistemic propositions? But, if ontological, then
how so since to afffirm the via media of self-emptying is itself to declare
its ultimacy utilizing conventional language and concepts.9 My own incli-
nation is to read Nagarjunas doctrine of dependent or interdependent
origination as oriented toward praxis even while recognizing that this
interpretation may run against the grain of many other passages suggest-
ing an equally plausible deconstructive reading.10 Still, I persist to say
that for Nagarjuna, what emerges is less a doctrine denying anything in
particular than a way of thinking, of becoming, and of acting. Nagarjuna
is first and foremost an epistemologist rather than a metaphysician, and
his epistemological claims are directed toward human liberation from
wrong views rather than toward providing an alternative metaphysics or
ontology.
Help may be found in more recent Nagarjuna scholarship which high-
lights his departure from Theravadin and Abhidharmic orthodoxy at

9Diffficulties such as these led the Chinese Tien-Tai School to elaborate a three-truths
theorythe truth of existence; the real truth of non-Being; and the supreme truth
of the Middle Pathin order to address the problematic relationship between ultimate
and conventional views. See Paul L. Swanson, Foundations of Tien-Tai Philosophy: The
Flowering of the Two Truths Theory in Chinese Buddhism (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press,
1989).
10This dilemma is explicated variously, e.g., C.W. Huntington, Jr., with Gesh Nam-
gyal Wangchen, The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Introduction to Early Indian Madhyamika
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1989), xii, and M. David Eckel, The Concept of the
Ultimate in Madhyamaka Thought: In Memory of Frederick Streng, in Sallie B. King and
Paul O. Ingram, eds., The Sound of Liberating Truth: Buddhist-Christian Dialogues (Rich-
mond: Curzon, 1999), 84100. See also the work of Mervyn Sprung, The Madhyamika
Doctrine of Two Realities as a Metaphysic, in Sprung, ed., The Problem of Two Truths
in Buddhism and Vedanta (Boston and Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973),
4053, esp. 51; Being and the Middle Way, in Sprung, ed., The Question of Being: East-West
Perspectives (University Park, Penn., and London: The Pennsylvania State University Press,
1978), 12739, esp. 129 and 135; and The Thought of the Middle Way: Translators Introduc-
tion, in Sprung, trans., Lucid Exposition of the Middle Way: The Essential Chapters from the
Prasannapada of Candrakirti (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979), 1518 and 23.
134 chapter six

least in three directions. First, Nagarjunas use of shunyata consisted of

an extension of the notion through imagery drawn from the sky or space
(akasa) already present in the early Prajnaparamita literature. Here, shu-
nyata can be understood primarily not negatively in terms of the vacuum
or the void, but positively in terms of luminousness, vastness, and bound-
arylessness. The emphasis here would be on shunya as a derivative from
cipher or zero such that shunyatathe sufffix -ta is exactly equiva-
lent to -ness in English or -heit in Germanmarks the potentiality or
possibility of everything, rather than the nihilism of all things.11 In this
reading, shunyatas emptiness is what it is precisely as openness radi-
cally conceived, with all the implications of the doctrine of co-dependent
or interdependent origination included herein.12 This allows, second, for
Nagarjunas transmutation of Theravadin nirvana (the enlightenment that
leads to the extinguishing of desire, grasping, and greed) and samsara (the
conventional world of sufffering) by collapsing the distinction altogether.
If the distinction persists, sufffering would be permanent, salvation would
be impossible, and the Eightfold Path would be ineffficacious. But, from
the Madhyamaka perspective, names, including nirvana and samsara, are
conventionalities only, united ultimately in nondual reality precisely in
their self-emptying nature and openness to each other such that nirvana
arises interdependently with samsara and vice-versa. To walk the Middle
Way is to destroy (all notions of) cause, efffect, doer, means of doing,
doing, origination, extinction, and fruit (of action) (MMK 24:17), and thus
to cut offf the karmic forces perpetuating the samsaric cycle and hindering
liberation. Third, the viability of this reading is confirmed especially in
light of developments in Chinese Buddhist schools of philosophy such as
the Huayen, as we will see momentarily.
The implications of all this for Buddhist views of nature, cosmology and
science need to be teased out. Recall earlier (5.2) that the main ideas
associated with shunyatavoidness, transitoriness, and interdependent

11Thanks to Perry Schmidt-Leukel for the elementary Sanskrit grammatical lesson. See
also Douglas A. Fox, The Heart of Buddhist Wisdom: A Translation of the Heart Sutra with
Historical Introduction and Commentary, Studies in Asian Thought and Religion 3 (Lewis-
ton, Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1985), 102; cf. Hosaku Matsuo, The
Logic of Unity: The Discovery of Zero and Emptiness in Prajaparamita Thought, trans. Ken-
neth K. Inada (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), esp. ch. 3, and Amaury
de Riencourt, The Eye of Shiva: Eastern Mysticism and Science (New York: William Morrow
and Company, Inc., 1981), 172.
12See the excellent work of Nancy McCagney, Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Open-
ness (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997), esp. ch. 3.
 shunyata 135

originationwere correlated with certain key ideas in contemporary

quantum physics, viz., that of the non-substantiality of the ultimate stufff
of reality, that of reality being the transformations and interactions of
quantum potentialities and possibilities, and that of the interdependent
arising of all things, including minds and the empirical world. The pre-
ceding discussion of Nagarjunas project has the potential of fleshing out
especially the connections between the doctrines of the void and of inter-
dependent origination with quantum mechanical models of the nature
of the world. For instance, the connection between the inherent non-
self-existence of all things and the transitory and momentary nature of
all things is also analogous to the quantum model of the interactive and
relational nature of the ultimate quanta which constitute reality by fad-
ing in and out of existence, as it were. So Mahayana scholars have argued
from the momentariness of mental entities and states, from the reality of
change, and from the spiritual experience of transitoriness, to an ontologi-
cal conclusion regarding what we today call the nature of the quantum
world wherein the stufff of reality incessantly arises and fades away.13 Even
more intriguing, the Madhyamaka doctrine afffirming the lack of inherent
existence of things parallels quantum theorys denial of the independent
existence of properties of objects in the micro-world. The diffference is
that, as Mansfield has noted, in quantum theory, Objects become defined
spacetime phenomena only through the measurement act..., [but in]
the language of Madhyamika, entities exist only as species of dependent
arising.14 In this case, both the entities being measured and the activity of
measurement are expressions of dependent co-arising. Put alternatively,
the middle path of Buddhism to find a way between eternalistic notions
of self-causation and annihilationist notions of external causation turns
out to be compatible with our understanding of the micro-cosmos, at least
as portrayed by quantum mechanics.

13See Alexander von Rospatt, The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness: A Survey of the
Origins and Early Phase of This Doctrine up to Vasubandhu, Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien
47 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995).
14Victor Mansfield, Madhyamika Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics: Beginning a
Dialogue, International Philosophical Quarterly 29:4 (1989): 37191, quote 187. In response
to Mansfield, Arun Balasubramaniam, Explaining Strange Parallels: The Case of Quantum
Mechanics and Madhyamika Buddhism, International Philosophical Quarterly 32:2 (1992):
20523, rightly cautions that these parallels are better understood analogically than liter-
ally, especially since Buddhisms assertions concern the empirical objects of daily experi-
ence while quantum mechanics refers to micro-objects.
136 chapter six

But more importantly, this middle way is that of interdependent origi-

nation such that causality connects not two independent realitiese.g.,
the observer and the quantum wavebut describes an interaction or
relationship. Not recognizing this leads to duhkha, or sufffering. Awaken-
ing to this relationality is what salvation, liberation, and enlightenment
is all about. And, certainly, while the Buddhas notions of causality were
not scientific according to our current conception of science, and while
Nagarjunas dialectical analysis of causality was not confirmed in the
laboratories of modern science, both were nonetheless emergent from
extended empirical inquiry, derived from the observation and discern-
ment of human experience, and directed toward the soteriological quest.15
As such, they are not merely intellectual profundities, but intrinsically
connected with and designed to enable the achievement of liberation
from the empirically and existentially confirmed conditions of samsaric
existence.

6.2Huayen: Emptiness and Form

Moving east from the Indian subcontinent, the insights of Nagarjuna and
the Madhyamaka tradition continued to unfold, especially in the Chi-
nese philosophical traditions of, initially, San-lun, Tien-Tai, and Chan,
and, later, Huayen, in the seventh century ce.16 Named after the enor-
mous Huayen Sutra (Chinese)Sanskrit, Avatamsaka Sutra; English,
Flower Ornament or Flower Garland Scripturethe Huayen philosophy is
claimed to be the highest development of Chinese Buddhist thought,
synthesizing as it did the various schools of Buddhist philosophy and
practices, including the Chan and Pure Land versions, with Confucian

15David J. Kalupahana, Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism (Honolulu:

The University of Hawaii Press, 1975), emphasizes the empiricist underpinnings, and
Rune E.A. Johannson, The Dynamic Psychology of Early Buddhism, Scandinavian Institute
of Asian Studies Monograph Series 37 (Oxford: Curzon Press, 1979), discusses the psycho-
logical dimensions, of the doctrine of dependent origination.
16For the development of Mahayana doctrine from Nagarjuna through the Huayen
transformations, see Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism: Its Doctrinal Foundations (Lon-
don and New York: Routledge, 1989). The story of the historical transformation of Mad-
hyamaka by the Chinese is told by Richard H. Robinson, Early Madhyamika in India and
China (Milwaukee, Madison and London: The University of Milwaukee Press, 1970), and
Ming-Wood Liu, Madhyamaka Thought in China, Sinica leidensia 30 (Leiden, New York
and Kln: E. J. Brill, 1994). The connection between Madhyamaka and Chan is traced by
Hsueh-li Cheng, Empty Logic: Madhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources (New York:
Philosophical Library, 1984).
 shunyata 137

piety and Taoist ideas.17 Even if it did not formally survive as a school
the ninth century persecution of the Sangha by the Confucian elite, its
syncretistic character worked both ways, first enabling its absorption of
other ideas into itself, and then by being carried forward toward later
posterity through the Chan and Pure Land traditions.18 For our immedi-
ate purposes, however, Nagarjunas achievements in dialectical criticism
were developed in a variety of constructive directions by the Huayen
masters, Dushun (557640), Zhiyan (602668), Fazang (643712), Cheng-
guan (738839), and Zongmi (738841).19 Three of these have especially
important implications regarding how the notion of shunyata continued
to function soteriologicallyto awaken and liberate otherwise enslaved
human minds from ignoranceeven while it was expanded to engage in
speculative cosmology and metaphysics.20
First, shunyata, no longer only the void or emptiness (statically under-
stood), is redefined positively following the Heart Sutra as form. Verse
2 of the Sutra reads: form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is not
other than emptiness, and emptiness is not other than form. That which is
form equals emptiness, and that which is emptiness is also form. Precisely

17Wing-tsit Chan, trans., A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy (Princeton: Princeton Uni-

versity Press, 1963), 406. A complete English translation of the Huayen Sutra is Thomas
Cleary, trans., The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra,
3 vols. (Boulder, Colo., and London: Shambhala, 19841987); introductory selections of
Huayen masters are in Thomas Clearly, Entry into the Inconceivable: An Introduction to
Hua-yen Buddhism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983).
18Over and against the predominantly philosophical thrust of the school as it has been
preserved and reappropriated in later history, the material and lived culture of the Huayen
patriarchs should not be forgotten; for an introduction, see Peter Gregory, The Teaching of
Men and Gods: The Doctrinal and Social Basis of Lay Buddhist Practice in the Hua-yen Tra-
dition, and Robert Gimello, Li Tung-Hsan and the Practical Dimensions of Hua-yen, in
Gimello and Gregory, eds., Studies in Chan and Hua-yen, Studies in East Asian Buddhism 1
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1983), 252319 and 32189 respectively.
19By and large, our discussion to follow relies on the work of the third patriarch Fazang,
spelled Fa-tsang under the Wade-Giles system and in many of the sources that I rely upon
in my exposition of Huayen thought.
20Arguably, the Chinese thinkers recoiled from the Indian tradition of Nagarjuna inso-
far as its deconstructive trajectory appeared to resist positive articulation regarding things
ontological and cosmological. So by the seventh century, Chandrakirti had developed up
to twenty definitions of shunyata in his Madhyamakavatara (Introduction to the Middle
Way), none of which are explicitly cosmological. As such, the Chinese redeemed the task
of speculative philosophizing amidst their soteriological concerns, culminating in part in
the Huayen tradition. For this point, see Francis Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of
Indra (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977), ch. 3; on Chandrakirtis
definitions, see Peter Fenner, The Ontology of the Middle Way, Studies of Classical India 11
(Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 3744, esp. the list
on 41.
138 chapter six

the same may be said of form and the other skandhas: feeling, percep-
tion, impulse and consciousness.21 Fa-tsang (643712), the third patriarch
but arguably chief architect of the Huayen School and certainly its most
prolific author, explains the meaning of this in his Treatise on the Golden
Lion (Chin-shih-tzu chang). One can say either that there is neither gold
(because there is the lion) nor lion (because there is the gold) or that
there is either (gold or lion) or both (gold and lion). This is because either
mediates the other and neither is apart from the other. It is also because
the principle form is emptiness/emptiness is form can be applied to gold
and lion: as empty of own-being, gold and lion can mediate each other. So
Fa-tsang writes, The lion is not existent, but the substance of the gold is
not nonexistent. Therefore they are [separately] called matter and Empti-
ness. Furthermore, Emptiness has no character of its own; it shows itself
by means of matter.22 Shunyata now can be elaborated quadratically as
1) negating emptiness (principle) and afffirming form (or phenomena);
2) negating form (phenomena) and afffirming emptiness (principle); 3) the
co-existence of both form and emptiness in each other; and 4) the identity
and hence obliteration of form and emptiness. Taken together, we arrive
at a state that transcends all dichotomies.23
But, second, this transcending of all dichotomies is also at the same
time a re-afffirmation of all particularities because emptiness is not only
(the annihilation of) emptiness but each and every form (the first and
third meanings of shunyata as defined by Fa-tsang, above). In fact, looking
again at the lion: If the eye of the lion completely takes in the lion, then
the all (the whole lion) is purely the eye (the one). If the ear completely
takes in the lion, then the all is purely the ear. If all the sense organs
simultaneously take in [the lion] and all are complete in their possession,
then each of them is at the same time mixed (involving others) and pure
(being itself), thus possessing the perfect storehouse.24 The lions eyes and

21From Douglas Foxs translation in The Heart of Buddhist Wisdom, 82. The Heart Sutra
most probably dates to the second period of Madhyamaka literature after Nagarjuna (the
fourth or fifth century ce). Its succinctness makes it one of the most widely known and
recited of the Prajaparamita texts.
22Fa-tsang, Treatise on the Golden Lion, 2, in Chan, Sourcebook, 409; parentheses from
translation.
23Fa-tsang, except from A Commentary on the Heart Sutra, in Garma C.C. Chang, The
Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism (University Park, Penn.,
and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971), 197206; quote from 203. Part III of
Changs book provides other original Huayen sources.
24Fa-tsang, Treatise on the Golden Lion, 7.1, in Chan, Sourcebook, 411; brackets from
translation.
 shunyata 139

ears take in the whole lion, at least in the sense that each part is intrinsic
to the whole and the whole would no longer be what it is if it were missing
but one part.25 So each part is not only essential to the whole in order for
the whole to be what it is, but also reflects the whole. But each part also
interpenetrates, reflects, and realizes every other part. For this reason,
In each of the lions eyes, ears, limbs, joints, and in each and every hair,
there is the golden lion. All the lions embraced by all the single hairs simul-
taneously and instantaneously enter a single hair. Thus in each and every
hair there are an infinite number of lions, and in addition all the single hairs,
together with their infinite number of lions, in turn enter into a single hair.
In this way the geometric progression is infinite, like the jewels of Celestial
Lord Indras net.26
Just as Lord Indras net featured a jewel at each knot that reflected the
image of every other jewel on to infinity, Fa-tsang illuminated (pun
intended) this truth in his famous hall of mirrors, each of which reflected
the light of all the other mirrors ad infinitum. In fact, each particular is
important not only because it reflects the whole, but because it mediates
and makes possible the reality of the whole, and in that sense includes the
whole within itself. Shunyata thus makes possible the discrimination of
the parts against the background field of the whole and vice-versa. Herein
is the interrelationality between foreground and background; between the
center and the margins; between the one and the manyin every case the
former opening up to the latter and the latter as inclusive of the former.
In Fa-tsangs view, these exemplify ultimately the non-obstructedness,
non-impededness, distinctionlessness, limitlessness, boundlessness, mea-
surelessness, mutual interpenetratedness, and mutual containment of fact
(phenomenon; Chinese: Shih) and principle (noumenon; Chinese: Li); of
matter and emptiness; of the small (e.g., the mote of dust) and the big

25Other examples given included the relationship between the rafter and the building
and that between the wave and the ocean. For the former, see the translation of Fa-tsangs
brief text and commentary by Francis Cook in his Hua-yen Buddhism, ch. 6, esp. 7677;
for the latter, see first patriarch Tu Shun (557640), On the Meditation of Dharmadhatu, in
Chang, Buddhist Teaching of Totality, 20723, esp. 21415.
26Fa-tsang, Treatise on the Golden Lion, 7.7, in Chan, Sourcebook, 412. Thus the cos-
mologies of thousands and the cosmologies of innumerables in the Buddhist tradition,
are designed to call attention to the universes infinitude on the one hand, even as such are
now understood to be somewhat consistent with the numbers generated by astrophysi-
cists and quantum theorists on the other. See ch. 30 on Incalculables in Cleary, trans., The
Flower Ornament Scripture, 2.20116; cf. W. Randolph Kloetzli, Buddhist Cosmology: Science
and Theology in the Images of Motion and Light (1983; reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass
Publishers, 1989), esp. 13840.
140 chapter six

(e.g., the mountain); of the near and the far; of the mixed and the pure; of
the present moment and the past and future; of the restricted or determi-
nate and the unrestricted or indeterminateall in harmonious combina-
tion and spontaneity.27
The third way in which Huayen advances upon Nagarjunas dialectical
criticism is in the afffirmation of shunyata positively as mind. It is in this
way that Huayen cosmology and metaphysics re-connect with epistemol-
ogy and soteriology, and that precisely by retrieving the Buddha Mind
motif from the Perfection of Wisdom (Prajnaparamita) tradition. So, The
gold and the lion may be hidden or manifest....Neither has self-nature.
They are [always] turning and transforming in accordance with the mind.
Whether spoken of as fact or principle, there is the way (the mind) by
which they are formed and exist. This is called the gate of the excellent
completion through the turning and transformation of the mind only.28
Achieving perfect wisdom (bodhi) is to be fully enlightened such that,
When we look at the lion and the gold, the two characters both per-
ish and affflictions resulting from passions will no longer be produced.
Although beauty and ugliness are displayed before the eye, the mind is as
calm as the sea. Erroneous thoughts all cease, and there are no compul-
sions. One gets out of bondage and is free from hindrances, and forever
cuts offf the source of sufffering. This is called entry into Nirvana.29
To see this is to awaken from the world constructed by our own ephem-
eral mentalities, to realize the interdependent origination and nondual
character of mind and all things, and to realize the Buddha Mind within
oneself.30 Further, since each dharma becomes charged with intrinsic
value precisely because it is a necessary cause for every other dharma in

27Fa-tsang, Hundred Gates to the Sea of Ideas of the Flowery Splendor Scripture, ch. 4, in
Chan, Sourcebook, 42024.
28Fa-tsang, Treatise on the Golden Lion, 7.10, in Chan, Sourcebook, 413; brackets from
translation.
29Fa-tsang, Treatise on the Golden Lion, 10, in Chan, Sourcebook, 41314; see also
Fa-tsang, Hundred Gates to the Sea of Ideas of the Flowery Splendor Scripture, 1.71.8, in
Chan, Sourcebook, 418, for further elaboration of these exact themes.
30Yet because of the dialectical relationship between the one and the many, Huayen
idealism, if it may be called such, is more objective (as in the tradition of Peirce and Royce)
than it is subjective (as in either Berkeley or Schelling). Certainly, it is in this way that
the Huayen masters distinguished their ideas from the idealism of the Yogacara tradition,
accepting the latters doctrine of Buddha mind which also allowed for recognition of the
reality of conventional phenomena as well. See Imre Hamar, Interpretation of Yogcra
Philosophy in Huayan Buddhism, Journal of Chinese Philosophy 37:2 (2010): 18197. For
more on Yogacara idealism as itself a response to earlier Abhidharmic realism, see Fer-
nando Tola and Carmen Dragonetti, General Introduction, in Being as Consciousness:
 shunyata 141

the universe,31 enlightened minds have the deepest compassion for each
and every (especially sentient) being. So the voluminous Huayen Sutra
talks about the wisdom and compassion of the three great bodhisattvas,
Avalokiteshvara, Majusri and Samantabhadra, along with their (espe-
cially the lasts) vows to save all sentient beings.32 Of course, when one
sees that form is Voidness, he accomplishes the great Wisdom, and he
abides no more in samsara. When one sees that the Voidness is form,
he attains the great compassion and will no more remain in Nirvana.
Because form and Voidness, Wisdom and compassion, have all become
non-diffferentiated, he is able to practice the non-abiding acts.33
While much more can and should be said about the Huayen synthe-
sis, its anticipation of the discourse of holism in contemporary science
should be apparent. More specifically, there are parallels between Huayen
ideas and systems theory (see 3.3) which are worth exploring, and that
along three lines.34 First, systems theory, as characterized by its ontology
of becoming, its notion of self-organizing physical and mental patterns,
and its principles of dynamic natural systems, is consonant with the Bud-
dhist doctrine of dependent origination. Just as Huayen afffirms each part
as open to, dependent upon, and constitutive of the whole, systems theory
afffirms levels of systems all open to those within which they are nested
as well as dependent upon those through which they are constituted.
That systems are wholes which contain smaller wholes and subsystems
even while being located as subsystems within larger wholes and systems
points to their openness in both directions and to their interdependence
and interrelationality. This is nothing less than the interpenetrating and
internetworking worlds of the Huayen universe.

Yogcra Philosophy of Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004), xixl, esp.
xixii.
31Steve Odin, Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumula-
tive Penetration vs. Interpenetration (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982), 20.
32For a selection, see The Great Vows of Samantabhadra, in Chang, Buddhist Teaching
of Totality, 18896. Gadjin Nagao, The Foundational Standpoint of Madhyamika Philosophy,
trans. John P. Keenan (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989), 2, rightly notes
that the identification of emptiness and dependent co-arising reflects the Madhyamika
awareness of more ethical and critical concerns.
33Fa-tsang, A Commentary on the Heart Sutra, in Chang, The Buddhist Teaching of Total-
ity, 204.
34Here, I have learned some from Joanna Macy, Mutual Causality in Buddhism and
General Systems Theory (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), and will adapt
her findings, derivative primarily from engagement with pre-Abhidharma material (the
Suttas and Vinayas), to a comparison with Huayen.
142 chapter six

Second, systems theory exchanges the one-way or linear causality

model of classical mechanics for a multi-directional, non-linear, and reci-
procity model drawn primarily from the biological sciences. Certainly,
one-way causality is recognized by systems theory as adequate, but only
for two-variable problems or relationships. When dealing with multivari-
able and complex systems, whether it be even atoms which have more
than two electrons (hydrogen atoms have only one electron, but these
arent the only atoms in the world) or the complex electrochemical pat-
terns which characterize living organisms, variables appeared as mutu-
ally conditioned and irreducible to a linear causal chain. In consequence
the systems view focused not on substance but on processprocess in
which cause and efffect could no longer be categorically isolated.35 Rather,
through the feedback process, systems find a way to be self-monitoring
and self-adjusting, even with regard to their goals, as they receive input
from the outside. Negative feedback preserves equilibrium, stabilizing
the system, and fights offf entropy by reducing the deviation between the
performance of the system and its structured goal. Positive feedback
introduces patterns of growth, development, novelty, and complexifica-
tion into the system by amplifying deviations between its performance
and its goals (thus clarifying anti-entropic processes in ways which lin-
ear causality has not). Both demonstrated how, through the exchange
and processing of energy and information, systems function as integrated
networks,36 thus moving us beyond either the classical (Newtonian) pre-
determined universe or the random and arbitrary quantum universe. The
results are more practically important when applied to social problems,
leading to what might be called a symbiotic, synergistic, pluralistic, and
mutualistic worldview which has much greater explanatory power than
the classical models, especially as the latter may block inquiry due to
increased specialization.
The connections with the Huayen worldview are fairly direct on two
counts. First, the Huayen view understands the universe to arise as an
interdependent whole, with each part mirroring and constituting the
whole. The transformation of any part both reflects and enables the arising
of another whole, even as perturbations in any part of the system causes
fluctuations that afffect and transform the system. As in systems theory,

35Macy, Mutual Causality, 16.

36Macy, Mutual Causality, 17.
 shunyata 143

cause in Huayen concerns less temporal sequence than it does the

conditioned character of all things. To remove any one item or thing from
the universe would destroy that particular universe since what remains
would no longer be that universe wherein each and every thing supports
everything else by doing its job on the one hand, while each and every
thing is also supported by everything else doing their jobs on the other
hand. This leads, second, to the compassion revealed by the bodhisattva
who understands not only social problems but also the fundamental prob-
lem of duhkha in the universe and puts offf entering into nirvana precisely
because he or she recognizes the mutuality and reciprocity between all
beings. Together, this accounts for the relationship (and tension) between
the one and the many, the particular and the universal fields and systems,
of both Huayen and systems theory.
Finally, insofar as systems theory emerged in the efffort to understand
scientific phenomena that eluded a mechanistic view of the world, spe-
cifically the biological sciences, it recognizes a subjective dimension to
systems operations. Now as already noted, causality proceeds neither only
from the bottom-up (materialism) nor only from the top-down (subjective
idealism). But an open system maintains and organizes itself by exchang-
ing matter, energy, and information with its environment.37 And inso-
far as animals, plants and even suborganic systems all possess the kind
of subjectivity that processes information via feedback mechanisms and
decide about and adjust to their environments in order to sustain and
perpetuate systemic life, can it not be said that mind or consciousness at
least emerges from (if not precedes) and is intrinsic to the phenomenal
world which is self-organizational naturally? As such, systems philosophy
sees mind as co-extensive with the physical universe. Although it does
not speculate on the nature of the mind whose observable counterpart is
manifest in systems other than the human, it acknowledges, by the logic
of biperspectivalism, its existence.38 Once the line separating interioriz-
ing beings from non-interiorizing ones is blurred, recognition of the Bud-
dha mind in every dust mote of the universe becomes possible.

37Macy, Mutual Causality, 73; emphasis mine.

38Macy, Mutual Causality, 152. Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life: A New Scientific Under-
standing of Living Systems (New York: Anchor Books, 1996), esp. ch. 7, also believes it valid
to understand the systemic exchange and processing of codified information as acts of
cognition.
144 chapter six

6.3Basho and the Emptying Field in Contemporary Cosmology

I jump from the Huayen of the earlier Tang Dynasty to the Nishida phi-
losophy of the twentieth century in order to pick up the previous discus-
sion with the Kyoto School and Nishitanis religious philosophy of science
(5.3). As the recognized founder of the Kyoto School, Kitaro Nishida
(18701945) stands as one of the giants of modern Japanese, Buddhist,
and, arguably, world philosophy.39 From his initial Inquiry into the Good
(1911) through his The Dialectical World and the World of Action (193334)
to his late essays on the philosophy of Absolute Nothingness (194345),40
Nishida strove not only to bridge East and West, but to resolve the fun-
damental problems of occidental and oriental philosophy. Yet in doing
so, however, Nishida worked from deep within the Buddhist tradition
seen not only in his intense practice of zazen under a Zen master from
1897 to about 1905 (finally discontinued only after appearance of Inquiry
into the Good), but also in his conceptual dependence upon the Huayen
(Japanese, Kegon) and Soto schools of thoughteven if he rarely explic-
itly referenced his predecessors or focused on exegetical argumentation.41
While his ideas are certainly intertwined with the complex period of time

39David Dilworth suggests that Nishida be considered perhaps the first of the world-
theologians of our times; see his, Introduction: Nishidas Critique of the Religious Con-
sciousness, in Kitaro Nishida, Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview,
trans. David A. Dilworth (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987), 145, quote from
34. For other introductions to Nishida, see Nishitani Keiji, Nishida Kitaro, trans. Yamamoto
Seisaku and James W. Heisig (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), and Michiko
Yusa, Zen and Philosophy: An Intellectual Biography of Nishida Kitaro (Honolulu: University
of Hawaii Press, 2002).
40There are various translations and, especially, editions of these volumes. Accessible
to me were Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good, trans. Masao Abe and Christopher Ives (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990); Fundamental Problems of Philosophy: The
World of Action and the Dialectical World, trans. David A. Dilworth (Tokyo: Sophia Uni-
versity, 1970); Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness: Three Philosophical Essays,
trans. Robert Schinzinger, in collaboration with I. Koyama, and T. Kojima (1958; reprint,
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973); and Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious
Worldview, trans. David A. Dilworth (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987).
41This raises a question about whether or not the particularity of Nishidas practice of
zazen renders his philosophical insights inpenetrable to those who have not attained to
similar experiences. Thus does Robert Wilkinson, Nishida and Western Philosophy (Burl-
ington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2009), argue that there is an incommensurability
between the main lines of Nishidas philosophy, as a natural outgrowth of his Buddhist and
Zen experience of satori (awakening), and the major trajectory of the western philosophi-
cal tradition. Does this apply also to engaging Nishidas ideas with science? I am reluctant
to move too quickly to assertions of incommensurability, even as, simultaneously, I want
to acknowledge the particularity of zazen practice and the profundity of its implications
for philosophical and religious thinking. Lets see how this discussion unfolds.
 shunyata 145

stretching from the Meiji era (18681911) to the Second World War, our
own purposes are to explore the functional role of shunyata in Nishidas
philosophy against the previous discussions of cosmology and nature.42
I propose to do so via a discussion of Nishidas philosophy and logic of
basho.43
Basho derives in part from Platos receptacle (topos) in the Timaeus.
Literally, it is synonymous with place, field (as in a physical field),
matrix, medium, or even world. This wide range of meaning should
alert us to how and why Nishida thinks the logic of basho resolves the
three perennial philosophical conundrums: that of particularity and uni-
versality (logic), that of the subject and object (epistemology), and that of
the one and the many (metaphysics). To see this, an overview of the levels
at which basho functions in Nishidas thought will be helpful.
First, as Platos receptacle is akin to the universal material field from
which the forms emerge, so basho also has the sense of a field in the
expression force field.44 Objects are thus not just in space but are
energy concentrations, each object being understood as specifications or
determinations of the energy field(s) of which it is a part. These energy
concentrations are internal to the field(s) and receive their unity from
the field(s). The field(s) are constituted by these concentrations (e.g., pos-
sesses such and such characteristics) without being reducible to them in
terms of their grounding. A tree, for example, is a concentration of various
energetic fields, including that of the sun, the earth, the climate in gen-
eral and the rain in particular, and the larger environment. Robert Carter
summarizes: in a field of energy, focuses or concentrations of energy are

42For a thorough discussion of the complicity of Nishida philosophy in Japans war

effforts, see James W. Heisig and John C. Maraldo, eds., Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto
School, and the Question of Nationalism (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994).
43I should note that if I were able to read Japanese (which I cannot), the corpus of
Nishidas student, Hajime Tanabe (18851962), might have presented a more fruitful line
of comparative inquiry given not only Tanabes standing within the Pure Land trajectory
of Buddhism (Nishida and Nishitani are more dependent on the Zen tradition), but also
Tanabes early studies in modern physics, especially relativity theory and quantum mechan-
ics. However, most of that work remains untranslated into English. For an introduction to
Tanabe, see his magnum opus, Philosophy as Metanoetics, trans. Takeuchi Yoshinori with
Valdo Viglielmo and James W. Heisig (Berkeley: University Press of California, 1986), and
Taitetsu Unno and James W. Heisig, eds., The Religious Philosophy of Tanabe Hajime: The
Metanoetic Imperative (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 1990).
44Robert J.J. Wargo, The Logic of Nothingness: A Study of Nishida Kitar (Honolulu: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press, 2005), 225n1.
146 chapter six

really specifications of the whole.45 Basho as Absolute Nothingness is the

all-encompassing matrix or energy field source from, in, or within which
all particular energy fields operate.
Second, and building on the first, basho serves as the principle of indi-
viduation. Color is the field in which specifications such as green, blue,
and yellow arise. Number is a field in which each one, two, and three
come into focus, after each the other. In these examples, it is important
to note that fields are, as universals, nothing with respect to their con-
stitutive elements. Fields are said neither to exist nor not-exist, just as
it would not make sense to say of color either that it exists or does not
exist. Yet fields provide the unity for their elements, just as color unites
reds, greens, etc. The diffference from the Aristotelian logic of universals
which Nishida repeatedly emphasizes, however, is that Aristotles predica-
tive logic loses the concrete particularity of the judgmente.g., I am a
human being tell us what I am only in the abstractwhereas Nishidas
own logic of the concrete universal emphasizes the individuating difffer-
ences of the particular entity and is absolutely nothing apart from such
particularities. Yet this is not strict nominalism either since the particu-
larities are themselves essentially empty. As such, Nishidas basho as the
principle of individuation is diffferent from the Western understanding of
individuation grounded in an essential substance. (Note that Nishidas
concrete universal also difffers from Hegels insofar as the latters becomes
the self-existent Absolute and the former denies any absolute apart from
the manifest particularities.) Here, the connection to the Huayen doctrine
of the interpenetration of li (principle) and shih (phenomenon) should be
evident.
This leads, third, to basho as a spatial metaphor for the field of awareness
which decenters the self as conscious and individual agent and highlights
the matrices of reality that give rise to the self-subject and other-object
together. Just as the universal embraces the individuating particularities
in the subsumptive judgment, so basho embraces the self-aware self and
the selfs objects of awareness. The I of awareness should be understood
not as a subjective unity..., but [as] a predicative unity; not a point, but a
circle; not a thing, but a place...of experience in which the logical as well
as the sensory are located.46 So the Japanese language frequently trans-

45Robert E. Carter, The Nothingness Beyond God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of

Nishida Kitaro (New York: Paragon House, 1989), 29.
46Nishida, Collected Works [Japanese], 4.279, in Ueda Shizuteru, Nishidas Thought,
trans. Jan Van Bragt, Eastern Buddhist 28:1 (1995): 2947, quoted on 30.
 shunyata 147

lates into English in the passive voicee.g., they say and write watashi
ni (something is conscious to me or in me), rather than watashi ga
(I, as subject, am aware); the alarm is able to be heard or the sound of
the alarm can be heard, rather than I hear the alarm or I hear the bell;
a thought occurred to me, rather than I had a thought.47 Two corollary
ideas follow. First, for Nishida, to place the I as prior to the activity of the
person is to make a fundamental inversion of reality as experienced, and
to result in the Cartesian and Kantian dualism of I and the thing expe-
rienced in itself. Instead, the I-other arise together in activity. Second, the
I or it becomes an abstraction apart from considerations of its interac-
tive relations. There is no bird in the abstract, but only this bird flying,
in this or that location and direction, at this or that time, and so on. As
such, the given fact is always the interdependent origination of each thing
amidst its various contexts, contractable and expandable as appropriate
to the discussion at hand. So it is the case that we might talk not about
this bird in the abstract but about this beak chewing this or that (to
contract the field of inquiry); or these loose feathers falling away..., or
this bird flying over the red barn (sitting next to the blue shed...)..., or
even this bird flying over the red barn (next to the blue shed...) heading
south for the winter..., etc. (to expand the field of inquiry). In each case,
the field of reference can be either more precisely focused (all the way
to the microscopic level) or enlarged to be more and more inclusive (in
principle, to include the universe as a whole).
From this, fourth, basho becomes the field of creative action wherein
subjects and objects emerge and are relationally defined. Nishida came
to see pure experience (the central idea of his Inquiry into the Good) as
delivering acting beings or personal actions in the real spatiotemporal
and socio-historical worlds which are the concrete fusion of embodied-
individuals-acting-with-others-within-their-environment. This is the dia-
lectical field of reality that precedes the Cartesian cogito thus resulting
in I act, therefore I am. But since the I never acts alone, The world of
action is a field of the mutual determination of individuals.48 Even more,
basho is itself the field wherein individuals act to determine each other
even as they are determined by one another and by their environment. At
one level, it is appropriate to say I act, but at another level, it is better

47These examples are of Nishidas are discussed in Ueda, Nishidas Thought, 3033,
and Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness, 73.
48Nishida, Fundamental Problems of Philosophy, 99; my emphasis.
148 chapter six

to say that I am acted uponboth by others and by the world of action.

From the perspective of the acting self, the act is free and creative. But
from the perspective of the determining world, its actions are free and
creative rather than the actions of the individuals therein. In any case, the
self is not substance but activity.
This field of action, however, not only bridges the subject-object dual-
ism and the self-other dichotomy, but also the temporal dualism of past
and future time. It makes change comprehensible, explicating how one
thing can come to be another or how humans negate and reconstitute
themselves afresh with each activity. On the human level, personal action
is a unity of contradictions that represents continuity in discontinuity,
and interpersonal action and reaction are the mutually determining per-
sonal actions of individuals, bound up as they are in the concrete rela-
tional field.49
We arrive, fifth, to basho as the dialectical world which unites all
opposites. From the preceding, it is clear that basho rests squarely in the
Huayen tradition of form is emptiness and emptiness is form. In Nishida
philosophy, however, basho is the unity of the one and the many; of the
universal and the individual; of subject and object; of freedom and deter-
minism; and of past and futurewhat he calls the absolutely contradic-
tory self identity.50 Tapping into the religious domains of East and West,
Nishidas basho is also the field of nirvana and samsara; of God and the
world; of other-power and self-power; of life and death; of nothingness
and somethingness. This is because, to synthesize the religious language
of East and West,
The world of unity of opposites has its unity and self-identity, but not in itself.
Identity, as unity of opposites, is always transcendent for this world....The
fact that the world has unity and identity in absolute transcendence, means
that the individual many are confronted with the transcendent one, and
that the individual is individual because it confronts transcendence. By con-
fronting God, we have and are personality. The fact that we, as personal Self,

49See David A. Dilworths summary of this point in his The Concrete World of Action
in Nishidas Later Thought, in Yoshinoro Nitta and Hirotaka Tatematsu, eds., Japanese
Phenomenology: Phenomenology as the Trans-cultural Philosophical Approach, Analecta
Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research 8 (Dordrecht, Boston and Lon-
don: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1979), 24970, esp. 25960; cf. Nishida, The World as
Identity of Absolute Contradiction, in David A. Dilworth, Valdo H. Viglielmo and Agus-
tin Jacinto Zavala, eds., Sourcebook for Modern Japanese Philosophy: Selected Documents
(Westport, Conn., and London: Greenwood Press, 1998), 5472.
50See Nishida, The Unity of Opposites, in Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothing-
ness, 163241, passim.
 shunyata 149

are confronting and opposing God, means..., at the same time, that we are
joined with God. God and we are in the relationship of absolute identity of
the opposites of the one and the many.51
Thus, sixth and lastly (for our purposes), basho is, ultimately speaking, the
mu no basho, or place of nothingness which gives rise to all things. But
note that the nothingness here is not just nonbeing. If it were, it would
be relative to being and both would require together a wider discursive
domain and more inclusive ontological matrix. Rather, basho is here
Absolute Nothingness. Its genealogy, of course, includes the shunyata of
Madhyamaka and the totality of Huayen, and its successors (or descen-
dents) include Nishitanis absolute nothingness (as we discussed in 5.3).
It may also correlate with the absolute transcendence that the West has
traditionally understood as Being (so long as this Being is not set along-
side either something or nothing, but the Being which gives rise to both
beings and nothing together). As such, basho is the place not only of our
realization of the absolute, but also of the absolutes own self-realization.
In summary, drawing from the resources of Western philosophical and
religious discourse, Nishida says:
True life exists by recognizing that which, being absolute nothingness, is
self-determining, i.e. by hearing the Word of God within the self-determining
world, as something which lives through dying, i.e. something which is a
contradiction in itself....[W]hen the world which determines itself in cre-
ative activities determines itself in infinite expressive forms, it may also be
considered as a Thou. Thus Christians must call God Thou. But we must dis-
tinguish such a Thou from the Thou which we use when we call our neighbor
a Thou. The former Thou must rather be called Father or Lord. Therefore,
even loving ones neighbor as oneself is communication with God.52
All too briefly, I want to suggest points of contact between Nishidas logic
of basho and modern science, especially field theory (2.3), along three
interrelated lines. First, the collapse of the wave function in interaction
with an observer parallels the realization and emergence of things and
selves from action. Second, the quantum field understood as a wave-
particle unity-in-duality is analogous to absolute nothingness understood
as the field where opposites meet. Third, quantum indeterminacyrecall
that at the quantum realm it is better to speak of possibility and prob-
ability rather than actualityresonates with absolute nothingness as the

51Nishida, Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness, 234. Of course, Nishidas ref-
erences to God draw from Western philosophical rather than religious discourse.
52Nishida, Fundamental Problems of Philosophy, 106 and 111.
150 chapter six

widest ontological context or field of emergent possibilities. Together,

basho as field (Nishida) and as nothingness (Nishida and Nishitani) shows
itself capable of engaging modern science from relativity theory to quan-
tum mechanics. And, when the most recent scientific consensus can be
understood to support both the idea that natural reality consists of energy
fields and that such energy fields and their concentrations of force are
only with diffficulty, if at all, distinguishable from nothing, to that extent
the ruminations of the Kyoto School bridges East and West along the
pathway of modern science.
As important is the methodological principle that emerges from this
discussion both of the Huayen School and Nishidas ideas regarding phi-
losophy of science. The retrieval of Huayens emphasis on particularity as
illuminating the whole combined with Nishidas fields of reference legiti-
mates the various disciplines as valid paths to knowledge, each from their
own perspective. This finds correlation as well with relativity theorys
frames of reference which enable varied descriptions of the same thing
from diffferent viewpoints. Against this background, the scientific disci-
plines are contextual fields of inquiry, each valid as such so long as their
perspectival character is acknowledged, but not to be absolutized beyond
their proper domains.53
The preceding reflections have sought to show not only how the notion
of shunyata may yet be productive in the dialogue between Buddhism and
science, but also how it does this without compromising its distinctively
soteriological (i.e., Buddhist) content. We have made some headway on
both countsas evidenced most clearly in the Madhyamaka doctrine of
dependent or interdependent origination and the emergence of the idea
of compassion in the Huayen traditionbut we are only halfway home.
To more deeply or fully accomplish both objectives, the discussion of
shunyata and science needs to move from the domain of cosmology to
anthropology. The issue at stake is not only whether or not the idea of
shunyata illuminates what it means to be human but also how it enables
the task of humanization in the world of modern science and technology.
Here, the more pointed questions concerning the ethical implications of
the doctrine of emptiness-of-self (non-self) can be addressed as well.

53For more on this point, see Jay L. Garfield, Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and
Cross-Cultural Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 7376.
 CHAPTER SEVEN

SELF AND BECOMING HUMAN IN BUDDHISM AND SCIENCE

Buddhism is probably most well known in the West for its doctrine of
non-self (anatman). The rationale for such a position can be somewhat
discerned from the preceding discussion. However, as in any world reli-
gious tradition, it would be misleading simply to afffirm the doctrine in
a literal and uncritical sense and leave it at that. As we shall see in what fol-
lows, Buddhists certainly reject any substantive notion of the self, insisting
that the true self is self-emptying;1 but they also afffirm the interrelated-
ness of the self as well. Our goal in this chapter is to continue the inquiry
from the previous discussion regarding how the notion of shunyata in the
Buddhist tradition not only informs its cosmological self-understanding
but also its view of what it means to be human.
The following discussion thus attempts to clarify some of the nuances
and subtleties accompanying the anatman doctrine, especially as it relates
to our discussion of the soteriological implications of shunyata on the
one hand, and of the Buddhist-science dialogue on the nature of being
human on the other. To do this, I begin with an overview of the con-
nections between the earliest Buddhist debates regarding non-self and
what the Zen tradition calls the true self in conjunction with the per-
spectives of Buddhists working in the neurosciences (7.1), explore one
facet of the contemporary Tibetan Buddhist quest for a science of con-
sciousness (7.2), and conclude with a summary of human personhood
as pratityasamutpada or interdependently originating (7.3). Our goal is
to understand how the Buddhist notion of shunyata applies to their view
of what it means to be human, and to do so in dialogue with the contem-
porary cognitive sciences.
As before, we will be focused in our discussion, hardly able to explore
the many complexities at the intersection of the Buddhist dialogue with
the cognitive sciences. We have already in the preceding (5.2) caught a
glimpse of the intricate issues involved. Our selectivity will be constrained

1In this chapter and in the rest of the book, I put true self in quotation marks to
remind the reader that while this is a notion used by Buddhist scholars and some practi-
tioners, it should not be read in terms of an Aristotelian metaphysics of substance.
152 chapter seven

in part by the methodological concerns raised between the (soteriological)

Buddhist quest for enlightenment on the one side and (putative) scientific
objectivity on the other side, and guided in part by our larger objective
of developing a cross-cultural and interreligious understanding of human
nature within a broader cosmological vision.

7.1Non-Self, True-Self, and the Neurosciences

In the famous discussions between Nagasena and King Milinda, the quest
to understand the human self is juxtaposed with the attempt to define the
chariot. Just as the latter is but an account of its having...the pole, and
the axle, the wheels, and the framework, the ropes, the yoke, the spokes,
and the goad, so is the phenomenal self a convenient designation of the
elementary aggregates (skandhas) which constitute what we understand
as the human self.2 What then are the elementary aggregates that combine
to produce the self? The Theravadin theory, subjected to detailed analysis
especially in the Abhidharma literature, was that the individual consisted
of matter (rupa); sensation or feeling derived from the six sense organs of
sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste, and mind (vedana); perceptions of color/
shape, sound, odor, taste, sensations, and non-mental objects (saa):
mental states or activities, including volition (samkhara); and conscious-
ness (viana).3 Since the five aggregates arise together along with their
appropriate physical and mental objects, the phenomenal self also arises
and fades away with them. So Nagasena responds that it is on account of
the five constituent elements of beingthat I come under the generally
understood term, the designation in common use, of Nagasena.4
Here, it is important to note that the Buddhas denial of the existence
of an eternal or substantive soul was directed against the Brahmanic doc-
trine of Atman. Whereas the latter idea of the soul or Self might have
been intended to secure some measure of permanence behind the fleeting
appearances of the world, the Buddhas concern was that to embrace this
idea would render escape from the ill of samsara impossible. This would be
because, When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born

2Milindapanha 27, in T.W. Rhys Davids, trans., The Questions of King Milinda, 2 vols.,
Sacred Books of the East 3536 (1890; reprint, New York: Dover, 1963), 1.44.
3Mathieu Boisvert, The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Sote-
riology, Editions SR 17 (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995).
4Milindapanha 28, in Rhys Davids, trans., The Questions of King Milinda, 1.44.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 153

of ignorance-contact, craving arises.5 So his considerations were finally

soteriological, pragmatic, and ethical. What was needed was a via media
between the Brahmanic eternalist or spiritualist understanding on the one
side and the skeptical annihilationist or materialist conception on the other.
Inevitably, this middle way was understood in terms that denied both the
substantive self and the nihilistic self and afffirmed the empirical, existential,
and functional self of the skandhas. As David Kalupahana notes:
It is this method of deconstruction in the analysis of experience that elmi-
nated [sic] the belief in the purity of any form of experience, feeling, sensa-
tion or even knowledge, that is represented by the Buddhas conception of
non-substantiality, leaving in its trail, not any form of absolute nothingness
or emptiness, but the empirical notions of the dependent and dependence
providing justification for an enlightened form of ethical pragmatism.6
But can the idea of the empirical self on its own sustain the Buddhist
soteriology? While the sufffering self is an immediate datum of experience,
does not the testimony of the Buddha and the arhats (saints) also confirm
the delivered, enlightened, or liberated self? In this view, the achieve-
ment of nirvana is not the absolute extinction of the ontological self, but
the epistemological realization that we have mistaken the phenomenal
self for the true self. It suggests that the true self cognizes there is no
substantial self, realizing that all concepts apply only to the phenomenal
self. For these reasons, the personalists countered that the Buddha only
warned against mistaking the false self as the transcendental and true
self, and not against afffirming the true self as such.7

5Samyutta Nikaya, 22.3.81, in Bodhi, trans., Connected Discourses of the Buddha, 1.922.
So much so that later Buddhists like Vasubandhu, a fourth or fifth century (ce) monk
who is perhaps the chief systematizer of the mind-only idealism of the Yogacara School
of Mahayana Buddhism, insisted that there is no salvation apart from Buddhism because
other traditions afffirmed the erroneous view of the souls existence; see the appendix to
the eighth chapter of Vasubandhus Abhidharmakosa, translated in Theodore Stcherbatsky,
The Soul Theory of the Buddhists, 2nd ed. (Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1970),
1115; or the translation by Louis de La Valle Poussin, Abhidharmakosabhasyam, 4 vols.,
Eng. trans. Leo M. Pruden (Berkeley: Asian Humanities Press, 19881991), 4.131314.
6David J. Kalupahana, The Principles of Buddhist Psychology (Albany, NY: State Uni-
versity of New York Press, 1987), 147. The soteriological dimension of Buddhist views of
the self is the dominant thread throughout Gay Watson, The Resonance of Emptiness: A
Buddhist Inspiration for a Contemporary Psychotherapy (Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1998).
See also Rune A.E. Johansson, The Psychology of Nirvana (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books,
1970), and Padmasiri de Silva, An Introduction to Buddhist Psychology (New York: Barnes
and Noble Books, 1979), for existentialist and functionalist interpretations of selfhood,
respectively.
7See Vasubandhus Abhidharmakosabhasayam, vol. 4, ch. 9. The personalist argument
is preserved, and countered, by Vasubandhu. For a summary of this series of arguments,
see George Grimm, Buddhist Wisdom: The Mystery of the Self, trans. Carroll Aiken, ed.
154 chapter seven

The result is that the anatta teaching is open to at least two readings.
Taken at face value, it rejects the idea of a self-existent and eternal soul
behind the aggregates constituting the human individual. Understood
soteriologically, awakening to nirvana enables recognition of the phenom-
enon of human personhood as an ephemeral illusion even as it unveils the
true but inefffable self. The dissonance between these interpretations may
be resolved variously, depending on which tradition or interpreter we
consult. It may also be alleviated when connected with the Madhyamaka
doctrine of shunyata. In this view, human persons, no less than rocks,
trees and birds, are equally devoid of self-existence given their transitori-
ness and interdependent origination.
The previous discussion of the Madhyamaka and Huayen metaphysics
(6.1 and 6.2) emphasized precisely this self-emptying character of all
things, including the form of human personhood. Yet if emptiness is form
and form is emptiness, then the empirical particularity of human forms
can be afffirmed as interdependent originations of the pervasive Buddha
Mind, the transcendental field of nature as self-emptying. The emptying-
self is enabled thereby to be such as it is, and hence achieves authentic
and genuine selfhood. By the time of the Sung Dynasty (11261279 ce),
this set of Huayen ideas had been absorbed as the theoretical framework
for Chan meditation practice.8 In Japan, it was given clear articulation in
the teachings of Dogen (12001253), founder of the Soto sect of Zen.
For Dogen, meditation signified what he called the dropping offf of con-
cepts of mind and body (equivalent to the Huayen li and shih, or principle
and form or phenomena), and the emergence of the true self of the
Buddha nature (Dharmakaya) or Buddha mind. In the Genjokoan section
of his famous Shobogenzo, Dogen observes: To learn the Buddha Way is
to learn ones own self. To learn ones self is to forget ones self. To forget
ones self is to be confirmed by all dharmas. To be confirmed by all dhar-

M. Keller-Grimm 2nd rev. ed. (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978). Grimm is not alone on
this issue. Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early
Buddhism (Richmond: Curzon Press, 1995), 78 and 1719, notes that this interpretation
has been proposed by a wide range of recognized Buddhist scholars over the decades,
including Caroline Rhys Davids, Ananda Coomaraswamy, I.B. Horner, and even Edward
Conze. This same point is argued also by Christmas Humphreys, Buddhism (Harmonds-
worth: Penguin, 1951), 8688.
8The key figure in this convergence is probably Tsung-mi (780841), the posthumously
designated fifth patriarch of Huayen; see Peter N. Gregory, What Happened to the Per-
fect Teaching? Another Look at Hua-yen Buddhist Hermeneutics, in Donald S. Lopez, Jr.,
Buddhist Hermeneutics, Studies in East Asian Buddhism 6 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1988), 20730, esp. 22325.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 155

mas is to afffect the casting offf of ones own body and mind and the bodies
and minds of others as well. All traces of enlightenment (then) disappear,
and this traceless enlightenment is continued on and on endlessly.9 In
the Soto Zen tradition, then, enlightenment (satori) is the immediate
rather than the culmination of a long process of meditation, as advocated
by the Rinzai School of Zenrealization and manifestation of this genu-
inely emptying self. Rather than being egotistically motivated, this true
self is characterized by boundlessness and unlimitedness; naturalness
and immediacy; austere sublimity or lofty dryness; subtle profundity or
profound subtlety; freedom from attachment; tranquility and deep calm;
openness; and compassion. The characteristics belonging to the Form-
less Self discussed here constitute mans true and ultimate manner of
being.10
Now whereas Dogens casting offf mind and body is more soteriologi-
cally oriented, Nishidas pure experience is more epistemologically and
ontologically concerned.11 The fusion of the Huayen and Soto Zen tradi-
tions in Nishida produced his philosophy of basho where emptiness is
understood as the field of energetic activity and becomingmore pre-
cisely, self-emptyingas the principle of individuality, and as the field
uniting opposites. Not coincidentally, the person in Japanese is ningen,
which is combination of human and between, referencing the between-
ness of human beings rather than their individuality. Nishidas basho cap-
tures this sense of betweenness, emphasizing the field within which
and wherein human beings find themselves in relationship. Even more
inclusively, as Yuasa Yasuo summarizes, the essential destiny of human
life is to be embraced by lifes rhythms in natural space; it is to be together
with the animals and plants, with all things that have life, with what the
Buddhists call all sentient beings or all living beings.12

9Dogen, in Norman Waddell and Masao Abe, trans., Shobogenzo Genjokoan, The
Eastern Buddhist, n.s. 5:2 (1972): 133, quoted in Joan Stambaugh, Impermanence is Bud-
dha-Nature: Dogens Understanding of Temporality (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1990), 10.
10See Joan Stambaugh, The Formless Self (Albany: State University of New York Press,
1999), ch. 1, for a discussion of Dogen; quotation from 89.
11Gereon Kopf, Beyond Personal Identity: Dogen, Nishida, and a Phenomenology of No-
Self (Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2001).
12Yuasa Yasuo, The Body: Toward an Eastern Mind-Body Theory, ed. T.P. Kasulis, trans.
Nagatomo Shigenori and T.P. Kasulis (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987),
4546. Chapter two of this volume is an excellent discussion of the Japanese view of the
mind-body relationship in light of Nishidas philosophy. See also Yuasa Yasuo, A Contem-
porary Scientific Paradigm and the Discovery of the Inner Cosmos, in Thomas P. Kasulis,
156 chapter seven

Yet Nishidas basho concerns not only the field of interpersonal rela-
tionships, but also the intrapersonal field uniting mind and body. His
moving from ordinary experience wherein mind (active) and body (pas-
sive) are separated is directed toward a unity of mind-body whereby the
body is subjectivized and the mind objectivized (balancing the former
dichotomy). Only there, in the field of action emanating from the self-
emptying realm of basho, is the dualism of mind and body overcome since
now the subject-object distinction no longer holds. But even more pre-
cisely, as Yuasa Yasuo notes, Nishida reflects the
strong tendency in the Japanese philosophical tradition to graph the authen-
tic self as a creative, productive function (hataraki), or field (ba) of life-
energy. Consequently, the authentic self is felt and acquired through some
sort of life-energy emanating downward from the metaphysical dimension;
its field of acquisition and feeling is ones body-mind within meditative cul-
tivation....Nishidas acting intuition means to act as a self without being a
self, to be guided by creative intuition while receiving its power springing
from the basho vis--vis nothing, the region of the authentic self.13
Further light can be shed on Nishidas self-emptying field from the neu-
ropsychological sciences. When the neurophysiological system is function-
ing properly, the physical sensations of the external world are delivered
through the centripetal circuit to the cerebral cortex. Thinking then pro-
ceeds through the frontal lobe and other areas of the cerebral cortex, even
as emotions and feelings are processed in the center area of the underly-
ing frontal lobe in the cortex and, more importantly, through the limbic
system. The expression of emotions derive from the hypothalamus of the
diencephalon, and are modulated by sympathetic nerves and parasym-
pathetic nerves (both constituting the central nervous system) directed
toward homeostasis. The endocrine glands secretion of hormones also
attempts to modulate the stress level experienced by the body. But note
that motor sensations are processed not only through the external organs,
but also through the splanchnic sensations of the bodys internal percep-
tion. These are transmitted through visceral affferent nerves to a very small
area of the cortex, which explains the vagueness of internal sensations
(in comparison with external sensations). For similar reasons, emotions

Roger T. Ames, and Wimal Dissanayake, eds., Self as Body in Asian Theory and Practice
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 34762, and, for a more complete con-
structive argument, Yuasa Yasuo, The Body, Self-Cultivation, and Ki-Energy, trans. Shigenori
Nagatomo and Monte S. Hull (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993).
13Yuasa Yasuo, The Body: Toward an Eastern Mind-Body Theory, 22324.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 157

are also less clearly felt, being more unconsciously experienced realities.
All of this also highlights the diffferences emergent via the limbic system
between surface consciousness or ordinary functionality of the everyday
self and the underlying subconscious of the self in dreaming, sleeping,
and dying, as well as that associated with neuroses and various mental
disorders.14
Unfortunately, human actions are conditioned primarily by the igno-
rance, disorderedness, and passions of the unconscious self. Might it be
the case that these tendencies in turn obfuscate the proper functional-
ity of the nervous system? It is perhaps this that the meditative process
of Buddhism in general and of Zen practice in particular is designed to
uncover and harness toward a more humane personality. Put starkly, Zen
meditation is a course of deconstruction, deprogramming, and deperson-
alization directed toward to cultivation of authentic selfhood. Prolonged
meditation with its precisely defined breathing techniques accomplishes
this in two ways. First, it calms the mind by quieting the firing activity of
nerve cells in the brain, thus creating longer lasting and deeper pauses
in brain activity. Second, it exerts a destabilizing influence on the minds
routines via sensorimotor deprivation and disruptions of sleep-wak-
ing cycles, among other means. The result is periodic and increasingly
intense breakthroughs to the fullness of the present moment and reality
as it is. This highlights the interconnectedness of the brains capacity to
change and the minds creative capacity to reconstitute the deconstructed
self.15 Together, zazen accomplishes the psycho-physiological and bio-
chemical changes which enable the process of the deep emptying out
from consciousness of every former subjective distinction and personal
attachment.16 Enlightenment can thereby be understood as the twofold
process of a) bringing these aspects of the self to the surface so as to
enrich the consciousness by integrating and assimilating these uncon-
scious elements, and of b) fully awakening and opening up to the such-
ness of the world so as to totally, continually, and directly [be] in touch
with what is going on in the present moment.17 In this is the experience

14For the distinction between surface and underlying consciousness, see Yuasa, The
Body: Toward an Eastern Mind-Body Theory, 22324; cf. also Francisco J. Varela, ed., Sleep-
ing, Dreaming, and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness with the Dalai Lama (Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 1997).
15James H. Austin, M.D., Zen and the Brain: Towards an Understanding of Meditation
and Consciousness (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998), 641.
16Austin, Zen and the Brain, 571.
17Austin, Zen and the Brain, 637.
158 chapter seven

of total freedom because the dualism between the self and otherness is
overcome enabling the individual to relate spontaneously to reality as it
is in all of its complexity and as it demands response.18
Herein we have a somewhat interactionist account of brain-mind-
environment. Cognition is connected to not only the brain but also to
the entire human organism, without being reduced either to the brain or
to the body. Further, cognition is interactive, and mind is therefore what
it is only in and through its interrelational activity. Finally consciousness
is an ontologically complex public afffair of reciprocity and mutuality. As
such, the mind can be understood in terms of an emergent and superve-
nient reality relating afffectively embodied interactions with the environ-
ment, even while being irreducible to neither the bodily functions nor
the environmental constraints. The result is the hermeneutical spiral of
lived experience neural emergences formal mental structures
lived experience, and so on. Only a generative, mutual reciproc-
ity can replace the age-old friction of duality that haunts both cognitive
science and also the spiritual traditions.19 Thus the true self emerges
beyond absolutism and nihilism from the groundless nothingness that is
the very condition for the richly textured and interdependent world of
human experience..., revealed in cognition as common sense, that is, in
knowing how to negotiate our way through a world that is not fixed and
pregiven but that is continually shaped by the types of actions in which
we engage.20 Such fairly standard neuropsychological findings appear

18See Hubert Benoit, The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1955), ch. 7, Liberty as Total Determinism; cf. John Crook, Mind in
Western Zen, in John Crook and David Fontana, eds., Space in Mind: East-West Psychology
and Contemporary Buddhism (Dorset, UK: Element Books, 1990), 92109.
19Francisco J. Varela, Why a Proper Science of Mind Implies the Transcendence of
Nature, in Jensine Andresen, ed., Religion in Mind: Cognitive Perspectives on Religious
Belief, Ritual, and Experience (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 20736, quote
from 234. See also Varela, Steps to a Science of Inter-being: Unfolding the Dharma Implicit
in Modern Cognitive Science, in Gay Watson, Stephen Batchelor and Guy Claxton, eds.,
The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science, and Our Day-to-day Lives (York Beach,
Me.: Samuel Weiser, Inc., 2000), 7189, and Varela, Upwards and Downwards Causation in
the Brain: Case Studies on the Emergence and Effficacy of Consciousness, in Kunio Yasue,
et al., eds., No Matter, Never Mind: Proceedings of Towards a Science of Consciousness
Fundamental Approaches (Tokyo 99) (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2002), 95107. Varela was, until his untimely death in 2001, a neuro-
scientist at the Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, who was also a practicing Buddhist.
20Francisco J. Varela, Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch, The Embodied Mind: Cognitive
Science and Human Experience (London and Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1991), 144.
Elsewhere, Varela has teamed up with biologist Humberto Maturana to explore a via media
one that is deeply informed by Buddhist perspectivesbetween representationalism and
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 159

to map well onto Buddhist views of the self. It is, to resort to the lan-
guage of the Kyoto School, to cut through, move between, and get behind
(or beyond) the false dichotomy of subject and object precisely through
embracing the activity made possible by Absolute Nothingness. Pursuit of
this question concerning basho vis--vis nothing amounts to asking how
a self can go from the inauthentic to the authentic dimension.21

7.2Buddhist Contemplation and the Science of Consciousness

At the same time, we should be cautious in our attempts to correlate neu-

roscientific research directly with Buddhist meditational practices and
experiences. After all, the study of brain alone may not lead to knowl-
edge of mental phenomena, even as Buddhist studies of consciousness
over millennia have not led, at least so far, directly to scientific theories
about the brain. Further, since science can only detect physical phenom-
ena and adjudicate issues in that realm and since we know only less than
half of one percent of the functioning of the brain, to this point mental
events can be neither verified nor falsified by science.22 As Tibetan Bud-
dhist scholar B. Alan Wallace reminds us, strictly speaking, there is still
no scientific evidence for the existence of consciousness! as all states of
consciousness may be regarded as too subtle for modern neuroscience to
detect.23

solipsism in understanding of the biological aspects of cognition; see Humberto R. Mat-

urana and Francisco J. Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living, Bos-
ton Studies in the Philosophy of Science 42 (London, Boston, and Dordrecht, Holland: D.
Reidel Publishing Company, 1980), and Maturana and Varela, The Tree of Knowledge: The
Biological Roots of Human Understanding, rev. ed., trans. J.Z. Young (Boston and London:
Shambhala, 1992), esp. ch. 7.
21Yuasa Yasuo, The Body: Toward an Eastern Mind-Body Theory, 93. See also the discus-
sion of Nishitani in Varela, Thompson, and Rosch, The Embodied Mind, 24145.
22So, after massive 579 pages of text and 55 pages of bibliography (almost 2000 entries!),
Paul MacLean concludes his study with this observation: And so, one might conclude, we
are left with the question as to whether or not there can ever evolve an intelligence that
will be intelligent enough to take measure of itself and at the same time discover a Braille
for reading the blind message of evolution; see Paul D. MacLean, The Triune Brain in Evo-
lution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions (New York and London: Plenum Press, 1990), 579.
23Alan Wallace, Afterward: Buddhist Reflections, in Zara Houshmand, Robert B. Liv-
ingston and B. Alan Wallace, eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the
Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1999),
15373, esp. 164 and 166.
160 chapter seven

It is here that I want to re-engage the Tibetan traditions dialogue with

modern science, especially as that has unfolded in Wallaces work.24 Wal-
lace studied science, philosophy, and religion in the Western academy,
but also spent a number of years in Tibet, eventually serving His Holiness
the Dalai Lama as a translator in many of the Mind and Life dialogues
(about which see 5.2). He has published widely, convinced that the way
of dialogue is best suited to chart a via media between scientistic materi-
alism on the one hand and postmodern relativism on the other. In what
follows, I will engage with the basic thrust of his ideas, especially as found
in his scholarly publications directed toward the quest for what Wallace
calls the science of consciousness.
We begin with Wallaces Amherst College thesis, written under the
guidance of professors Arthur Zajonc (a physicist) and Robert Thurman
(a scholar-practitioner of Tibetan Buddhism), and published as Choosing
Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind.25 Wallaces quest in this
volume was to seek out a middle way between a nave realism and a
solipsistic instrumentalism in science. For Wallace, neither realism nor
instrumentalism remain as viable options given developments in quan-
tum physics (where physics bleeds into metaphysics and religion, where
objectivism breaks down on the wave/particle duality, where the role of
the observer seems essential to the results of quantum experimentation,
and when there is widespread agreement, following Heisenberg and oth-
ers, that we observe not nature itself but nature which is open to our
questioning, etc.); given the conclusions handed on by the history of
science (e.g., that Newtons Principia was more a mathematical predicting
device than an explanatory tool regarding reality); given developments
in mathematics (from Euclidean geometry to Gdelian conventionalism);
and given a critical re-reading of the ancients (e.g., the implausible lega-
cies of Ptolemaic astronomy which saved the appearances and of Platonic
philosophy which idealized empirical reality). In the late twentieth cen-
tury context, we can no longer think we have an objective view of real-
ity in the sense that science provides us with the one true view of the
world. Thus, Wallaces major contribution in Choosing Reality may be the
sustained, almost 100-page, argument he provides in the first half of

24I provide some biographical details on Wallace in the first part of my article, Tibetan
Buddhism Going Global? A Case Study of a Contemporary Buddhist Encounter with Sci-
ence, Journal of Global Buddhism 9 (2008) [http://www.globalbuddhism.org/].
25B. Alan Wallace, Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind (Ithaca,
NY, and Boulder, Colo.: Snow Lion Publications, 1996).
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 161

the book against an uncritical realist position. Yet at the same time, he
also argues that neither can we depend only on an instrumentalist view of
science since that requires an untenable agnosticism regarding the world
and our engagements with it, and it undercut both the possibility of sci-
entific advances and of our (human) enjoyment of the fruits of scientific
technology.
What then might be a way forward? Drawing from and applying a Mad-
hyamaka Buddhist viewpoint, Wallace presents in the second half of the
volume a participatory universe that avoids dichotomizing experience
into objective or subjective, and that opens up to a contemplative and
introspective approach to the mind, to embodiment, and to the world.
A participatory and nondualist approach rejects the Kantian bifurcation
between noumena and phenomena, and hence allows for what Wallace
calls a participatory centrism: our conceptions bring the world that we
know into existence. Wallace reminds us that the word conception means
not only derived from cognition, but also suggests origination: The
anthropic principle...suggests that the world that we experience can be
grasped by thought because it owes its very existence to our concepts.
The two are mutually interdependent. The universe that we observe is
then a human-oriented world, and it would not exist apart from our pres-
ence in it.26 Human interdependence with the world therefore opens up
multiple interpretations of reality, which in turn endow human subjects
with the responsibility to choose their realities in intersubjective inter-
dependence with others.
Before moving on, it is fair to ask what we are to make of these ideas?
At times, Wallaces rhetoric suggests that he thinks his argument over-
throws even critical realist positions. Although uncharitable critics could
probably argue that there is little diffference between Wallaces centrism
and the instrumentalism that heall too briefly, in one chapterrejects,
a charitable reading of Choosing Reality would interpret his own centrist
proposal as a form of critical realism. In this latter account, Wallace would
be right to reject the Kantian thing-in-itself, but ironically is enabled to
do so whilst engaging modern science only by accepting the other half of
the Kantian idea, namely Kants epistemological perspectivalism which
insists that things are known to us only to the extent that our epistemic

26Wallace, Choosing Reality, 109.

162 chapter seven

apparatuses permit. Wallaces participatory centrism thus reconceived

the Kantian epistemology in Madhyamakan Buddhist terms.27
If Choosing Reality provides the basic metaphysic and epistemology for
a Buddhist encounter with modern science, Wallaces next book on the
topic, The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness,28
further expands on two topics: a critical assessment of the ideology of
scientific materialism (part I), and a consciousness-based approach to sci-
ence (parts II and III). The former must be explicitly undertaken because
otherwise the stronghold of a positivistic approach to sciencescientism,
in the pejorative sensewill continue to block the emergence of any sci-
ence of consciousness. Wallaces goal, informed by decades of meditation
practice devoted to engaging, exploring, and transforming the mind, is to
register consciousness on the scientific agenda.
What is consciousness? In brief, consciousness is, for Wallace, the sheer
events of sensory and mental awareness by which we perceive colors and
shapes, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and mental events such
as feelings, thoughts, and mental imagery.29 Wallaces argument for a
new science of consciousness to replace the objectivism, monism, and
reductionism of scientism unfolds in three basic steps. First, building on
the basic thrust of Choosing Reality, after the quantum revolution in twen-
tieth century science, consciousness can no longer be ignored in scientific
endeavors. Second, we need to take another serious look at the work of
William James (18421910), one of the founding fathers of the science of
psychology, especially his proposals for a science of introspection. James
ideas were discarded by behaviorist approaches, and the materialist ontol-
ogy of behaviorist psychology continues to dominate brain science even
to the present day. While the cognitive neurosciences privilege the use
of mechanical instruments in brain study (e.g., those related to the new
technologies that enable studies of brain states correlated with mental
functions), these so-called hard sciences of the brain are nowhere close
to resolving the Cartesian problem of the mind-brain relationship, or to
understanding the intricate and complex workings of the mind. What
they are attempting to doa study of consciousness from the outside
will leave us seriously deficient in our understanding of the mind. Instead,

27Thanks to Perry Schmidt-Leukel for requesting clarity on Wallaces thesis in Choosing

Reality; the entire preceding paragraph responds to Schmidt-Leukels prompts.
28B. Alan Wallace, The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).
29Wallace, The Taboo of Subjectivity, 56.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 163

the sciences of introspection may be our only hope of probing mental

phenomena more deeply and directly.
Third, Wallace recommends the methods for refining attention that are
essential for developing introspection as a viable scientific inquiry. Here
he draws from the meditative practices of the wide range of Theravada
and Mahayana traditions, especially the Tibetan traditions with which he
is most familiar. These millennia-old approaches have been cultivated by
contemplative adepts, and their usefulness for understanding the wide
range of consciousness has been repeatedly confirmed through repeated
testimony by Buddhist sages, contemplatives, and adepts. So yes, the
new science of consciousness will involve personal introspection, but the
results are not merely subjective when assessed against the findings of
the long history of Buddhist praxis.
Wallaces thesis is honed, next, in sustained interaction with the cog-
nitive neurosciences.30 The shift of language from science of conscious-
ness to contemplative science, however, signals the emergence of a
more mature Wallace, one less concerned with appeasing scientists and
more concerned with championing the cause of contemplation for both
scientific inquiry and religious practice. His goal is still to argue for a more
or less intersubjective account of consciousness, but the major develop-
ments in this volume have to do, I suggest, with his taking seriously the
religious traditions that comprehend and the cognitive sciences that
attempt to understand the contemplative practices being discussed.
Hence contemplative science is just as much about religion as it is about
science. Wallace is here attentive to the religious character of Buddhist
meditation practice, as well as sensitive to the charge that religion just as
often collides rather than cooperates with science. He hypothesizes that
while the emergence of Western science was motivated (at least in part)
by a theology of creation, this same set of theological convictions even-
tually hindered the flourishing of a science of introspection.31 Yet these
divergent trajectories between Buddhist traditions and western monothe-
istic ones do not ultimately mean that no common ground is to be found.
Instead, any honest survey of Buddhist traditions will reveal a wide range
of attitudes, ranging from the quasi-agnosticism of most Theravadin tradi-
tions to the quasi-monotheism, even polytheism, of Mahayana traditions,

30B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Meet
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).
31Wallace, Contemplative Science, ch. 4, esp. 6667.
164 chapter seven

and even a kind of robust monotheism in Vajrayna sources. This dis-

cussion is directed toward making the case that contemplation not only
funds the convergence (at best) or complementarity (at least) between
Buddhism and science, but also provides a possible bridge for dialogue
between East and West.
A major thread running throughout at least his more recent work
concerns the spiritual, moral, and transformative goals of contemplative
practice. This is a theme we have already noted among Tibetan Buddhists
engaging with the sciences (5.2), and Wallace has learned well from his
teachers in the Tibetan tradition. Contemplation is not an end in itself
but serves the purposes of making possible a meaningful life, the essential
features of which include clarifying the truth, nurturing health and whole-
ness, cultivating virtue, and bringing about psychological flourishing and
happiness.32 Buddhist meditationespecially in the Samantha practice
prevalent in Wallaces Tibetan traditionbegins with the premise that
the mind is the primary source of human joy and misery and is central
to understanding the natural world as a whole, and the central goals of
its cultivation are the development of attentional stability and acuity.33
Western science as traditionally understood, of course, could not and did
not factor these teleological realities into its equations as these lay in the
domain of religion. Wallace therefore works hard to show that the highest
religious aspirations of East and Westof monotheistic faiths and Bud-
dhist traditionsnot only converge on these ideals but also could poten-
tially agree about the value of contemplative practice for the purpose of
attaining these objectives.34 To be sure, meditative practices could lead
to the idolization of the self, just as monotheistic faith may lead to the
idolization of the deity.35 However, the best in both traditions, especially
the guidelines developed by Buddhist adepts to keep meditation focused,
provide safeguards against the seductions that would otherwise hinder
the goals of the practice from being achieved.

32Wallace, Contemplative Science, 26. Hence Wallace has also translated Yeshi Dhon-
dens Healing from the Sources: The Science and Lore of Tibetan Medicine (Ithaca, NY: Snow
Lion, 2000).
33Wallace, Contemplative Science, 136 and 137.
34Wallace briefly mentions the perennial philosophy as one possible explanation of
this convergence, not necessarily endorsing it, but suggesting that deployment of the
empirical science of introspection may help us further understand the issues; see Contem-
plative Science, 10708.
35Wallace, Contemplative Science, 14952.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 165

Before moving on, I want to call attention to Wallaces Hidden Dimen-

sions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness.36 This volume in some
ways brings us back full circle to the metaphysical explorations of his early
work. Wallace, however, advances the discussion by presenting what he
calls a special and a general theory of ontological relativity. The special
theory advocates that our perceived realities, both physical and mental
phenomena, emerge from and exist only relative to a subtle dimension
of existence of pure forms, or archetypal symbols.37 This is a metaphysi-
cal theory that expands on the participatory universe idea, but does so in
dialogue with Spinozas causa sui, Jungs archetypal domain, and Bohms
implicate order, among other proposals regarding mind and matter as
being in efffect emergent from two sides of one underlying reality.
The general theory of ontological relativity is more an epistemological
theory that, drawing from Einsteins theory of general relativity regarding
the invariant speed of light vis--vis all frames of reference, states there
is no theory or mode of observationno infallible method of inquiry, sci-
entific or otherwisethat provides an absolute frame of reference within
which to test all other perceptions or ideas.38 This is because although
there is one truth that is invariant across all cognitive frames of reference:
everything that we apprehend, whether perceptually or conceptually [as
opposed to Wallaces special theory of ontological relativity which con-
cerns perceptual phenomena only], is devoid of its own inherent nature, or
identity, independent of the means by which it is known. Perceived objects,
or observable entities, exist relative to the sensory faculties or systems
of measurement by which they are detected.39 Hence what we need is
a science of intersubjectivity, albeit one that is not limited to individual
claims but critically interacts with views that have withstood the test of
time across a variety of contemplative traditions. This would be a science
of introspection that is unabashedly anthropomorphic in recognizing the
central role of the mind in our knowledge of the world, but that results
neither in a Kantian dualism (because knowers participate, however per-
spectivally, in and with reality) nor a nihilistic relativism (since there are
norms for truth, goodness, and even beauty based on the community of
knowers).

36B. Alan Wallace, Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness
(New York: Columbia University Press, 2007), xi + 158 pages, ISBN 0-231-14150-5.
37Wallace, Hidden Dimensions, 70.
38Wallace, Hidden Dimensions, 71.
39Wallace, Hidden Dimensions, 72; italics original.
166 chapter seven

Combined, Wallaces special and general theories of ontological rela-

tivity suggest that at the ontological level of human consciousness, the
extinction of our (human) consciousness will result also in the extinction
of the world as we know it, although that does not mean that the world
ceases to exist in relationship to other sentient beings or creatures.40 At
the same time, this also means that no one theory will sufffice to explain
or enable understanding of the richness of the world as we experience it.
Thus we need both top-down (e.g., mathematical or Platonic) and bot-
tom-up (e.g., empirical, introspective, and even physicalist) approaches
that complement each other.41
However, given the interdependent and participatory universe as
articulated in the special theory, the introspective sciences of mind and
of consciousness provide indispensable empirical modes of inquiry for
illuminating all other fields of knowledge, including philosophy, math-
ematics, religion, and even the sciences. Entry into what Buddhists call
the Great Perfection would confirm, both perceptually and conceptu-
ally, this unification of physics and consciousness (the subtitle of Hid-
den Dimensions).42 But sustained interaction with the textual legacy of a
cumulative contemplative tradition and extensive and substantive medi-
tative practices refined over the course of thousands of hours of individual
practice are both necessary for this task. The latter means that, whatever
the virtues of Wallaces proposals, they are beyond what the neurosci-
ences on their own can either confirm or disconfirm. So we might say that
Wallace has left the empirical domain and is now making philosophical
(or soteriological, broadly understood) recommendations. Alternatively,
we might also say that contemporary science understood as a merely
descriptive enterprise begs for philosophical elucidation.
Thus Wallaces arguments press the methodological question confront-
ing the religion and science dialogue in general and the Buddhism-science
encounter more specifically. Is he successful in calling for a science of con-
sciousness that is at least informed by if not also derived from Buddhist
meditative and contemplative practices? But, what about the radically
disparate interpretive frameworks of Buddhism and modern science? For

40Wallace writes: all possible worlds vanish simultaneously with the disappearance of
the cognitive frames of reference within which they are apprehended. The worlds expe-
rienced by other conscious beings will continue to exist relative to them. In this sense,
conscious observers cocreate the worlds in which they dwell (Hidden Dimensions, 80).
41Wallace, Hidden Dimensions, 5657.
42Wallace discusses the Great Perfection in the final chapter of Hidden Dimensions.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 167

example, If scientists did not believe in reincarnation, which is so impor-

tant to Buddhist philosophy, then how can they interpret the results they
obtain in a way that takes the Buddhist context of the training [millen-
nia old institutional establishments] into account?43 Is not the empiricist
method and mechanistic analysis of science diffferent from the meditative
observationist method and idealistic descriptivism of Buddhism?44 Yet do
all of these factors combine to highlight the tradition of Buddhist insight
not only into the non-substantiality, ephemerality and transitoriness of
the phenomenal self, but also into the interdependence, interrelational,
and intersubjective nature of the true self that is Buddha Nature?

7.3Shunyata and Human Naturing

It is time to pull together the various threads of discussion. I have pro-

posed a conversation between Buddhism and science as read through the
central Buddhist idea of shunyata. Allow me to summarize the preceding
by way of suggesting how shunyata understood positively as pratityasam-
utpada or interdependent origination opens up to a Buddhist understand-
ing of personal selfhood and human nature that is consistent with the
most recent advances in the cosmological, neurobiological, and psycho-
social sciences. What we shall see is a dynamic self that is continuously
emerging precisely because of its self-emptying nature. It is precisely for
this reason that it is more appropriate to speak, in the Mahayana case, in
terms of human naturing rather than human nature. Four major features
highlight how the true self is a verb, rather than a noun, a dynamic flux
of becoming rather than a static or essential being.
First, the true self is the embodied and afffective self. Certainly there is
plenty in the Buddhist tradition, especially in some of the Theravadin lit-
erature, about the body as disgusting, repulsive, and to be renounced. Yet
the body is also considered more positively as a skillful means for fulfilling

43Richard J. Davidson, Anne Harrington, Cliffford Saran, and Zara Houshmand, Train-
ing the Mind: First Steps in a Cross-Cultural Collaboration in Neuroscientific Research,
in Davidson and Harrington, eds., Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan
Buddhists Examine Human Nature (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002),
317, quote from 12.
44R. Christopher deCharms, Two Views of Mind: Abhidharma and Brain Science (Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1997), ch. 5. Other diffferences noted by deCharms include
causation understood in terms of interdependent origination in Buddhism versus in terms
of physical laws in science, and the focus on resolving the subject-object problem in Bud-
dhism versus that on the mind-body dualism in science.
168 chapter seven

the bodhisattva vow of not entering into nirvana until all sentient beings
have been enlightened. As important, Buddhists also recognize the inti-
mate connectedness between brain and mind, and among brain, mind,
the emotions and the afffections.45 At this level, the true self is nothing
more or less than the fluid empirical and phenomenal self, except without
its being either reified or grasped after. Further, at this level, the true self
as the empirical self is a concrete instantiation of the principle enunciated
in the Heart Sutra and embraced by the Huayen School: that emptiness
is form and form is emptiness. As such, emptiness is manifest through
and realized in the particularities of empirical reality such that all things
are dynamically self-emptying precisely in their concreteness, phenom-
enality, and conventionality. Similarly, the self-emptying nature of human
persons is manifest through and realized in the dynamic conventionality
of their embodied and afffective selves.
Second, the true self is the intersubjective self.46 Human persons
are not only embodied and afffective but also dynamically constituted by
social, communal, and interpersonal relationships. In part for this reason,
the Buddhist Triple Refuge includes the Buddha, the Dharma and the
Sangha, the community of monks and nuns.47 Yet there is also the mutu-
ality of the laity and the Sangha seen in their interdependence: the latter
depending on the former for gifts of food and other mundane concerns,
and the former on the latter for ritual blessings (especially during death
and burial ceremonies) and for the accumulation of meritorious karma.
Most striking, however, is the bodhisattvas vow not to enter nirvana apart
from the salvation of all sentient beings. Herein is depicted the interrelat-
edness of human identities such that the fulfillment of the bodhisattvas

45See Paul Williams, Some Mahayana Buddhist Perspectives on the Body, in Sarah
Coakley, ed., Religion and the Body (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 20530.
Cf. also the discussion following Antonio R. Damasio, Mapping Brain Functions: The Evi-
dence of Damage to Specific Brain Regions, in Zara Houshmand, Robert B. Livingston
and B. Alan Wallace, eds., Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai
Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism (Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 1999), 5768, as
well as Francisco Varela, The Bodys Self, and Clifff Saron and Richard J. Davidson, The
Brain and Emotions, both in Daniel Goleman, ed., Healing Emotions: Conversations with
the Dalai Lama on Mindfulness, Emotions, and Health (Boston and London: Shambhala,
1997), 4960 and 6879 respectively.
46This is argued at length by Steve Odin, The Social Self in Zen and American Pragma-
tism (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996).
47See Varghese J. Manimala, Being, Person, and Community: A Study of Intersubjectiv-
ity in Existentialism with Special Reference to Marcel, Sartre, and the Concept of Sangha in
Buddhism (New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1991), ch. 5, esp. 21117, and ch. 6, esp.
23839.
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 169

existence is intertwined with that of all sentient beings on the one hand,
even while any particular individual is the source and in that sense author
of the bodhisattvas vow to begin with.
Third, the true self is the environmental and ecological self. Embod-
ied, afffective, and intersubjective selves are fields of interpersonal activity
which converge to and emerge from complex and dynamic environmental
networks which sustain animals, plants, and the natural world. Nishitani
thus reflected upon his eating a bowl of rice after a long period of eat-
ing Western food: This experience made me think of the meaning of the
notion of homeland, which is fundamentally that of the inseparable rela-
tion between the soil and the human being, in particular the human being
as a body....The vital link that since time immemorial has bound together
the rice, the soil, and those countless people who are my ancestors forms
the background of my life and is actually contained in it.48 So, samsara
(the conventional world), which is also nirvana (the world of awakened
or enlightened minds), is not only the entire field of the world taken as
a whole, but also the particular and interactive fields of animals, plants,
things, and generations of persons. The self-environment relationship is
therefore such that the former shapes the latter as well as is influenced
and in some ways determined by the latter. Hence the true self is a
complex inter-generational network of developmental fields or streams of
consciousness, holistic patterns, and relational sequences bound up with
the dynamic movements of its environment. Of course, this is nothing less
than the truth of the Buddhist doctrine of the relational self defined as an
interdependently arising field rather than as a substantive soul.49
From this, fourth, the true self is the acting, active, and acted upon
self. The embodied, afffective, and environment self is also a dynamic set of
interactive relationships. Thus, for example, as already indicated, the Jap-
anese language avoids using personal pronouns except when absolutely
necessary, preferring directional words which highlight the relationships

48Quoted in Heisig, Philosophers of Nothingness, 214; cf. also Watsuji Tetsuro, Climate
and Culture: A Philosophical Study, trans. Geofffrey Bownas (1961; reprint, New York: Green-
wood Press, 1988), which suggests a spatialized and topographical view of personhood and
human society in contrast to the temporalist notions of selfhood prevalent in the West.
49On these points, see Ken Wilber, Waves, Streams, States and Self: Further Consider-
ations for an Integral Theory of Consciousness, in Jensine Andresen and Robert K.C. For-
man, eds., Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps: Interdisciplinary Explorations of Religious
Experience (Bowling Green, Oh.: Imprint Academic, 2000), 14576, and Mendel Sachs,
Comparison of the Field Concept of Matter in Relativity Physics, and the Buddhist Idea
of Nonself, Philosophy East and West 33 (1983): 39599.
170 chapter seven

comprising the situation rather than the persons involved. In I hit the
baseball, myself and the baseball emerge together as aspects related by
the act of swinging such that I and the ball are no longer two. As such,
the person does not perform action; rather, action performs the person
so that the goal is to be the personal act appropriate to the occasion.50
Herein lies Nishidas point that human personhood should be understood
as a field of personal activity. The implications of this are twofold. First,
we have the complex and dynamic interrelationality of genes, culture, and
environment bound up together in the field of action. Put in terms of
evolutionary biology:
Actions thus constitute an indispensable link in a positive feedback cycle:
our inherited capacities (which result from previous actions) facilitate our
current activities (based upon inherited capacities) which in turn condition
future evolutionary developments....The radical implications of evolution-
ary biology is that the very forms and structures of human life reflect the
cumulative results of past activities of innumerable beings over countless
generations....In this perspective, we are contingent and historical crea-
tures through and through, lacking any unchanging species-essence or
fixed human nature....51
The lines between self and other (or self and nature), between subject and
object, and between past, present, and future, all become interrelated in
this view. But this is as it should be in a dynamic ontology of interwoven
fields rather than a static ontology of atomic substances, whether applied
to the human person or to the ultimate nature of cosmological realities.
The second and more intriguing implication, however, is that all per-
sonal activity (and hence, personal selfhood) is as much emergent from
being acted upon as it is from action taken. At this point the dialecti-
cal tension most clearly enunciated in the self-power versus other-power
debatebetween Nishida and Tanabe, representative of the ongoing
dispute between the Zen and Pure Land traditionsmanifests itself. The
self-emptying self means precisely that the self as self cannot establish
(and certainly not save) itself. Rather, the endowment of the self comes as
a gift from the activity of others. More to the point, especially as Tanabe

50Thomas P. Kasulis, Zen Action Zen Person (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press,
1981), 139 and 154; cf. 711 and 5661, for the comments regarding the Japanese language
and the baseball analogy.
51William S. Waldron, Beyond Nature/Nurture: Buddhism and Biology on Interdepen-
dence, Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1:2 (2000): 199226, quote
from 203.; emphasis orig. See also Robin Cooper, The Evolving Mind: Buddhism, Biology,
and Consciousness (Birmingham, UK: Windhorse Publications, 1996).
 self and becoming human in buddhism and science 171

understood it from a Pure Land perspective, the salvation of the self

comes precisely from its being acted upon, mediated by other selves
which and who are also empty, but ultimately by the Absolute Nothing-
ness of Other Power who sustains and values all things individually and
collectively. The redemption of the self comes in its recognition of its
incapacity to save itself (its repentance) and its trusting completely in
Other Power to be manifest salvifically in and through the concrete par-
ticularities of being.52 On the other side, of course, Other Power is also
inefffective without the operation of self power; hence their mutual and
reciprocal character.
So, the self-empty or self-emptying self (shunyata) is but the flip side
to the interdependently arising self (pratityasamutpada). Together, they
combine to chart the middle way of conceptualizing the true self as
the activity of the individual in relationship to the whole and vice versa. As
in the Jewel Net of Indra, the true self emerges precisely in its reflect-
ing others, even as, at the same time, the others are established in the
same activity.53 Put in terms of emergence and systems theory, each level
of complexity plays its indispensable role, from the atommolecule
cellorganismbrainpersoncommunitysocietyecosystem
to the planetsolar systemsgalaxy, etc. Herein lies the middle way
between reductionism and personalistic absolutism: wholes are greater
than the sums of their parts even as wholes are empty without the parts
and wholes are always parts of larger wholes. Herein also is the middle
way of holistic intercausality between upward and downward causation.
Considered thus, the concept of feedback charts a middle way between
freedom and determinism, between self-regulation and self-activity versus
other-regulation and other-activity. Last, but certainly not least, that infor-
mation is exchanged through codified structures and interpersonal activ-
ity enables a biperspectival middle view between idealism on the one side
and materialism on the other. Is this how Buddhist metaphysics afffirms
both the individuality and the relationality of the dynamic self?

52Besides Tanabes monumental Philosophy as Metanoetics, the Pure Land tradition

is also represented in the contemporary debate by Takeuchi Yoshinori, The Heart of Bud-
dhism: In Search of the Timeless Spirit of Primitive Buddhism, trans. James W. Heisig (New
York: Crossroad, 1983); Taitetsu Unno, River of Fire, River of Water: An Introduction to the
Pure Land Tradition of Shin Buddhism (New York: Doubleday, 1998); and Dennis Hirota, ed.,
Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creating a Shin Buddhist
Theology in a Religiously Plural World (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000).
53Linda E. Olds, Metaphors of Interrelatedness: Toward a Systems Theory of Psychology
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992).
172 chapter seven

My task in these last three chapters has been to show how the con-
cept of shunyata has and can further contribute to the dialogue between
Buddhism and science and yet retain its religious and soteriological sig-
nificance. In Nagarjunas case, soteriological insight is mediated through
epistemological enlightenment and recognition of the limitations of
language. For Huayen, salvation comes through the compassionate dis-
position realized in awakening to the interpenetration of all things. For
Nishida and Nishitani of the Kyoto School, absolute nothingness is first
and foremost a religious idea which bridges shunyata and Being, and in
doing so, reconciles and heals East and West, the one and the many, mod-
ern science and the human soul. This it accomplishes precisely by locat-
ing the domain of science in its proper place (basho), and illuminating
the nature of humanity and of the cosmos as devoid of substantive and
unchanging self-existence, as transitory and contingent, and as ultimately
interdependently originated and originating. At the same time, of course,
because emptiness is form and vice-versa, science itself now also has a
redemptive Buddhist function: to show the emptiness of emptinessso
that voidness of self-existence, transitoriness and contingency, and inter-
dependent origination, etc., are not reified as most ultimately realand
that precisely through its empirical methods and provisional deliverances
subject to ongoing inquiry. This is the path embraced also by our Tibetan
Buddhist interlocutors, insofar as their pursuit of a contemplative science
is suggestive of the interdependence between human consciousness and
the natural world as we know it.
Of course, argument is never complete, especially in the case of Bud-
dhism which rejects the notion of first cause, and hence, of ultimate and
final explanation. It is certainly the case that my own effforts to follow
out the intuitions of the Mahayana tradition in dialogue with modern sci-
ence have produced just as many questions as answers. These range from
the methodological to the philosophical and metaphysical. Some of these
questions will be engaged next as we juxtapose the tentative conclusions
of parts I and II alongside each other.
 PART THREE

PNEUMA AND SHUNYATA: NATURE, THE ENVIRONMENT,

AND THE CHRISTIAN-BUDDHIST-SCIENCE TRIALOGUE
174 part three

The task of this book is to follow out a trialogue among Christian theology,
Buddhist philosophy, and modern science, both in order to compare and
contrast the religion-science and the interreligious dialogues, and to work
toward the development of a philosophy and theology of nature appropri-
ate to the needs of the religiously plural world of the twenty-first century.
So far, we have explored the basic features of a Christian pneumatological
theology of nature in dialogue with science, and of a Mahayana Buddhist
understanding of the world as ultimately self-emptying and interdepen-
dently originating. How to talk about Gods presence in and to the world
led us in part I to a discussion of the Christian doctrine of creation, both
of the natural/cosmic and human realms, in pneumatological perspec-
tive. This was then followed by a similar inquiry in part II using Buddhist
understandings of nature and humanity and read through the Madhya-
maka notion of shunyata. The conviction that comparative theology can
only proceed following an in depth explication of how a religious symbol
functions first within the framework of its religious tradition has led to the
preceding discussions of these ideas separately and in their own context.
At the same time, the hypothesis of this book is that a pneumatological
theology of nature can bring into dialogue not only diffferent religious tra-
ditions, but also religion, theology, and modern science. Hence the tria-
logue among Christian theology, Buddhist thought, and science.
This last part of the book will therefore explore the trajectories such
a conversation could take, trusting that the pneumatological hermeneu-
tic developed earlier will enable crossover, inhabitation, and return not
only in the interfaith dialogue with the Buddhist tradition, but also in the
encounter between Christian theology and modern science. Here, more
than ever, we will be covering much interreligious and interdisciplinary
ground. The goal in what follows is not necessarily to resolve preexisting
questions or concerns but to model a method of inquiry in a pluralistic
and scientific context, and to explore the fecundity of the pneumatologi-
cal imagination for such a task. If we are successful, what emerges at the
end will be a philosophy and theology of nature and of the environment
that will be informed by both Christian and Buddhist perspectives; more
importantly, such a philosophical vision will also include an ethical com-
ponent that will enable Christians and Buddhists to work together for the
care and even liberation of the world.
I should note, however, that our task here is a distinctively Christian
one: I am, after all, a Christian theologian, not a Buddhist philosopher.
Here the Christian commitments bracketed in part II of this book are
re-asserted. At the same time, it should also be clear by now that the
 pneuma and shunyata 175

following will notcannot, actuallybe merely a series of claims main-

taining Christian views over and against Buddhist ones. Rather, after our
attempt to understand Buddhist perspectives on their own terms in the
preceding pages, I will be walking a fine line in the rest of this book: on
the one hand seeking to be faithful to the historic Christian tradition as a
Christian theologian, but on the other hand being sensitive to how Chris-
tian self-understandings may be deepened, corrected, and even trans-
formed by our dialogue with modern science and Buddhist traditions.
(And if Buddhist readers also gain something in turn from what follows
about how to understand their own traditions in new ways, then that will
be an added bonus for which I can only be grateful.)
The final three chapters of this part of the book therefore will be con-
cerned not only with the formal elements of a pneumatological theology
of nature (of the cosmos and of human beingschapter 8), but also with
the methodological challenges confronting both the religion-science and
interreligious dialogues which was introduced in the introductory chap-
ter and which have followed us throughout (chapter 9). My hypothesis is
that the pneumatological approach adopted in this volume will enable
the emergence of a provisionary Christian understanding of nature and an
ecological and environmental ethic informed both by science and central
insights of the Buddhist tradition (chapter 10). We will now proceed in an
explicitly comparative manner, albeit always aware that our effforts are
preliminary and tentative, subject to our partial understanding achieved
by the preceding discussion and dependent upon our having identified
the proper and adequate comparative categories to pursue and accom-
plish our task. The culmination of my argument in this part of the volume
will determine whether or to what degree our effforts finally pay offf.
 CHAPTER EIGHT

SPIRIT, NATURE, HUMANITY: A TRIALOGICAL CONVERSATION

We are now in the stretch run of our attempt to develop a theology of

nature informed by dialogue with modern science and with Buddhist
traditions. The basic questions are threefold: First, how do Christian and
Buddhist views of nature and the cosmos in general and of human nature
and personhood more particularly compare and contrast? Second, in
what ways has the inclusion of modern science been illuminating for this
conversation? Finally, does a pneumatological approach establish a bridge
toward the furthering of religion-science and interreligious dialogues on
these topics? These three foundational questions have motivated our
inquiry from the beginning.
In this chapter I begin by summarizing the findings of parts I and II, not-
ing especially similarities between the two traditions views on creation/
nature and human personhood as elicited through the pneumatological
framework of inquiry (8.1). From this, we attempt a deeper analysis of
the Christian-Buddhism-science trialogue by pushing the discussion for-
ward in the direction of what might be called a pneumatological theol-
ogy of the cosmos (8.2) and a pneumatological anthropology (8.3). This
chapter thus is an initial sketch of a philosophy and theology of nature in
light of the Christianity-Buddhism-science trialogue.
Needless to say, even this first leg of our comparative project will be
expansive as we not only crossover in the interreligious dialogue but also
take up contested matters in the religion and science conversation.1 At
one level, our effforts will only traverse as far as our comparative categories
are adequate.2 What I mean is that if we end up trying to compare apples
and oranges, then inquiry will turn out to be nothing less than a missed

1Our attempts to enter into another religious tradition in order to return enriched to
our own follows the model charted by John S. Dunne, The Way of All the Earth: Experiments
in Truth and Religion (New York: Macmillan, and London: Collier Macmillan, 1972), and
John B. Cobb, Jr., Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and
Buddhism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
2I discuss the important of developing adequate comparative categories in my Beyond
the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca-
demic, 2003), ch. 7.
178 chapter eight

opportunity. On the other hand, if pneuma is comparable to shunyata, or

creation is comparable to nature, or relational theology is comparable to
interdependent origination, then perhaps we can make some headway
both in the Buddhist-Christian dialogue and in the Christianity-Buddhism-
science trialogue. In the end, however, our comparative work results not
merely in observing similarities and diffferences but in a normative theo-
logical vision for Christian practice. But if we have attended carefully
enough to what is said both by the sciences and those in other faiths,
then what emerges may have ethical purchase not only for Christians but
for all truth seekers who are concerned about the common good.

8.1Pneuma and Shunyata: Science and Comparative Theology

How might we summarize the basic features of the theology of nature,

of the cosmos, and of humanity, emergent from the preceding dialogues
between Christian theology and science and between Buddhist thought
and science? We began with Pannenbergs correlation of field theory and
pneumatological theology, only to find a parallel especially in the dis-
course of the Kyoto School. On the Christian side, Pannenbergs theologi-
cal appropriation of the model (2.2 and 2.3) is grounded in the dynamic
and essential character of God as spirit and creation as the field of Gods
presence and activity. The results include a) its enabling the transition
from a substance to an event or dynamic ontology; b) its opening up to
systems and environmental analyses; c) its undergirding a metaphysics of
temporality and creativity; and d) its categorical emphases on potential-
ity, possibility, and contingency rather than actuality.
On the Buddhist side, we observed that Nishitanis encompassing field
of shunyata reconceptualizes this basic Mahayana Buddhist motif as the
ontological context of mutuality in and from which not only science and
religion (among other domains) emerge, but through which they also per-
ichoretically interpenetrate (5.3). Informing Nishitanis usage is Nishidas
logic of basho (6.3) which emphasizes the field of shunyata as a) the
energetic dynamism of interdependent origination; b) the principle of
individuation and particularization; c) the place from which subject
and object arise together; d) the activity which relates and defines relata;
e) the unity of opposites; and e) the Absolute Nothingness that gives rise
to all things. Initially, what is unmistakable is the emphasis on dynamism
and the categorical import of possibility and activity (rather than sub-
stance or actuality) that emerges as each side frames its ideas in dialogue
with field theories and concepts.
 spirit, nature, humanity 179

Perhaps more important is that the field model opens up to emergence

and systems theories of nature and its processes. The idea of emergence as
developed in the sciences arguably illuminates and highlights the dynamic
processes of creation from chaos to complexity featured in the Genesis
narrative, especially when read through a pneumatological perspective
(3.2). It also resonates in the Madhyamaka idea of the interdependent
arising of all things at their various levels and domains from the field of
shunyata (6.1).3 This leads, of course, to systems theory. Here, the Spirit as
relationality connects well with systems theorys primary explanatory fea-
tures (3.3): the interrelationality, interdependence, and openendedness
of all systems, multi-directional causality, and the information-exchange
character of systemic interactions. Parallels with Buddhism, especially as
seen in the Huayen tradition (6.2), clearly emphasize further the inter-
dependent origination of all things, the importance of parts to wholes and
significance of parts within wholes, and the nonduality between mind
in this case, Buddha Mindand nature.
By this time, of course, a variety of interesting questions has opened up
which may allow for a fruitful comparison of metaphysical and theologi-
cal issues between Christian and Buddhism. Beginning with the parallels
delivered from the appropriation of field theory, what is the significance of
Pannenbergs correlation of pneumatology and field ontology on the one
side and the Kyoto Schools field metaphysics on the other? While Pan-
nenberg would understand the divine field as giving space to creaturely
fields of activity, thereby distinguishing between God and creatures and
avoiding pantheism, Nishida and Nishitani would both understand the
transcendental field of shunyata as the context of concrete fields of activ-
ity and thereby attempt to find a way between the idealism of Yogacara
schools of Buddhism and the realism characteristic of the earliest Abhid-
harmic literature. To be sure, neither Nishida nor Nishitanior Buddhists
in general, for that matterwould understand such a transcendental field

3Thus does Episcopalian priest and New Testament scholar, John P. Keenan, The Gen-
esis of All Our Dependently Arisen Histories: The Divine Plan of Creation, in Damien
Keown, ed., Buddhist Studies from India to America: Essays in Honor of Charles S. Preb-
ish (London and New York: Routledge, 2006), 26069, esp. 26628, sketch a Mahayana
reading of Genesis emphasizing emptiness, dependent arising, and two truthswith the
last leading to a revisioning of Hebrew-Christian salvation history as dependently arisen
narratives explicating our experience and holding us accountable (rather than a sov-
ereign creator God) for how things will turn out in the bigger picture with regard to the
seventh day of sabbath rest. As an evangelical and pentecostal theologian, I can afffirm
Keenans emphasis on human (moral) responsibility without denying the role for divine
providence.
180 chapter eight

in theistic terms amenable to classical Christian orthodoxy, even if the

rhetoric of absolute emptiness is employed. Yet, even with this caveat,
does the Kyoto Schools field ontology accomplish some of what Christian
theology does with its doctrine of God the Creator?
From this dialogical perspective, then, a further set of questions emerge.
Is it possible to read both accounts as sustaining a theological understand-
ing of creation or nature as emergent from the divine ruahs hovering over
the waters? From this, insofar as basho serves as the field or principle of
individuation enabling the further specification and particularization of
things, does this connect with the Genesis narratives explication of the
creations processes as involving division, diffferentiation and separation?
If Stephen Happel is correct in saying that, What the best science is tell-
ing us [is] about the way divine action operates in our world,4 then is it
possible to understand the science of emergence and of interrelatedness
as not only confirming the insights of pneumatological theology, but also
as connecting with the wisdom of the Buddhist tradition?
What about the parallels connected with emergence theory? Here we
are confronted with the related question about the nature of contingency
and of the ground of the world or cosmos. A central claim of the doc-
trine of shunyata is that everything has no existence on its own, that all
beings and things are transitory, and that all emerge in interdependence
with each other. Is the world as a whole also therefore contingent and
not necessary? Does this connect with the Christian experience and doc-
trine of grace? Is this compatible with the testimony of the creation narra-
tive about the world as a whole and all the things in it as contingent and
dependent finally upon the willing activity of God the creator Spirit?
The related question regarding the worlds ground emerges at exactly
this point. These have to do not only with what that ground is and how it
is to be understood, but also with whether or not even the category itself is
helpful in thinking about the ultimate nature of things. The Buddhists are
explicit and consistent in afffirming the interdependent origination of all
things out of nothingness: All things derive from and return to shunyata,
the field of Absolute Nothingness. On the Christian side, things are as
complex. The traditional tension has been between the theological notion
of creation out of nothing on the one side and creation out of chaos on the

4Stephen Happel, Metaphors for Gods Time in Science and Religion (New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002), 73.
 spirit, nature, humanity 181

other.5 While the former could be said to be implied in Genesis 1:1even

if its most explicit scriptural or extra-canonical (depending on whether
one is Catholic or Protestant) articulation lies elsewhere (e.g., II Macca-
bees 7:28, II Baruch 21:4, and perhaps Rom. 4:17 and Heb. 11:3)the latter
idea seems to be much more clearly supported by the creation narrative
as a whole, especially in light of Genesis 1:2. Can Christian theology there-
fore afffirm both, with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo pointing to the
ontological contingency of the world in its dependence upon the willing
activity of God and the doctrine of creation out of chaos suggestive of the
cosmological processes of the divine activity?
In either case, major comparative questions persist. For starters, are
not the diffficult questions related to the Christian doctrine of creation,
including the question of how an unconditioned, permanent, immu-
table, simple god could create a world which is conditioned, temporally
structured, changing and internally diversified,6 parallel to the diffficult
questions in Buddhist metaphysics about how a material world, illusory
though that may be to some, can be derived from what is ultimately mind
or consciousness? Further, can we view the Buddhas admonition against
speculating about cosmogony as an alternative response that parallels
Aquinas doctrine of creation that was flexible enough to accommodate
either the world being everlasting or its having had a beginning?7 Was not
Aquinas attempting to make sense of the received biblical and theologi-
cal traditions amidst the best philosophic and scientific ideas of his time
and did not his response create some theological space for scholastic and
medieval Christians to reconsider afresh the issues?
Last, but not least, might there be a parallel between the role of ruah
elohim in the Genesis creation narratives and that of shunyata in the
cosmology of the Mahayana tradition? Does not the Christian notion of
the divine breath or spirit also refer to the divine mind on the one hand,
and is not the Mahayana shunyata also understood in the Huayen and

5I discuss these notions further, along with the idea of creatio ex Deo (creation out of
the divine) in my Possibility and Actuality: The Doctrine of Creation and Its Implications
for Divine Omniscience, The Wesleyan Philosophical Society Online Journal [http://david
.snu.edu/~brint.fs/wpsjnl/v1n1.htm] 1:1 (2001). For further discussion, see Paul Copan and
William Lane Craig, Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Scientific Explo-
ration (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004).
6See Perry Schmidt-Leukel, The Unbridgeable Gulf? Towards a Buddhist-Christian
Theology of Creation, in Perry Schmidt-Leukel ed., Buddhism, Christianity and the Ques-
tion of Creation: Karmic or Divine? (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006),
10978, quote from 160.
7See Schmidt-Leukel, The Unbridgeable Gulf? 16670.
182 chapter eight

Tibetan streams, at least, also in terms of the consciousness of the Bud-

dha Mind? Of shunyata, it has been said: Creation is contemplation and
contemplation is creation. When sunyata remains in itself and with itself,
it is contemplation; when it subjects itself to diffferentiation it creates. As
this act of diffferentiation is not something imposed upon it but an act of
self-generation, it is creation; we can say it is a creation out of nothing.
Sunyata is not to be conceived statically but dynamically, or better, as
at once static and dynamic.8 Is this a plausible Buddhist articulation, in
an idealistic philosophical framework, of the pneumatological reading of
Genesis where creation emerges from chaos through a process of division
and separation as guided by the work of divine consciousness? I return to
this question momentarily.
Beyond these comparative questions related to the origins of the
world, interesting parallels emerge from systems theory with pertinent
philosophical and theological implications, two of which will retain our
attention. The first is that a systems-theory reading of the primeval narra-
tives highlights the hierarchical embeddedness, nestedness, and intercon-
nectedness of all things understood as interworking structures. Similarly,
the Huayen metaphysics that insists on the mutuality of emptiness and
form, of principle and phenomena, of the one and the many, of universal-
ity and particularity, and of mind and concrete actuality, intersects with
systems theorys nested configurations, feedback loops, and information
exchanges. However, within the pneumato-theological framework of the
creation account, such interdependence and openendedness extends
beyond the horizontal trajectories of creations relationships to include
the vertical trajectory of the God-world relationship. Of course, Chris-
tian theology has never denied this relationship even if, as was previously
mentioned, God is better said to respond to rather than depend on
the world.
Yet how might the Christian and Huayen perspectives mutually inform
and perhaps even illuminate a more satisfying and coherent account
of the God-world relationship (on the Christian side) and the one-and-
the-many problematic (on the Buddhist side)? Can Huayen metaphysics
which emphasizes the interpenetration of the many in the one and vice-
versa provide a more robust ontological account of the contribution of

8Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, Reason and Intuition in Buddhist Philosophy, in Charles A.

Moore, ed., Essays in East-West Philosophy: An Attempt at World Philosophical Synthesis
(Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1951), 1748, quote from 45.
 spirit, nature, humanity 183

the many to the one such that the value of each particularity is not only
preserved but accentuated? This notion may be helpful to those with eyes
illuminated by the Spirit: the view that all things, maybe even the tragic
and the evil, are understood to have redemptive value in the larger theo-
logical scheme of things can be provided with a more robust metaphysical
underpinning. On the other side, can the Christian theological account of
the perichoretic relationality of the triune persons which preserves the
distinctions of the three as interrelated even while emphasizing the unity
(albeit not as a fourth) provide a more robust personalistic account of
universality-and-particularity and the-one-and-many such that the ethi-
cal and moral dimension of relationality is not only preserved but under-
scored? This in turn may provide the Buddha Mind with a more robust
metaphysical account both for the discernment of good and evil and for
the ethical obligation confronting all sentient beings, not just enlightened
bodhisattvas.
The second set of issues derived from systems theory with relevant
philosophical and theological concerns is that regarding the relationality
or nonduality of mind and materiality, subject and object. Here, it is noted
that the exchange of information and intercausal structurings between
dissipative systems can be said to be fundamentally cognitive in charac-
ter (3.3). At this level, there are actually two distinct but related matters,
one ontological and the other epistemological. The former concerns the
relationship between mind or consciousness and the natural world. On
the Christian side, the pneumatological rereading of the creation narra-
tives leads to an understanding of the ruah of God as the intellective form
of the worlds formative processes. Ruah is the divine means of speaking,
dividing, separating, and structuring the world and its things. Divine cre-
ation thereby overcomes the dualism between bottom-up causal processes
on the one side and top-down mental causation on the other. On the Bud-
dhist side, the self-emptying nature of the world means that the cosmos
is ultimately nothing more or less than the universal Buddha Mind that
enables all phenomena to arise. The Huayen School here treads a middle
way between the mind-only idealism of the Yogacara Buddhist tradition
on the one side and the dharmic or atomistic realism of the early Abhid-
harma schools on the other.
We began this volume many pages ago noting the appearance of a
vision of an enchanted world in our contemporary postmodern times.
Might the emergence of notions of spirit in the religion and science con-
versation not only participate in such a reenchantment of the cosmos but
also be a prime contributor to the discussion? From the perspective of
184 chapter eight

Buddhists involved in the religion and science dialogue, are there simi-
lar developments in terms of the foundational role of consciousness to
the evolution of the world? To be sure, what Christians mean by Spirit
and what Buddhists mean by consciousness are very diffferent. Yet it is
undeniable that both sides have reacted to materialistic views of nature
that involve positivistic and reductionistic interpretations of the scientific
data. Both Christians and Buddhists thus have resisted any rampant sci-
entism that eliminates the role of spirit or consciousness in the world.
The epistemological issue concerns the unity of the subjective knower
and the objects of knowledge, be they empirical or abstract. On the Chris-
tian side, humans are knowing beings precisely as en-spirited by the divine
ruah. As such, the Spirit is the ground of both the relationship between
human beings and the natural world, and of the interpersonality and
intersubjectivity characterizing human interaction and identity. On the
Buddhist side, basho is the field or context of consciousness which gives
rise to the subject and the object together. As such, basho is the relational
between before and beyond subject and object. Can these notions be
given more robust theological content? Can they find further confirma-
tion in the idea that the Spirit is the relational between also concerning
God and the world? Even more radically, can this also point a middle
way to the truth of the Spirit as being the between of the Father and the
Son, the love who unites the Lover and the Beloved?
Put pointedly, are there similarities between a pneumatological epis-
temologywhat I call a pneumatological imaginationand an episte-
mology of basho? After all, as the Catholic theologian Donald Mitchell
notes, it could be said that the Holy Spirit is the very love that unites the
Father and the Son, a unity in which, because of their ekstasis in it, they
are all one. Since the Father and the Son mutually indwell in the Holy
Spirit, the Holy Spirit indwells in the Father and the Son. In his keno-
sis, he keeps nothing for himself but is fully love of Father and Son. This
relation determines his dynamic identity as well.9 Compare this with the
following, informed by Nishidas logic of basho: ...the Trinitys place is
the work of the Holy Spirit, whose main function is to confront the Father
and the Son with one another in their distinctive relationships. Needless
to say, the work of the Holy Spirit is not something external to the Father
and the Son, as a container is external to its contents, for the Holy Spirit

9Donald W. Mitchell, Spirituality and Emptiness: The Dynamics of Spiritual Life in Bud-
dhism and Christianity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991), 93.
 spirit, nature, humanity 185

works through the interdependent relationship of the Father with the

Son. Consequently, the topos of the Trinity is the existential place where
the persons are confronted by the Holy Spirit.10 Might Christians receive
unexpected philosophic resources to engage with issues of perennial won-
der in the Christian tradition if they turned East for a change, and engaged
in dialogue not just with Plato and his heirs but with the Buddha and his
followers?11
Of course, the diffferences might be that at the end of the day, Chris-
tian theology afffirms the personal character of the divine ruah, while Bud-
dhism insists on the emptiness (or the self-emptying nature) of even the
Buddha Mind in the attempt to strike a middle way between personal-
ism and impersonalism. Here, it would seem, we come upon the impasse
in the Christian-Buddhist dialogue.12 Rather than engaging this question
immediately, however, I wish to explore further comparisons between
Christianity and Buddhism that may alleviate some of the dissonance on
precisely this point, and do so precisely by thinking further about a pneu-
matological theology of creation and the cosmos.

8.2Pneuma and Pratityasamutpada: On Cosmology and

Philosophy of Nature

Having begun the comparative survey of pneuma and shunyata along with
identifying some of the mutually informative philosophical and theologi-
cal issues, we are in some position to attempt a reconstruction of the
Christian doctrine of creation and the cosmos from a pneumatological
perspective in dialogue with science and Buddhism. To facilitate this, I
will engage in conversation with the work of Joseph A. Bracken, SJ, profes-
sor emeritus of theology at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio.

10See Masaaki Honda, The Encounter of Christianity with the Buddhist Logic of Soku:
An Essay in Topological Theology, in Paul Ingram and Frederick Streng, eds., Buddhist-
Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1986), 21730, quotation at 225.
11This is the question pondered by Gerald McDermott, What If Paul Had Been From
China? Reflections on the Possibility of Revelation in Non-Christian Religions, in John G.
Stackhouse, Jr., ed., No Other Gods Before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge of World Reli-
gions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 1736.
12As argued by Russell H. Bowers, Jr., Someone or Nothing? Nishitanis Religion and
Nothingness as a Foundation for Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, Asian Thought and Culture
27 (New York: Peter Lang, 1996).
186 chapter eight

My interest in Brackens project derives from his prolonged attempt to

develop a Christian trinitarian and pneumatological theology in dialogue
first with the German idealism of Hegel and Schelling and the process phi-
losophy and theology of Alfred North Whitehead, and then later extended
to include the interreligious dialogue.13 The initial results of his construc-
tive efffort were presented in Spirit and Society: A Trinitarian Cosmology.14
In this volume, the titles two central categories are synthesized so that
the worlds ultimate constitutive realities, societies, are organized by vary-
ing elements of form (spirit, especially the Hegelian Geist or concept). To
fill out the argument, Bracken accomplishes a shift in Whiteheads process
philosophy so that it is not actual occasions alone that are the funda-
mental building blocks of reality, but actual occasions and the aggregates
of actual occasions organized socially which are able to exercise agency
collectively as societies. The organizational pattern of social structures is
termed objective spirit using the language of Hegel, while the collective
agency directed toward self-constitution, perpetuation, and transforma-
tion is termed subjective spirit using the language of Schelling.15 More
specifically, Whiteheads notion of societies in terms of fields governed
by diffferent patterns of order and/or intelligibility is extended in dialogue
with Laszlos systems theory, and Whiteheads idea of the extensive con-
tinuum as the all-embracing field of relationships for actual occasions
past, present, and future is not only the field of the world process but also
that of the divine activity.16

13The trinitarian theology is developed in early on: Joseph A. Bracken, What are They
Saying about the Trinity? (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), and The Triune Symbol: Persons,
Process, and Community (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985). For an overview,
see Bracken, Panentheism from a Process Perspective, in Bracken and Marjorie Hewitt
Suchocki, eds., Trinity in Process: A Relational Theology of God (New York: Continuum,
1997), 95113.
14Joseph Bracken, S.J., Spirit and Society: A Trinitarian Cosmology (Selinsgrove, Penn.:
Susquehanna University Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses,
1991); cf. also Bracken, Spirit and Society: A Study of Two Concepts, Process Studies 15:4
(1986): 24455.
15So Bracken writes: From Hegels notion of spirit, I draw the idea that ontological
totalities are more than aggregates of material elements by reason of an immanent prin-
ciple of self-organization that unites these elements to one another and constitutes them
an intelligible whole or structured field of activity....Objective spirit, therefore, is not the
self-expression of a suprahuman individual subjectivity..., but rather the ongoing self-
expression of a complex community of individual subjectivities (Spirit and Society, 112
and 119).
16Bracken, Spirit and Society, 68 and 59 respectively.
 spirit, nature, humanity 187

Brackens metaphysical revisioning comes not at the expense of tradi-

tional or orthodox Christian trinitarianism, but as a contribution to the
renaissance of trinitarian theology in the modern and postmodern world.
Hence the suggestion is made that each of the three divine persons should
be understood as a personally ordered society of occasions and that their
unity as one God is the unity of a Whiteheadian structured society or
society of subsocieties; drawing from the patristic notion of perichoresis,
the three divine persons co-constitute from moment to moment their
communal reality as one God through their interrelated activities vis--
vis one another.17 In this view, the Father is the originating principle not
only of the Godhead but also of the world, while the Son is respondent
to the Father as well as the focal point of the worlds unified response to
the divine lure. The Spirit is then both the vivifying principle between the
Father and the Son even as the Spirit relates God and the world. Together,
each of the divine persons is a subsistent field of (intentional) activity
and that their ongoing interaction with one another results in a com-
mon field of intentional activity, which I would identify as the extensive
continuum within Whiteheads categorical scheme.18 Reminiscent then
of the language of Pannenberg, the hypothesis is proposed of God and
the world as interpenetrating fields of activity with the field proper to
creation contained within the even larger field of the divine intentional
activity.19 This proposal attempts to solve the trinitarian problem since
the divine community/unity exists only in and through the interrelational
fields of the three persons, thus avoiding a fourth divine nature. In this
conception, Bracken proposes a panentheistic model of the God-world
relationship wherein God is neither only apart from nor only immanent
in the world, but the world is constituted within the energy field of the
triune persons.
At the conclusion of Society and Spirit, Bracken devotes a tantalizing
two pages and half a dozen paragraphs to note the parallels between
his proposal and that of Nishitanis field of shunyata.20 This lead is fol-
lowed up on in his next two books. The thesis of The Divine Matrix is
that the Infinite, testified to in all religious traditions, is experienced not

17Bracken, Spirit and Society, 124, recapitulating and adapting the argument in The Tri-
une Symbol.
18Bracken, Spirit and Society, 129.
19Bracken, Spirit and Society, 159.
20Bracken, Spirit and Society, 16364.
188 chapter eight

as an entity but as an ongoing activity.21 What is understood in the West

in terms of Aristotles notion of motion, Aquinas idea of pure act, Eck-
harts, Schellings and Heideggers concept of subjectivity, or Whiteheads
doctrine of creativity, is identified in the East in terms of the dynamic
identity-in-diffference of Brahman and Atman, the Buddhist dependent
co-origination, and the way of the Tao. Here Bracken picks up his discus-
sion with Buddhism and Nishitani by resorting to Nagarjunas doctrine of
shunyata as interdependent arising (pratityasamutpada) and to Nishidas
idea pure experience and logic of the place of nothingness. With regard
to Nishida, Bracken notes, in virtue of this genuinely existential logic,
one is finally coming to terms with God and existential selves as interactive
subjects of existence and activity rather than as simply interrelated objects
of thought within ones world view or metaphysical scheme.22 Bracken is
careful to distinguish God and existential selves as interactive subjects in
order to guard against a pantheistic identification of God and the world.
Here, his distinction between the Godhead as the intersubjective field of
activity of the three persons is important.
Brackens The One in the Many develops this argument even further.23
In completing his turn toward a relational theology, Bracken proposes
a neo-Whiteheadian universal metaphysics of intersubjectivity that
highlights the equiprimordiality of societies alongside their constitu-
ent actual occasions as the basic building blocks of reality. A relational,
dynamic and social ontology emerges that argues for the intersubjective
nature of all things within the tripersonal intersubjective reality of God.
The problematic of the one and the many is recast in the intersubjectivist
framework so that the one is understood as the sociality and interactiv-
ity of the many. Within this framework, Bracken hopes to extend what
he considers to be the insuffficiently theological notion of supervenience
(of Philip Clayton, Jaegwon Kim, and others) with the help of a recon-
ceptualized Whiteheadian concept of society.24 Rather than saying that
mind is merely a higher-level entity of brain emergent in a new context,
Bracken understands the mind as a field-based entity inseparable from

21Joseph Bracken, The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link Between East and West (Mary-
knoll: Orbis Books, 1995).
22Bracken, The Divine Matrix, 9311, esp. 110; italics original.
23Joseph A. Bracken, S.J., The One in the Many: A Contemporary Reconstruction of the
God-World Relationship (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2001).
24See Bracken, The One in the Many, ch. 6, and, The World: Body of God or Field of
Cosmic Activity? in Santiago Sia, ed., Charles Hartshornes Concept of God: Philosophical
and Theological Responses, Studies in Philosophy and Religion 12 (Dordrecht, Boston and
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990), 89102.
 spirit, nature, humanity 189

the brain and the body in this life on the one hand, but capable of being
incorporated progressively into the divine field of activity so as to exist
apart from the brain and body but in relationship with God in the afterlife
on the other.
In his discussion of Nishida in this volume, Bracken notes the parallels
between his own proposal and that of Nishidas logic of place, especially
as developed in the idea of pure experience in the Inquiry into the Good
(1911).25 It is clear that Bracken has arrived at this point of his career to
insights very close to what Nishida began with in another context. Clearly
influenced by the Geist of Hegel and German idealism, Nishida had at that
time already afffirmed Spirit as the unifying activity of reality in general
and of the self in particular. Of course, there is no unifying activity apart
from that which is unified and no subjective spirit apart from objective
nature.26 Similarly, God is the infinite base of activity giving rise to real-
ity as a whole, including subjectivity and objectivity, spirit and nature,
preserving their distinctions, yet overcoming the received dualisms.27 The
connections between this view and Brackens understanding of God as the
infinitealbeit trinitarianfield which gives space to creaturely fields of
activity are clear.
There are certainly remaining questions in Brackens project, including
that pertaining to the idealist leaven of Hegel and Schelling throughout
his reconceptualization. What is most important for our purposes, how-
ever, is Brackens serious grappling with reformulating a theological vision
that not only makes metaphysical claims and takes the interreligious dia-
logue seriously, but also attempts to engage the discussions in contempo-
rary science.28 From the pneumatological perspective which informs this
investigation, allow me to make three observations.

25Bracken, The One in the Many, 11120.

26Kitaro Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good, trans. Masao Abe and Christopher Ives (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990), ch. 13 on Spirit; quotation from 76.
27Nishida, An Inquiry into the Good, chs. 14, 30 and 31. In his comparative study of
Nishida (esp. his The Logic of Place and a Religious World-View) and Luther, Christian theo-
logian Kazuo Muto, Immanent Transcendence in Religion, Japanese Religions 12:1 (1981):
120, esp. 20, notes that Nishidas place of nothingness might be called a place filled with
the omnipresent Holy Spirit. There the hidden God, who is absolute Being because He
is absolute Nothingness and ground of the world, will reveal himself as in a seeing face
to face.
28Bracken has continued to fill out his ideas in a series of books published over the last six
years, although no major innovations are introduced; I overview three of these volumes in my
review article, A Catholic Commitment to Process Cosmology: An Appreciation of Joseph
Brackens Latest Works, in The Global Spiral: A Publication of the Metanexus Institute (2010)
[http://www.metanexus.net/book-review/catholic-commitment-process-cosmology].
190 chapter eight

First, I find helpful Brackens distinction between the tri-personal

dimensions of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the transpersonal,
social and intersubjective unity of the Godhead. I would suggest a similar
distinction pertains between God as Spirit and the Holy Spirit. The former
could be understood in terms of the intersubjective unity of the triune
persons while the latter is the specific field of divinity relating first to the
other two persons and then to the world as the presence and activity of
God. In this scheme, the oneness of God is nothing apart from the three
and vice-versa. In the language of the patristic theologians, the triune God
is a perichoretic or circuminsessional relationality. I find complementari-
ties between this view and the Huayen conviction that the one and the
many not only arise together but are also completely interpenetrative.
To extend this observation, second, would be to observe the co-
origination of Gods identity as creator of the world by Spirit and Word
(Irenaeus two hands of the Father) and the world as the terminus of
Gods creative act. Note the precise claim here is not that God comes to
exist with the world but that God assumes the feature of creator only
through the creative act. Conversely, the world is creation only through
the divine creative activity, and that apart from that creativity, the world
is itself indeterminate, even chaotic emptiness (at least according to the
Priestly author).29 But we have both God as creator and the world as cre-
ated precisely through the ruah Elohims hovering over the waters and
enabling the speech-act of God. Herein we find a convergence of Brackens
claim regarding God as Infinite act or activity and Nishidas understanding
of basho as the empty field of activity. The biblical witness of God as Spirit
confirms this fundamental intuition regarding God as relational creator.
The result is the creation, including human beings, gifted with the power

29Note the possible convergence here of not only the worlds self-emptiness, the motif
of creation ex nihilo, and the aboriginal Nothingness as indistinguishable from God. For
detailed argument, see Robert Cummings Neville, God the Creator: On the Transcendence
and Presence of God (1968; reprint, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992); Nev-
ille, The Tao and the Daimon: Segments of a Religious Inquiry (Albany: State University
of New York Press, 1982), chs. 4, 6 and 9; and Neville, Behind the Masks of God: An Essay
toward Comparative Theology (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), chs. 3
and 5. For exegetical intimations derived from the creation narrative, see Milton Scar-
borough, In the Beginning: Hebrew God and Zen Nothingness, Buddhist-Christian Stud-
ies 20 (2000): 191216, and Scarborough, Myth and Phenomenology, in Kevin Schilbrack,
ed., Thinking through Myths: Philosophical Perspectives (London and New York: Routledge,
2002), 4664.
 spirit, nature, humanity 191

of co-creating according to their being fashioned after the image of God

(see also the discussion in 3.1 above).
This leads, third, to Brackens understanding of the intersubjective,
interrelational, and interactive character of all things. We found this
insight enunciated already in our pneumatological reading of the creation
narratives (4.3) as well as in the Madhyamaka doctrine of interdepen-
dent arising elaborated by the Huayen metaphysics of interpenetration
(6.2). Brackens accomplishment is to tie together insights from emer-
gence, systems, and supervenience theory so as to articulate a robustly
relational metaphysic replete with theological insight.30 My own contri-
bution is to emphasize the pneumatological underpinnings of such a the-
ology or metaphysics of relationality. The Spirit is, after all, always the
shy or neglected member of the Tri-unity, and that precisely because the
Spirit points always to the Son even while the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ
and the Spirit of God. As such, the Spirit makes God present and active,
not substantively, but relationally. Similarly, the Spirit is the between
which enables creaturely relationality and human interrelationality.
In a pluralistic, globally interdependent/networked, and interdisciplin-
ary world, can Brackens insights contribute further to an understanding
of the kind of pneumatological theology of nature envisioned here? At
the level of ontological or metaphysical abstraction, of course, vague phil-
osophical categories can be specified variously so that it would appear
the answer is yes. But what if we descended a bit more into the concrete
issues related to the discussion of human nature?

30I have been reading Bracken for over a decade. It is diffficult to say how hes influ-
enced my argument in this volume. At the very least, in retrospect while reviewing this
section, I can say that he and I have arrived at substantially the same position, even if I may
have begun more with pneumatology and he with process cosmology. See also my Spirit-
Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective (Burlington, Vt., and
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 11214,
for more on Bracken. For another robustly relational worldview, see Harold H. Oliver, A
Relational Metaphysic (The Hague, Boston and London: Martinus Nijhofff, 1981), Related-
ness: Essays in Metaphysics and Theology (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1984), and
Metaphysics, Theology, and Self: Relational Essays (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press,
2006). See also the discussion about The Relatedness of All Things conceptualized after
creations participating in the trinitarian life of God by Samuel M. Powell, Participating in
God: Creation and Trinity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), ch. 8; the relational theology
of F. LeRon Shults (see discussion about in 2.1, n.14); and the process relational theology
of Paul Sponheim: Faith and the Other: A Relational Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
1993), and Speaking of God: Relational Theology (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2006).
192 chapter eight

8.3Pneuma and Anatman: On Human Being and Becoming

Brackens metaphysics of intersubjectivity provides an excellent transi-

tion toward a Christian pneumato-theological anthropology in and after
the dialogue with Buddhism and with science. The previous discussions
have led to emphases on human beings as emergent, interpersonal,
and environmentally and cosmologically situated on the one hand, and
self-organizing, self-relating, and self-transcending on the other (on the
Christian side; ch. 3); and as fundamentally empty of self-existence and
thoroughly relational and interdependently arising fields of converging
interpersonal and intrapersonal activity on the one hand, and yet mani-
festations of the true self of Buddha Nature and Buddha Mind on the
other (on the Buddhist side; ch. 6). Here, I want to introduce the pneuma-
tological anthropology of Lynn de Silva (19191982), Methodist theologian
and missionary to Sri Lanka, in order to solidify the results of this dialogue
on human nature. Engaging with de Silvas proposals will also enable us
to include Theravadin Buddhismthe predominant Buddhist tradition
in Sri Lankaas a complement to our focus on Mahayana ideas so far in
this volume.
De Silvas most important work (for our purposes) is his The Problem
of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity.31 In this book, he challenges the
assumption that the Christian doctrine of the soul and the Theravadin
Buddhist doctrine of non-self are contrary; rather, the biblical view of the
human is consonant with the Buddhist denial of an immortal soul, which
makes it possible to articulate a biblical anthropology in Theravadin Bud-
dhist categories. In his own words, de Silva argues the following thesis:
Spirit is thus a category of self-transcendence. In transcending ones self
one can cease to be a self, i.e. realise that one is anatta. But selfhood is
always being fulfilled by being transcended. It is by transcending the self
that self can be negated and afffirmed. This is possible only in an I-Thou
relationship. In this I-Thou relationship is to be found the true meaning
of anatta, which denies the soul without yielding to a nihilistic view, and
which afffirms authentic selfhood without yielding to an eternalistic view.
In such a view the doctrine of anatta is not rejected; rather the spiritual
meaning implied in it is preserved. The spiritual meaning of anatta is the

31Lynn A. de Silva, The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity (New York:
and London: Barnes & Noble Import Division of Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., and The
Macmillan Press Ltd., 1979).
 spirit, nature, humanity 193

realisation that by oneself one is nothing and that it is by self-negation or

denying oneself that ones true self can be discovered in a relationship.32
De Silvas argument proceeds along three lines. First de Silva clarifies the
Theravadin no-soul theory (recall the Sinhalese context of his ministry)
against the Vedantic and Indian background as an attempt to find a via
media between eternalism and nihilism. Second, he discusses the biblical
view of man not only as multi-dimensional, interpersonal, communal,
and relational creature, but also through the scriptural metaphors of dust,
shadow, and mist. Here, de Silva draws a parallel between the psycho-
physical unity of human beings in the biblical framework and the name-
form unity (nama-rupa) of the Buddhist analysis. He also points out,
however, that while Buddhism denies the immortality of the soul, yet it
also insists both on self-salvation (recall again that de Silva is working pri-
marily with the Theravada tradition) and on the capacity for karmic per-
petuation of the skandhas of the self in rebirth. By contrast, in the Bible,
human beings neither have an immortal soul since it is created ex nihilo
and sustained by divine graciousness, nor are able to save themselves. As
such, in the Bible we have a thoroughgoing doctrine of anatta which in a
sense is far more radical than the Buddhist doctrine. Thus when the Bible
says no to eternalism it says so without any reserve. Is the biblical view
then a thorough-going nihilism?33
Of course, the answer is negative. This leads, third, to the pneumato-
logical dimension of de Silvas reconstructed theological anthropology.
The category of spirit, of course, is polyvalent in the Bible, referencing
the omnipresence and omnipotence of God; that which constitutes per-
sonality and personhood; the communal dimension of human interper-
sonal and intersubjective relationality; and the self-transcending aspect of
human becoming. Set alongside the anatta teaching of Buddhism, how-
ever, de Silva proposes to understand human beings as anatta-pneuma:
the self-empty but spirit-full life.34 This is explicated in three dimen-
sions. First, the anatta teaching rightly denies the idea of humans as hav-
ing or being eternal souls; yet, the pneuma doctrine is also correct to point
out that humans are not merely psychosomatic beings nor a bundle of

32De Silva, The Problem of the Self, 56. This argument is anticipated by Hans Walden-
fels discussion, in a Japanese Zen context, of Christ as the emptiness of man; see Walden-
fels, Absolute Nothingness: Foundations for a Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, trans. James W.
Heisig (New York: Paulist Press, 1980), 16062.
33De Silva, The Problem of the Self, 84111; quote from 85.
34De Silva, The Problem of the Self, 89; cf. 10103.
194 chapter eight

aggregates but a dynamic relational and self-transcending quality. Sec-

ond, anatta rightly exposes the self-emptying nature of the self in order
to liberate human beings from grasping and to enable the cultivation of
the proper ethical orientation; yet, pneumas relationalism re-grounds
such non-attachment within a communalism that safeguards a socially
relevant ethic. Finally, anatta does direct human beings toward the tran-
scendent summum bonum, even as Buddhists then wrestle with the ten-
sion between nirvana as supreme bliss and as extinction and annihilation;
pneuma enables such a losing of the self in order to find the true self in
relational communion with the divine.35
As such, de Silvas thesis is that if anatta is real, God is necessary; it is in
relation to the reality of God that the reality of anatta can be meaningful.
Because man is anatta, God is indispensable; because man is absolutely
anatta, God is absolutely necessary. The conditioned man (samkhata) has
nothing to hope for unless there is an Unconditioned Reality (asamkhata)
and it is in relation to the Unconditioned (God) that the full depth and
significance of anatta can be understood.36 The anatta-pneuma conceptu-
alization thus enables us to understand human beings as mutually related,
not individualistically or egotistically constituted, and directed toward the
transcendent relationship with the divine Spirit. In sum, Anatta serves
to stress the non-egocentric aspect and Pneuma the relational aspect of
personhood. Anatta-Pneuma therefore signifies what might be called non-
egocentric relationality, or egoless mutuality. Thus, the anatta-pneuma
formula captures in a nutshell, as it were, the essence of the nature
of man.37

35I find the study of William Kraft, a Roman Catholic psychologist, all the more inter-
esting in light of de Silvas thesis. Kraft suggests that Man cannot be fulfilled without
nothingness: to be something, to be someone, man must admit that he is nothing. Man
must own up and live through nothingness to penetrate more fully the mystery of living.
Nothingness calls man to live more fully. Nothingness says to man: Become who you are
instead of somebody. Become vitally happy instead of reasonably content. Be, instead of
not being; see William F. Kraft, A Psychology of Nothingness (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1974), 129.
36De Silva, The Problem of the Self, 910; cf. ch. 13 on Anatta and God. From the per-
spective of the psychological sciences, see also the parallel thesis of John H. Coe, Beyond
Relationality to Union: Musings Toward a Pneumadynamic approach to Personality and
Psychopathology, Journal of Psychology and Christianity 18:2 (1999): 109128.
37De Silva, The Problem of the Self, 103. Masumi Shimizu, Das Selbst im Mahayana-
Buddhismus in japanischer Sicht und die Person im Christentum im Licht des Neuen
Testaments (Doctoral dissertation, Rheimischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt, Bonn,
1979), argues a similar thesis without explicitly utilizing the pneumatological hermeneutic
 spirit, nature, humanity 195

De Silva goes on to discuss the spiritual body of the resurrection, the

notion of progressive sanctification during and even after this life,38 and
the reign of God as a beloved and loving community, all in the attempt
to clarify his notion of human beings as anatta-pneuma and extend the
scope of the anatta-pneuma understanding. De Silva is to be commended
for taking his Buddhist neighbors seriously and learning from them, even
as questions certainly remain for his project.39 When understood within
the contact of the Mahayana understanding of shunyata in terms not only
of voidness of inherent self-existence (anatman) but also in terms of tran-
sitoriness and especially interdependent origination, de Silvas reading of
pneuma points to a robust idea of interpersonal relationality. Recall that
the Kyoto School did not emphasize the denial of the permanent self,
but explicated shunyata as pointing to the interdependent emergence and
arising of the self with the rest of reality.40 The resulting Madhyamaka
ethic of compassion grounded in the interdependent arising of all beings
would also complement de Silvas quest for a viable social ethic.
Yet de Silvas project also opens up toward an analysis of the deeper
issues surrounding the quest for a pneumatological anthropology. This
concerns, of course, the specifically theological dimensions of what he

adopted by de Silva; cf. also Silvio E. Fittipaldi, Zen-Mind, Christian-Mind, Empty-Mind,

Journal of Ecumenical Studies 19:1 (1982): 6984.
38Thus, there is an eschatological convergence in Buddhist and Christian understand-
ings of the self. As Leonard Swidler puts it, the authentic self is a never-ending project, an
open-ended movement toward an ever-receding horizon, toward a fullness that is never
completeda constant growth toward that which Christians and others call the in-finite
God; see Swidler, A Jerusalem-Tokyo Bridge, in Seiichi Yagi and Leonard Swidler, ed., A
Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue (New York and Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1990), 172;
quote from 13.
39The most serious charge I have found is Winston Kings criticism that de Silvas
dialogue with Buddhism is from the periphery of the Christian tradition in terms of the
apophatic strains, rather then from its center; see King, No-Self, No-Mind, and Empti-
ness Revisited, in Paul O. Ingram and Frederick J. Streng, ed., Buddhist-Christian Dialogue:
Mutual Renewal and Transformation (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1986), 15576,
esp. 16061. Otherwise, those who have written on de Silvas theology have been quite
sympathetic, rather than critical. See Tissa Brian de Alwis, Christian-Buddhist Dialogue
in the Writings of Lynn A. de Silva (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Andrews University,
1982); Van Ni, Christian-Buddhist Conversation: The Relevance of the Lynn A. De Silva
approach in the Context of Myanmar (Th.M. thesis, Western Theological Seminary, 1999);
and Ian Gillman, Some Reflections on the Self in Christianity and BuddhismAfter and
Beyond Those of Lynn De Silva, Asia Journal of Theology 1:1 (1987): 10612.
40See Harry Lee Wells, The Problem of the Phenomenal Self: A Study of the Buddhist
Doctrine of Anatta with Specific regard to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue (Ph.D. diss., The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms Inter-
national, 1988).
196 chapter eight

calls anatta-pneuma. Certainly, the parallels between Nishidas mutual

determination of individuals, Nishitanis circuminsessional interpenetra-
tion of all beings, and St. Johns vision of the perichoretic unity between
Jesus and the Father as paradigmatic also of the community of disciples
(cf. Jn. 17:2126) should not be underplayed.41 Yet it is also the case that
Christian anthropology follows from Christian theology rather than, as in
the Buddhist case, anthropological considerations preceding reflection
on things ultimate. More specifically, Christian understanding of what it
means to be human follows from extended deliberation over the myster-
ies of Christ as the divine-human person and the triune personality of
God.42 It is therefore not without reason that Jesus Christ is the para-
digmatic model of authentic and true personhood, himself confessed by
Christians to being the exact image (eikon) of the invisible God in all of
the divine gloriousness (cf. Col. 1:15 and Heb. 1:3).
Perhaps not coincidentally, de Silva himself has provided, in another
article, a reconsideration of the doctrine of Christ, albeit one that (unfortu-
nately) is not directly correlated with his pneumatological anthropology.43
Instead of developing a Spirit-christology, de Silva opts to correlate Christ
as Logos in John with the kenotic Christ of Philippians 2 in order to fol-
low through with the paradox of how he negated himself [through
self-emptying] without losing himself [because of his identity with the
unconditioned God].44 The pay-offf for de Silva is that such a biblical por-
trait of Christs self-denial resonates with other mythical and typological
analogies in other faiths, Mahayana Buddhism in particular, that highlight
similar acts of self-denial (by the Buddha or other bodhisattvas) in order
to provide for the salvation of sentient beings. My contribution would
be to complement de Silvas christological reflections with his pneuma-
tological anthropology in general and a Spirit-christology in particular.
In this account, both the kenosis of the Christ is made possible by the
Spirit (through whom Jesus is conceived) and the Sons identification
with the Father during his period of incarnation is also due to the bond
of the Spirit. While we will return to consider the kenosis passage more

41See Donald W. Mitchell, The Place of the Self in Christian Spirituality: A Response
to the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, Japanese Religions 13:3 (December 1984): 226.
42Cf. Julia Ching, Paradigms of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity, Buddhist-
Christian Studies 4 (1984): 3150.
43Lynn de Silva, Buddhism and Christianity Relativised, Dialogue NS 9:13 (1982):
4372, esp. 5660.
44de Silva, Buddhism and Christianity Relativised, 57.
 spirit, nature, humanity 197

extensively in the next chapter, for the present, note that connecting
Silvas kenotic christology with his pneumatological anthropology rein-
forces the explicitly theological elements of the latter. The result is that
even those most sympathetic to an apophatic spirituality and anthropol-
ogy would, from the Christian perspective, ultimately find the language of
authentic human selfhood wedded to the Christ symbol more satisfying
and coherent than a merely non-self understanding.45
At the end of the day, then, do Christians and Buddhists part ways in
their final understandings of the self even given the similarities that we
have uncovered, at least on the surface? This seems to be the case given
that the apparent parallels of human beings as relational or interdepen-
dently originating are interpreted diffferently in each tradition, viz., the
true self understood finally either in terms of Christ or in terms of the
Buddha Mind. Yet perhaps this is still too quick. It lapses back into what
the dogmatic tradition says about the nature of Christ while overlooking
the performative and practical dimensions of christology. Such a move
might be said to privilege orthodoxy over orthopraxy in a fairly arbitrary
manner so that who Jesus is comes to define what he does or what we
ought to do, rather than, as the original disciples came to see, that their
following Jesus itself resulted in inferences and, eventually, confessions
about who he was. If we take such a praxis-oriented approach, then there
may be more dialogue possible with Buddhist traditions that, after all,
are focused on the achievement of liberation from the bonds of samsaric
existence. In that case, Christ is less a model for theological anthropol-
ogy than he is a soteriological guide, just as the Buddha also pointed
beyond himself to nirvanic enlightenment. Thus we are led, in our next
chapter, to take up these methodological issues that are also, for Chris-
tians, fundamentally christological, and for both traditions, fundamentally
soteriological.

45So even a contemporary Eckhartian spirituality would find Christian and even
human fulfillment in identity with Christ, going as far as to say such union occurs most
intimately and deeply in and through the Eucharistic experience. See Bernadette Roberts,
The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey, rev. ed. (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1993), 12763, esp. 144; cf. Roberts, The Path to No-self: Life at the Center,
rev. ed. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).
 CHAPTER NINE

SPIRIT AND METHOD: SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND

COMPARATIVE THEOLOGY

The preceding chapter attempted to both summarize the findings of

parts I and II of this book, and to push toward a deeper philosophical
theology of nature (cosmology and anthropology) in dialogue with the
work of Joseph Bracken and Lynn de Silva respectively. Before concluding
with specific reflections on the implications for our task for a more spe-
cific theology of the environment, however, we need to return to engage
substantively the methodological and normative theological questions
already introduced in the introductory chapter and elsewhere (e.g., 2.1
and 5.2). Simply put: can there be Christian and Buddhist dialogue given
the disparity of the horizons of interpretation and understanding of the
two worldviews? And, can there be religion and science dialogue in gen-
eraland Christian-Buddhist-science trialogue, more specificallygiven
the explicitly soteriological hermeneutical frameworks of Christianity and
Buddhism and the methodological agnosticism (at best) of science?1
The normative question is whether or not our pneumatological herme-
neutic embraces the insights derived from dialogue at the cost of losing
its distinctive Christian identity, or whether the christological center of
Christian theology has been compromised in this attempt to develop a
multidisciplinary and perhaps multireligious theology of nature.2 Put
another way, while a pneumatological hermeneutic has been presented
as providing an explicitly theological rationale for engaging theology of

1Methodological agnosticism would merely acknowledge that the status of transcen-

dent claims are beyond the purview of science, and thus from at least a social scientific
perspective, be willing to represent the beliefs of subjects of study without presuming
one way or the other about their truthfulness. For a description of such a methodologi-
cally agnostic stance and how it is more faithful to social scientific inquiry, see Ralph W.
Hood, Jr., Methodological Agnosticism for the Social Sciences? Lessons from Sorokins
and Jamess Allusions to Psychoanalysis, Mysticism and Godly Love, in Matthew T. Lee
and Amos Yong, eds., The Science and Theology of Godly Love (DeKalb, Ill., Northern Illinois
University Press, 2012), 12140.
2I have raised some of these questions in another context in my The Holy Spirit and
the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s) after Buddhism, Buddhist-
Christian Studies 24 (2004): 191207.
 spirit and method 199

nature in dialogue with science and other faiths, how can the resulting
findings (chapter 8) be both distinctively Christian and yet respect the
alterity or diffferences represented by the other religious tradition (in this
case, Buddhism)?
We had proceeded with the hope that returning to the methodologi-
cal and normative questions later may be more fruitful in terms of the
avenues of dialogue already opened up. I wish to now take up this set of
questions, and will engage the problematic of theological anthropology
first (9.1) and the question of cosmology after that (9.2). These inquiries
will then lead to more direct comments on the methodological issue of
religion and science percolating throughout this study (9.3). Throughout,
we will continue our dialogue with the Buddhist tradition through the
fourth generation Kyoto School philosopher, Masao Abe.
It goes without saying that the following extends considerations of
theological method in a decidedly interreligious and interdisciplinary con-
text.3 Much of the Christian discussion of theological method has been
concerned with the sources and then the operational or functional proce-
dures for doing theology.4 Yet we have come to see that methodological
intuitions are intertwined with theological and normative commitments,
oftentimes subtly so. In a pluralistic world then, methodological consid-
erations have to be at least sensitive to the philosophical or theological
loyalties of more than a singular religious tradition. Comparative notes
then have to observe how such religious loyalties play out methodologi-
cally, so that the comparisons and contrasts are much more complicated
than one might imagine.5 In the case of this volume, of course, we have
not only an interreligious conversation underway but also matters per-
taining to the religion and science dialogue that have to be adjudicated
methodologically. Let us see then how the Christianity-Buddhism-science
trialogue fares in light of our journey so far.

3Again, I had registered the import of these horizons for theological method at vari-
ous places in my Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Per-
spective (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and Eugene, Ore.:
Wipf & Stock, 2002); this volume as a whole, and this chapter in particular, extend that
discussion.
4The apex of this discussion remains the very important work of Bernard Lonergan,
Method in Theology (New York: Herder & Herder, 1972).
5The complexities are clearly laid out in Robert W. Smid, Methodologies of Comparative
Philosophy: The Pragmatist and Process Traditions (Albany, NY: State University of Chicago
Press, 2009).
200 chapter nine

9.1Interpreting the Human: Pneumato-christological Perspectives

Succinctly stated, the hermeneutical problem before us is this: in spite

of the similarities between Christian and Buddhist understandings of the
human person uncovered in this inquiryviz., human beings as rela-
tional or interdependently originated, or human beings as, in de Silvas
view, pneuma-anattado such parallels actually hold up when we press
further into the Christian and Buddhist self-understandings of what it
means to be truly human? After all, in the Christian view, human beings
are understood finally through the image of Jesus the Christ, while in the
Buddhist view, human beings are understood finally, in the Mahayana tra-
dition at least, through the self-emptying Buddha Mind. Does not even de
Silva suggest that anatta serves a deconstructive purpose of clearing away
false views of the self while pneuma serves a reconstructive purpose of
identifying the true self made in the divine image?
But, this is too simplistic. What if, now that we have been informed by
a Buddhist set of lenses, we re-approached the Christian scriptures or, in
particular, St. Pauls injunction (Phil. 2:58) to Let the same mind be in
you that was in Christ Jesus?6 More specifically, St. Paul goes on to clarify
this mind of Christ:
...who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness.
And being found in human form,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to the point of death
even death on a cross.7

6This section in particular responds to criticismse.g., Todd L. Miles, A God of Many

Understandings? The Gospel and Theology of Religions (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010),
ch. 6, and Keith E. Johnson, Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian
Assessment (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2011), ch. 4that my pneumatological theol-
ogy of religions severs the work of the Spirit from the work of the Son. Not only have my
critics not contextualized my claims adequately in light of my extant work, they have also
failed to provide an alternative theological rationale for engagement with other faiths on
their terms. Perhaps they do not think such a task is important at the present time, which
is fine; but theologians should at least ask what kinds of questions those they are criticiz-
ing are asking before claiming the higher ground.
7For a historical-critical analysis of this passage, see Jack T. Sanders, The New Testa-
ment Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background, Society for New Testa-
ment Studies Monograph Series 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).
 spirit and method 201

In the context of the Christian-Buddhist dialogue, the following questions

are at least worthy of consideration. Does this christological model of the
kenotic Christ return us to the Buddhist vision of the empty self? Does
not the image of Jesus emptying himself exemplify the authentic mode of
being human? Is it perhaps for this reason that Jesus said, unless a grain
of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but
if it dies, it bears much fruit. Those who love their life lose it, and those
who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life (Jn. 12: 2425;
cf. Mk. 8:3437)? And if afffirmative responses to these questions are at least
plausible, then does the anatta of Buddhism and the Mahayana teach-
ing of non-self invite comparison with the central truth of the Christian
message regarding the ultimate nature of humanity, and that precisely
through a convergence of the existential and theological meaning of Jesus
Christs passion, death, and resurrection? Could Jesus entire life in this
framework be understood as a process of self-disidentification from even
the most fundamental of categories (deity itself) and an entrance into an
identity beyond such categories at least as historically understood?8
Some of these ideas have been suggested by Masao Abe (19152006). For
the past generation, Abe has been an able interlocutor for Christian theo-
logians wishing to engage Buddhism in general and Zen Buddhism more
specifically.9 In a ground-breaking essay developed slightly after and quite
apart from de Silvas reflections, and later greatly expanded, Abes creative

8See, Agnes C.J. Lee, Mahayana Teaching of No-Self and Christian Kenosis, Ching-
Feng, 28:23 (1985): 13051; Bonnie Bowman Thurston, The Conquered Self: Emptiness
and God in a Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 12:4 (1985):
34353; Tokiyuki Nobuhara, Sunyata, Kenosis, and Jihi or Friendly Compassionate Love:
Toward a Buddhist-Christian Theology of Loyalty, Japanese-Religions 15:4 (1989): 5066;
and Rewata Dhamma, Sunyata-Emptiness and Self-Emptying-Kenosis, Middle-Way 68
(1993): 7784.
9Carrying forth the mission of the Kyoto School intentionally, Abes numerous books
have all engaged with the philosophical and theological traditions of the West. See his
A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion, ed. Steven Heine (Albany: State Univer-
sity of New York Press, 1992); and the trilogy, Zen and Western Thought, ed. William R.
LaFleur (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985); Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue,
ed. Steven Heine (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995); and Zen and Compara-
tive Studies, ed. Steven Heine (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1997). In addition,
four volumes of Abes dialogues have been published, one more philosophical, Donald W.
Mitchell, ed., Masao Abe: A Zen Life of Dialogue (Boston: C.E. Tuttle, 1998); and the other
three with Christian theologians: Roger Corless and Paul F. Knitter, eds., Buddhist Empti-
ness and Christian Trinity: Essays and Explorations (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1990); John B.
Cobb, Jr. and Christopher Ives, eds., The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Con-
versation (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990); and Christopher Ives, ed., Divine Emptiness and
Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe (Valley Forge:
Trinity Press International, 1995). In what follows, I draw primarily from these dialogical
volumes.
202 chapter nine

proposal is that the true and empty self is the kenotic Christ revealing the
self-emptying God.10 The language of kenotic Christ should not be con-
fused with the nineteenth century kenotic christologies which speculated
about the pre-existent Logos laying aside certain divine attributes in order
to assume human form.11 No, kenosis or emptying is not an attribute...of
God, but the fundamental nature of God himself.12 Thus Abes koan-like
thesis: The Son of God is not the Son of God (for he is essentially and
fundamentally self-emptying). Precisely because he is not the Son of God,
he is truly the Son of God (for he originally and always works as Christ,
the Messiah, in his salvational function of self-emptying).13 This pro-
vides a christological hermeneutic replete with theological and anthro-
pological conclusions: God is not God (for God is love and completely
self-emptying); precisely because God is not a self-afffirmative God, God
is truly a God of love (for through complete self-abnegation God is totally
identified with everything including sinful humans); and Self is not self
(for the old self must be crucified with Christ); precisely because it is not,
self is truly self (for the new Self resurrects with Christ).14 For this reason,
to have the mind of Christ is to recognize that human beings created in
the image of God should embrace their self-emptiness precisely as that
divine image is most clearly revealed in the kenotic Christ.
This christo-theo-anthropological understanding of Abes is informed,
of course, by his Zen Buddhist perspective which afffirms both that the
fundamental human problem producing sufffering is self-centeredness,
and that, as his Kyoto School teachers have long insisted, the ground of
existence, shunyata is the unobjectifiable nothingness deep enough to

10Originally from a 1984 conference, Masao Abe, Kenosis and Emptiness, in Corless
and Knitter, eds., Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity, 525. The expanded version is
Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, in Cobb and Ives, eds., The Emptying God, 365.
11On this point, see Steve Odin, Abe Masao and the Kyoto School on Christian Kenosis
and Buddhist Sunyata, Japanese Religions 15:3 (1989): 118, esp. 14. Note that Abes Chris-
tian dialogue partners include not only Tillich and Altizer, but also Rahner and, especially
Moltmann and his The Crucified God (1972); see Abe, Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue,
chs. 8 and 12, and Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 1426. For an overview of the
diffferences of present kenotic christologies from their nineteenth century precedents, see
Lucien J. Richard, O.M.I., A Kenotic Christology: In the Humanity of Jesus The Christ, The
Compassion of Our God (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), passim, but
esp. ch. 6.
12Abe, Kenosis and Emptiness, 18, emphasis Abes; cf. Kenotic God and Dynamic
Sunyata, 16.
13Abe, Kenosis and Emptiness, 13, italics Abes; cf. Kenotic God and Dynamic
Sunyata, 11.
14Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 16 and 12 respectively.
 spirit and method 203

encompass even God, the object of mystical union as well as the object
of faith.15 As such, even shunyata must not be grasped on to: any attach-
ment to Mind must be done away with. Mind which is identical with Bud-
dha is not a psychological mind or a metaphysical mind. It is no mind,
because the true mind is no mind. Likewise, true Buddha must be no Bud-
dha. Hence No mind: no Buddha.16 Not surprisingly, then, this truth of
shunyatathat the true self is the Buddha Mind which as itself empty
is thereby no mindis what Abe posits at the heart of Christian faith.
Understood positively and soteriologically alongside his suggested read-
ing of the Philippian hymn, shunyata enables the boundless openness
of all things to all other things, including that of God to the world and
vice-versa, so as to avoid any kind of self-centeredness, whether that be
anthropocentrism or even theocentrism. Further, shunyata enables each
thing to respond spontaneously and naturally to all other things given
each things self-emptying nature, and describes the interpenetration and
mutual reversibility of all things as devoid of self-existence and fully open
to each other. Finally, shunyata as self-emptying is not-shunyata, and as
such is better understood not as a noun but as the dynamic and creative
activity of emptying all things in order to make each what it is. For this
reason, as Abe says later, in my interpretation of the Trinity, I do not
impose the Buddhist category of Shunyata on the Christian notion of the
Trinity from outside but try to grasp it from within as deeply and dynami-
cally as possible.17
There are a number of questions for consideration in any Christian dia-
logue with Abe. At one level, there is the question of how faithful Abe is
to the Mahayana tradition, especially that of Nagarjuna. Although Abe
attempts to retrieve, as did other Kyoto School members, the Madhyamaka
notion of shunyata, there are tendencies that reflect his absolutization of
the concept not present in Nagarjunas more epistemological approach. As
I am not a scholar of Buddhism, I will not take up this particular issue. At a
second level, of course, Abe offfers an interpretation of Christian doctrines

15See Abe, The Problem of Self-Centeredness as the Root-Source of Human Sufffering,

in Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue, 6372; and Abe, God, Emptiness, and the True Self,
The Eastern Buddhist 2:2 (1969): 1530, quotation from 28.
16See Abe, The Concept of Self as Reflected in Zen Buddhist Literature, in his Zen and
Comparative Studies, 6774; quote from 72.
17Abe, Rejoinder, in Christopher Ives, ed., Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A
Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe (Valley Forge: Trinity Press Inter-
national, 1995), 175204, esp. 190; cf. Abe, Kenosis and Emptiness, 2022, and Kenotic
God and Dynamic Sunyata, 2933.
204 chapter nine

from his Buddhist standpoint. As we shall see, his proposals have been
severely criticized. My own more charitable reading of Abes suggestions,
however, attempts to put into practice the sensibilities of the middle way
doctrine of getting beyond either-oreither Abe is right or he is wrong
although I am motivated first and foremost pneumatologically rather than
by Madhyamakan commitments. Hence given Abes overtures, how might
Christians respond in an age of modern science?
The central question has to be something like this: has Abe succeeded
in re-reading the central Christian myth through his own Buddhist lenses
in terms that preserve the Christian and Buddhist understandings of true
human personhood previously acquired? Perhaps, but perhaps not. There
have been a number of critical responses especially by Christian theolo-
gians questioning his proposal on various points. Exegetically, does Abes
reading ignore the sacramental and liturgical context of the Philippians
hymn as well as the eschatological metamorphosis anticipated not only
in the exaltation of the Son (cf. Phil. 2:911) but also in the fullness of the
reign of God? Hermeneutically and theologically, can Abe move from the
kenosis of Christ to the kenosis of the Father or of God as quickly or as
easily as he does? How valid is Abes metaphysical interpretation of a text
written to shape afffective and cognitive dispositionsLet the same mind
be in you that was in Christ Jesus...and thereby to inform Christian
praxis?18
For our purposes, the question lies at the level of the logic of the inter-
religious dialogue. Does Abes approach preserve the real otherness of
Christianity in his Buddhist re-construal? Is it in fact possible that the
interreligious dialogue can preserve the integrity of both sides so that
each side informs but is not absorbed by the other?19 Whatever other

18For these specific critical questions, see, e.g., Steve Odin, A Critique of the Keno-
sis/Sunyata Motif in Nishida and the Kyoto School, Buddhist-Christian Studies 9 (1989):
7186; Wolfhart Pannenberg, Gods Love and the Kenosis of the Son: A Response to
Masao Abe, in Christopher Ives, ed., Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-
Jewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International,
1995), 24450; E.D. Cabanne, Beyond Kenosis: New Foundations for Buddhist-Christian
Dialogue, Buddhist-Christian Studies 13 (1993): 10317; and Eric Hall, Kenosis, Sunyata,
and Comportment: Interreligious Discourse beyond Concepts, Journal of Interreligious
Dialogue 7 (August 2011) [http://irdialogue.org/category/journal/issue07/].
19These questions are posed by Robert Magliola, In No Wise is Healing Holistic: A
Deconstructive Alternative to Masao Abes Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, in David
Loy, ed., Healing Deconstruction: Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity, AAR
Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion 3 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 99118,
and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, Sunyata, Trinity, and Community, in Christopher Ives,
 spirit and method 205

criticisms, it needs to be acknowledged that true to the intention of the

Kyoto School to contribute to the emergence of a world philosophy and
world theology, Abes Zen Buddhist perspective has opened up an alterna-
tive view on the Christian understanding of human selfhood as interpreted
through historic christological and theological convictions. In that sense,
he has reached out to the Christian tradition from his Buddhist vantage
point and sought to engage the other on its own terms (christological,
in this case) albeit as informed by the categories familiar to Abes home
tradition. The results are such that even if the details of Abes proposal are
finally rejected by Christian theologians, can anyone be so sure as to say
that no theological ground has been gained?20
My own work reciprocates Abes effforts and engages Buddhism albeit
in ways informed and enabled by the categories familiar to my own tradi-
tion. In my case, of course, the dominant categories are those derived from
pneumatology. As such, my response enables an afffirmation of Buddhist
shunyata understood as interdependent coorigination from the pneuma-
tological standpoint of relationality. In de Silvas terms, human beings are
anattadevoid of self-existenceeven as they are pneumatically and
relationally constituted, first with others and with the environment, and
ultimately with the divine. In terms of Abes kenotic christo-theo-anthro-
pology, I would suggest a pneumato-christo-anthropology. Hence, I pro-
pose that true human selfhood be understood in terms of Jesus the Christ,
respecting Christian theological and hermeneutical commitments on the
one hand even while reaching back to Abes initiations on the other. Let
me explicate briefly in two steps.
First, note what Abe is attempting to accomplish. His kenotic christol-
ogy is a reaction to the Logos or pre-existence christology wedded to a
substance or Aristotelian metaphysic. To be avoided are the dualistic and
static implications of a christology within an outmoded three-story uni-
verse. If there are a range of responses that have emerged to these issues,
Abes arguably deserves consideration. My Christian and pneumatologi-
cal perspective, however, provides an alternative toward accomplishing

ed., Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation with

Masao Abe (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 13649.
20The recent book by David Jensen, In the Company of Others: A Dialogical Christology
(Cleveland, Oh.: Pilgrim Press, 2001), attempts to advance the dialogue with Buddhism
precisely through the Pauline image of the kenotic Christ.
206 chapter nine

just these objectivesvia a Spirit-christology.21 In this view, Jesus is the

Christ precisely as the anointed one. More explicitly, Jesus is a man
attested...by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs (Acts 2:22),
and God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power
(Acts 10:38). In fact, the entirety of the Christ event can and should be
understood within such a pneumatological framework. This is clearly seen
not only in Jesus conception (Luke 1:35), fetal development (1:3944),
dedication (2:2535), baptism (3:2122), temptation (4:114), and ministry
(4:1819), but also in his death through the eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14) and
resurrection from the dead according to the Spirit of Holiness (Rom. 1:2
4). Yet pneumatology illuminates not only the christological mystery, but
also the anthropological one. This is because Lukes story of Jesus as the
anointed one serves also as a prelude to his account of the new human-
ity, the ecclesia of God birthed on the Day of Pentecost by the outpouring
of the Spirit.
This leads, second, to the next move that parallels Abes reconstitution
of theology and anthropology from the foundation of kenotic christology.
In my case, however, the move made is from Lukes Spirit-christology to
Lukes Spirit-ecclesiology and hence, Spirit-anthropology. Human beings
are able to emulate Jesus as their paradigmatic modeland thus were
also called anointed ones or Christians (Acts 11:26)not on their own
strength but as enabled by the Spirit of God. Using the field-metaphor, the
acts and deeds of Jesus Christ continue to inform, shape, inspire, and illu-
minate those of Christians as mediated through the presence and activity
of the Holy Spirit. Here, I borrow and develop Seiichi Yagis suggestion
that, If a star is extinguished even millions of years ago, its light contin-
ues still to reach the earth, as the words of Jesus reach us and continue
to address us although he himself died 2,000 years ago. In the case of
the extinguished star we encounter a star here and now as it was several
million years ago.22 The trinitarian mystery here replicates itself in the

21For starters, see Ralph Del Colle, Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian
Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), and Sammy Alfaro, Divino Compaero:
Toward a Hispanic Pentecostal Christology (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick Press, 2010); cf. also my
Spirit-Word-Community, 2832, The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the
Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 2.1, and Who is the
Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles (Brewster, Mass.: Paraclete Press, 2011).
22See Seiichi Yagi, A Bridge from Buddhist to Christian Thinking: The Front-Structure,
in Yagi and Leonard Swidler, A Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue (New York and Mah-
wah: Paulist Press, 1990), 73144, esp. 82. Cf. also Buri, The Buddha-Christ as the Lord of
the True Self: The Religious Philosophy of the Kyoto School and Christianity, trans. Harold H.
 spirit and method 207

domain of theological anthropology. Jesus is who he is precisely as the one

anointed by the Spirit even as the Spirits identity is selflessly that of Jesus
the Christ, and of God. Similarly, the followers of Jesus gain their lives
precisely in losing them through baptism into the death of the kenotic
Christ and resurrection by the Spirit of Jesus (Rom. 6:111 and 8:112). So,
in the paradoxical words of St. Paul, I have been crucified with Christ;
and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life
I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and
gave himself for me (Gal. 2:20). Paradoxical, of course, precisely because
the speaker here can be solely or strictly neither Paul, if he were truly
crucified with Christ and no longer living, nor Christ, who cannot speak
apart from a living and breathing (through the divine ruach) Paul.23 Only
a pneumatological framework enables such distinction and yet also fusion
of identities since only Paul as made alive or en-spirited by the Spirit of
Jesus can speak as himself even while the living Christ speaks through
the apostle who has died, or has been put to death through his encoun-
ter with the risen Christ as a necessary prelude to his being born again
through the Holy Spirit. If so, then is it only a pneumatological ontology
that charts a middle way between monism and dualism such that what
might be considered a kind of non- or qualified-dualism emerges, one that
still respects the diffference between God and creation, even as it invites
comparison with the nondualism of the Buddhist tradition?
Of course, this mystery of the God present and active by Spirit and
Word returns us to the creation narrative where the ruah Elohim enabled
the creative word (dabhar) that called the world into existence, order, and
complexity. And if on Christian theological terms the immanent Trinity is

Oliver (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), esp. ch. 10.3 on Enlightenment and the
Holy Spirit, 34750.
23This was Nishitanis observation; see Shizuteru Ueda, Jesus in Contemporary Japa-
nese Zen, with Special Regards to Keiji Nishitani, in Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Thomas Josef
Gtz, and Gerhard Kberlin, eds., Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus (St. Ottilien: EOS, 2001),
4258, esp. 4851. Cf. also Seiichi Yagi, Ego and Self in the New Testament and in Zen, in
Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz, eds., The Bible in a World Context: An Experiment in Contex-
tual Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, Mi., and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 2002), 3349, and the comments of J.K. Kadowaki, S.J., Zen and the Bible: A
Priests Experience, trans. Joan Rieck (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980), 12223, on
1 Cor. 6:19After several months of arduous practice [of zazen], he suddenly awakens
one day to the marvelous reality of Pauls words....He realizes that prayer is not himself
speaking to God with human words, but God speaking within him in His own words.
When his whole body is penetrated by and made one with this reality, and he realizes
that this is rightly his own prayer, that it comes from his own heart, and that this is what
real prayer is, how great his joy will be!
208 chapter nine

the economic Trinity and vice-versa, in that sense, the Spirit and the Word
which or who empty themselves for the sake of the world do so precisely
as an extension of their mutually self-emptying and self-donating activ-
ity within the divine life.24 This preserves both the Christian perichoretic
understanding of God as being three personally constituted relations and
perhaps also Abes Buddhist-inspired insight that it is the divine empti-
ness alone which constitutes God as three and yet one.
Is it the case, then, that such a Spirit-christology can be authentically
Christian but also open to interreligious and interdisciplinary interpre-
tations? Alongside and parallel with this question is the anthropological
one: is such a pneumatological anthropology also possibly consistent with
what science tells us about human nature and with Buddhist perspectives
on humanity in its dynamic self-emptying? Does pneumatology enable
such comparative and interdisciplinary insights that complement and
illuminate, rather than undermine, traditional christological and anthro-
pological orthodoxies?

9.2Interpreting the Cosmos: Pneumato-theological Approaches

Yet, even granting the potentiality of the preceding pneumatological

approach for resolving the christological and buddhological impasse
between the two traditions, the methodological skeptic may remain
unconvinced. Christianity and Buddhism are so fundamentally diffferent
that any attempt to compare the two can proceed only by ignoring their
deep disagreements: kenosis by choice versus kenosis as compulsion;
adherence to the Aristotelian logic of noncontradiction versus afffirma-
tion of the conjunction of opposites; commitment to revelatory Scrip-
ture versus the emphasis on experience and the openendedness of the
Dharma; sin versus ignorance as the primordial human problem; other-
salvation versus self-salvation; divine command ethics versus situationist
ethics; resurrection versus reincarnation; personal God versus impersonal
shunyata, and so on.25 Of course, these are generalizations that admit of
exceptions on both sides.

24John Polkinghorne, ed., The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (Grand Rapids and
Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, and London: SPCK, 2001).
25Detailed in Russell H. Bowers, Jr., Someone or Nothing? Nishitanis Religion and Noth-
ingness as a Foundation for Christian-Buddhist Dialogue, Asian Thought and Culture 27
(New York: Peter Lang, 1996), esp. ch. 4. I here itemize objections from an evangelical theo-
logian precisely because evangelicals are more apt to highlight the diffferences rather than
 spirit and method 209

But, even if allowances were made that there is diversity of views in

Christianity and Buddhism on each point to enable the two traditions to
dialogue, the classical response is that the positions articulated at such
meeting points would more often than not threaten to betray the histori-
cal and orthodox teachings of each tradition. So, for example, Eckharts
God beyond God may be brought into fruitful dialogue with Nishidas
God as unity of opposites, of personality and impersonality (6.3), but
only at the risk of admitting into the discussion some heterodox ideas as
measured by historical and dogmatic standards. Permit me this one digres-
sion regarding the personal God of traditional perfect-being theism versus
impersonal shunyata. Garma Chang reminds us, for example, that:
A Buddha never thinks, but always sees. This is to say that no thinking
or reasoning process ever takes place in a Buddhas Mind; he is always in
the realm of direct realization, a realm that is intrinsically symbol-less. The
claim that a symbol-less Buddha-Mind can convey its experience to men by
means of symbols, is perhaps an eternal mystery that can never be solved by
reason. But is it not also true that if such a mystery exists, it cannot be oth-
erwise than indescribablea term denoting the impossibility of approxi-
mating something through symbolization?....A mind that sees all must not,
and cannot follow the shifting-realm, and one-at-a-time approach; it must
see things in numerous realms, one penetrating another, all simultaneously
arising on an enormous scale!26
Does this illuminate the Buddhas omniscience? Even more strikingly,
does this illuminate the Christian theological claim regarding divine
omniscience?27 Christian reflection on divine omniscience has led some
to explore the mode of Gods cognition as being non-discursive and

similarities between Christianity and other world religions. To their credit, however, evan-
gelicals are currently engaging more with the interreligious dialogue than ever before. Still,
these are not just evangelical problems, but also basically Christian ones. For another
discussion of the diffferences, see Ninian Smart, The Work of the Buddha and the Work
of Christ, in S.G.S. Brandon, ed., The Saviour God: Comparative Studies in the Concept of
Salvation (1963; reprint, Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1980), 16073.
26Garma C.C. Chang, Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Bud-
dhism (University Park, Penn., and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971), 8
and 19.
27See Bruce Reichenbach, Omniscience and Deliberation, International Journal for
Philosophy of Religion 16 (1984): 22536. For an overview of the debated issues concerning
omniscience and especially divine foreknowledge, see my Divine Knowledge and Future
Contingents: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in the Contemporary Debate, Evan-
gelical Review of Theology 26:3 (2002): 24064, and Divine Knowledge and Relation to
Time, in Thomas Jay Oord, ed., Philosophy of Religion: Introductory Essays (Kansas City,
Mo.: Beacon Hill Press/Nazarene Publishing House, 2003), 13652.
210 chapter nine

nondual, notions that parallel the Buddha Mind.28 But here, of course, we
have moved from the center of historic orthodoxy towards speculative
philosophical theology. The goal of this volume is neither to resolve every
diffficult question in the Christian-Buddhist dialogue nor to sort out all
of the issues regarding divine omniscience. My more modest task here is
to provide a justification for the position that the incommensurability
at least in some circlesbetween Christianity and Buddhism on the one
hand and between religion and science on the other is not so radical that
communication is impossible, especially not for those open to exploring
possible avenues of bridging from one tradition to the other.
In order to continue pursuing this more limited objective, I want to
take up the diffficult concept of time in Christianity and Buddhism which
we have already broached in passing before (3.3). At one level, the dis-
parity of their views is highlighted when it is alleged the former under-
stands time in terms of linearity best exemplified in the irreversibility
of natures and historys processes while the latter understands time in
cyclical terms that enable a kind of reversibility of both natural and his-
torical events. If such were the case, the allegation continues, then any
convergences between Christianity and Buddhism on the one hand and
any complementarity between Buddhism and science on the other would
remain only on the surface given the radical disparity that exists at this
fundamental level of world- or time-views.
It is fair to say that the allegations concerning this point are not entirely
without merit. This is especially the case given the Huayen understand-
ing of the interpenetration of all things, including the modes of time (see
6.2),29 as well as Nishidas reappropriation of this doctrine in his under-
standing of basho as the field unifying opposites or contradictories (6.3).
This has led Masao Abe to defend this notion of temporal reversibility
more recently, saying that in the clear realization of the beginningless
and endlessness of the process of living-dying at this moment, the whole
process of time is concentrated in this moment and, with this moment
as a pivot, past and future can be reversed.30 If Abe means exactly what

28Which I discuss briefly in my article, Ignorance, Knowledge, and Omniscience: At

and Beyond the Limits of Faith and Reason after Shinran, Buddhist-Christian Studies 31
(2011): 20110, esp. 2078.
29This is argued extensively by Steve Odin, Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism:
A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetration vs. Interpenetration (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1982).
30Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 59; my emphasis. Elsewhere, Abe notes that
with such realization, The unidirectionality of time is thus overcome and the reversibility
 spirit and method 211

he says, is there not a problem between this view and the assumptions
of science concerning the laws of entropy and the evolutionary direction
of natural and historical processes even despite the questions about this
issue at the quantum level?31 But even at the quantum realm, is there
not a fairly clear distinction between reversibility understood in terms
of reverting to the conditions of previous states (allowed by quantum
mechanics) and reversibility understood in terms of backward transfor-
mations or backward causation (disputed, if not disallowed)?32 How can
Huayen Buddhism and the Kyoto School assume the reversibility of time
and yet sustain a dialogue with science?
Just as diffficult is the dialogue with Christianity. On this point, does not
the Huayen view of the interrelatedness and interpenetration of the one
and the many, and of past, present, and future, undermine not only the
linearity of time and of historys movement but also the ethical dimension
of causal responsibility? In the latter case, does not saying that all things
cause the one even while the one causes all things prohibit the assign-
ment of moral responsibility in the ethical domain? To be sure, Huayen
thinkers throughout history have salvaged the notion of personal ethi-
cal responsibility as identifiable while granting that causal notions can-
not be absolutized in the Net of Indra.33 Of course, their critics, even
fellow Buddhists, have not been convinced. Thus, to extend this set of
questions, even if temporal notions of before and after are fuzzy at best

of time is realized from this bottomless depth of eternity; see Abe, Time in Buddhism,
in his Zen and Comparative Studies, 16369, quote from 167. Cf. also the Nishitani, Reli-
gion and Nothingness, trans. Jan Van Bragt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983),
chs. 56 on sunyata, time, and history, from whom Abes discussion draws.
31The idea of temporal irreversibility is practically axiomatic in the sciences; see David
Ray Grifffin, ed., Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time: Bohm, Prigogine, and Process
Philosophy (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986); Peter Coveney and Roger
Highfield, The Arrow of Time (New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990); Paul Davies and John
Gribbin, The Matter Myth (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992); Ilya Prigogine, From Being
to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman &
Co., 1980); and Ilya Prigogine and Isabelle Stengers, Order Out of Chaos: Mans New Dialogue
with Nature (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1984), esp. chs. 79. Cf. also Lawrence W. Fagg, The
Becoming of Time: Integrating Physical and Religious Time (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
32See Victor J. Stenger, The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and
Cosmology (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995), 26366, esp. 266n14. The question of
backward causation aside, of course, there is also the unresolved issue of simultaneity in
quantum theory; see the intriguing discussion in Victor Mansfield, Synchronicity, Science,
and Soul-Making: Understanding Jungian Synchronicity through Physics, Buddhism, and Phi-
losophy (Chicago: Open Court, 1995).
33See Jin Y. Park, Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayen, and the Possibility of a
Buddhist Postmodern Ethics (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2008), ch. 10.
212 chapter nine

and incoherent at worst at the quantum level, this does not help human
flourishing at the macro-world, dependent as that is on notions of moral
responsibility which assume the irreversibility of historys processes. In
sum, is dialogue between Christianity and Buddhism possible given Abes
position on times reversibility?
Of course, the first thing to do is to clarify exactly what Abe does and
does not mean. Abe is not afffirming the reversibility of physical time as
assumed and explored by natural science, or as captured by a reel of film
(reversible in a technical or artificial sense), nor is he afffirming the popu-
lar notion of reversibility associated with the myth of the primordial or
eternal return. This is because the standpoint of shunyata aspires to go
beyond precisely the linear-cyclical dichotomy.34 Abe is, however, mak-
ing a number of positive claims. First, time, like everything else, is empty
or interdependently originated. In itself, time is but an abstraction; it is
only given in things, seasons, events, etc. Second, and more important,
time is best grasped by humans existentially from within, realized from
moment to moment as what Abe calls our living-dying. This is the Bud-
dhist insight into our experience of continuity and discontinuity, of nir-
vana and samsara, of the depth of time rather than the expanse of time.35
Each moment is an advance and a return to the vertical dimension of
shunyata as the root source of time and history; each moment, time dies
and is reborn. In this way, time is both reversible in one respect (in the
vertical or awakened dimension which has attained the insight that we
are not finally temporal but also eternal beings),36 but irreversible in

34Abe, A Rejoinder, in John B. Cobb, Jr. and Christopher Ives, eds., The Emptying God:
A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990), 157200, includes
a section titled Time and History, 18995; see esp. 18990.
35Abe, Rejoinder, in Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness, 202.
36For a retrieval and reappropriation of this Platonic idea of eternity as the unity of
times past, present and future modalities, see Robert Cummings Neville, Eternity and
Times Flow (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993). Two distinct features of
Nevilles position need to be noted, however. First, whereas Abe privileges the eternal
present as that which unifies past and future, Neville understands the three modes of time
to be unified by eternity. Second, Neville denies the neo-Platonic hierarchical order and
its emanationism insofar as it is understood to afffirm a continuity between the One and
the many. Given the qualitative distinction between the divine and the created world, it
is possible to afffirm the radical transcendence of God and a systems ordering of the world
without assuming that the latters hierarchies at some point cross over or reach a contact-
point with the divine reality. For Christian theologians and philosophers looking for an
alternative to the Whiteheadian and process ontology and view of temporality, Nevilles is
as good a candidate as any that is sensitive to classical theories of the relationship between
time and eternity.
 spirit and method 213

another (on the horizontal or conventional dimension of compassionate

action).
In Abes view, this latter horizontal or conventional dimension is, of
course, the proper field of ethical responsibility and action. Such a dis-
tinction is also what makes possible the expression of the bodhisattvas
compassionate self-emptying directed toward the salvation of all beings.
This endless process of the compassionate work of an awakened person
trying to awaken others is no less that [sic] the aforementioned process
of Sunyata turning itself into vow and into act through its self-emptying.37
Abes is thus not merely subjectivistic or psychologistic notion of tem-
poral reversibility, but existential and soteriological to its core. As such,
Abe insists that Buddhism is not closed to the possibility of a forward-
moving and irreversible historical time; further, it afffirms anew every pos-
sible identity of history and time on the basis of the transtemporal depth
of eternity.38
But how does this fit in a world of modern science? To be sure, Abes
reconceptualization also allows him to revision Christianitys realized
eschatology, that which makes possible, at least within his metaphysi-
cal scheme, not only the Christian experience of repentance and forgive-
ness but also the ontological declaration of justification whereby our past
is transformed in light of divine graciousness.39 There are intercultural
implications here for Christian theology, especially concerning the doc-
trine of redemption. Given Abes presuppositions, is he not correct to see
that the soteriological confession of the forgiveness of sins understood as
covering or expiation implies a kind of reversibility regarding historical
time such that it becomes possible for us to stand justified before God in
Christ (Rom. 4:78 and Ps. 103:1012)? Thus Nishitani observes:

37Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 60. What follows could also be under-
stood as Abes answer to Inadas insistence on the importance of understanding humanity
as open and moving toward realization; see Kenneth K. Inada, Problematics of the Bud-
dhist Nature of Self, Philosophy East and West 29:2 (1979): 14158.
38Abe, A Rejoinder, in The Emptying God, 194. Abe, Time in Buddhism, 168, thus
afffirms the unrepeatable and unidirectional forward movement of history even while
insisting that real forward movement must include its self-negation, that is the repeat-
ability and reversibility of time. Is this not parallel to Kaufmans biohistorical via media
proposal (between a linear and holistic understanding of time) which includes both a
foundationalist aspect that sees history and biology as grounding the human condition,
but at the same time also understands us not only as products of our environment and
genes, but also as shapers of them? See Gordon Kaufman, God, Mystery, Diversity: Christian
Theology in a Pluralistic World (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 17477.
39Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 60, and A Rejoinder, in The Emptying
God, 193.
214 chapter nine

In a sense, the totality of time can only exist at a single instant. At the point
in the home-ground of the present where the Will of God and creatures
come into contact with one another, where time and eternity intersect,
the things that occur as consecutive but once-and-for-all occurrences must
be simultaneous. It is there that we have a field where irreversible time,
without ceasing to be irreversible, becomes reversible. Repentance, the for-
giveness of sins, resurrection from the dead, and the like, are inconceivable
except on such a field.40
Further, just as there is a sense in which the one sin (of Adam) implicates
and in that sense causes the fallenness of all,41 even so there is a sense
in which the one righteous act (of Christ) implicates and in that sense
causesboth proleptically and eschatologically (if not universalistically)
the redemption of the all (cf. Rom. 5:1221 and 1 Cor. 15:28). Finally, insofar
as the practice of meditation or the embarking on the Eightfold Path is
identical with the realization of enlightenment itself, does this present an
alternative perspective on the interpenetration of justification and sanc-
tification, of faith and works, as nondual aspects of the salvation experi-
ence? If we think with Abe along these lines, salvation is once-for-all and
processive, rather than either-or; and enlightenment is both sudden and
gradual, rather than either-or.42
For these reasons, the living-dying of each moment which opens up to
the transtemporal dimension of eternity not only illuminates the Buddhist
insight into the unity of continuity and discontinuity, nirvana and samsara,
in our experience, but may also parallel the biblical claims that living we
die and dying we live (2 Cor. 4:712; cf. Job 14:1), and that we realize eter-
nity in our hearts, and the past and the future in our minds (cf. Eccl. 3:11).
Does this in turn not illuminate the claim that salvation can also be under-
stood, at least in part, as a redemption of the original design of creation
from the defacement of the falle.g., as in the Pauline metaphor of the

40Nishitani, Religion and Nothingness, 270.

41This has recently been postulated, utilizing quantum entanglement theory as applied
to the Big Bang, in terms of Adams fall having equal application both back toward T=0 and
forward to the eschatological end of time; for a synopsis of the argument, see Martin J.
Rice, Universal Processes as Natural Impediments to and Facilitators of Godly Love, in
Matthew T. Lee and Amos Yong, eds., Godly Love: Impediments and Possibilities (Lanham,
Md.: Lexington Books, 2012), 17194.
42The latter is illustrated most clearly in the Manifestation of the Tathagata chap-
ter of the Avatamsaka Sutra. See the translators introduction to Cheng Chien Bhikshu,
Manifestation of the Tathagata: Buddhahood according to the Avatamsaka Sutra (Boston:
Wisdom Publications, 1993), 344, esp. 2326. Cf. also Peter N. Gregory, ed., Sudden and
Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought, Studies in East Asian Buddhism
5 (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1987).
 spirit and method 215

Second Adam restoring the original intentions of the creation and of the
First Adam; as in the idea of a new creation replacing the fallen world; and
as in Irenaeus recapitulation theologythus suggesting that Christian
theological reflection has been open to considering time and history not
only in linear terms, but also according to a somewhat cyclical model?
Thus the prominence of the linear view of time and history, while domi-
nant since St. Augustine, does not mean that other models are completely
foreign to Christian theology.
It is beginning to be realized, then, that there are various ways to under-
stand the modes of time from a Christian perspective that ignore neither
the plurality of human temporal experiences nor the diversity of the bib-
lical witness to the ways in which God interacts with the world.43 How
we understand time may thus not be an exact science. Rather, human
temporality can be understood either biologically or as conscious experi-
ence in mythic, linear, or mystic terms, while scientific views of time can
be broken down into according to the second law of thermodynamics,
the general theory of relativity, or chaos theory, even as theological time
can be understood according to the Hebrew Bibles salvation history (of
Gods interaction with Israel), the prophetic experiences, the wisdom or
apocalyptic modes, or the New Testaments witness to the divine reign as
present, as coming, or as already-and-not-yet.44 Are there then not only
many ways to view time but also many modes of time, even in the bibli-
cal traditions?
Might these initial observations be further clarified from the perspec-
tive of pneumatological theology? Within this framework, justification
is not the be-all and end-all of the Christian soteriology, but the initial
saving act of God brought about by the Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11).45 Life in
the Spirit is then an expression of the reality of justification so that there
is not only a reversible transformation of the past (in Abes terms) but
also a forward-looking trajectory to the justified life known as the process

43I discuss some models in my articles, Divine Knowledge and Relation to Time, in
Thomas Jay Oord, ed., Philosophy of Religion: Introductory Essays (Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon
Hill Press/Nazarene Publishing House, 2003), 13652.
44See Wolfgang Achtner, Stefan Kunz, and Thomas Walter, Dimensions of Time: The
Structures of the Time of Humans, of the World, and of God, trans. Arthur H. Williams, Jr.
(Grand Rapids and Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002).
45See Frank D. Macchia, Justification and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Reflection on the
Doctrine by which the Church Stands or Falls, PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pen-
tecostal Studies 22 (2000): 322, as well as his book length argument, Justified in the Spirit:
Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010).
216 chapter nine

of sanctification that culminates in glorification. For this reason, when

Jesus comes into the life of Zacchaeus, his redemption includes a trans-
formation of heart and perspective and a rectification of previous wrongs:
Lord...if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times
as much (Luke 19:8). This is the work of the Spirit, not only to constitute
the original creation, but to accomplish the re-creation or re-constitution
of the world (without just going backwards in time). Hence this is more
than just an epistemological claim that to be caught up in the Spirit on
the Lords day (Rev. 1:10) enables seeing what was, what is, and what is to
come (cf. Rev. 1:19). It is also the ontological claim that to be in the Spirit is
to be in the presence of God (Rev. 4:2fff.), and to be renewed by the Spirit
is to be in Christ, wherein there is a new creation: everything old has
passed away; see everything has become new! (2 Cor. 5:17).46
It cannot be under-emphasized that this passing away of the old is not
just a reference to times natural and historical flow. If that were the case,
then the arrival of the new would be trivial, hardly worth the emphatic
pronouncement of St. Paul. Rather, to live in the Spirit is to experience the
freedom which liberates human beings from the yokes of the past (Gal. 5:1)
even as it frees them to afffect the future (Gal. 5:13). Is this not what it
means for people to experience the resurrection from the dead here and
now (Gal. 5:2425)? For this reason, the outpouring and reception of the
Spirit of God not only inaugurates the last days in the present moment
(cf. Acts 2:17), but also emphasizes the presence of the reign of God in our
midst (cf. Luke 11:20 and 17:21). This is the grace of God, the presence and
activity of the Spirit which calls us to realize that now is the acceptable
time; see, now is the day of salvation! (2 Cor. 6:12). So also we have the
call of God not to resist the Spirit: Today, if you hear his voice, do not
harden your hearts (cp. Acts 7:51 and Heb. 3:8). Herein, we observe not
only the basis for the realized eschatology that Abe resonates with, but
also a pneumatological point of entry into the meeting of time and eter-
nity that Abe gestures to.
In light of this discussion, is there a sense in which a pneumatological
theology not only contributes to the possibility of a Christian understand-
ing and perhaps even clarification of the Buddhist notion of time? Put
alternatively, I am suggesting that there are, arguably, resources within

46I develop this pneumatological model of eschatological temporality in my The Spirit

of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic Imagination,
Pentecostal Manifestos 4 (Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company, 2011), esp. chs. 34.
 spirit and method 217

the trajectory of pneumatological theology on the Christian side and the

tradition of Kyoto School reflections on the Buddhist side for a poten-
tially illuminating understanding of important worldview issues such as
that of time and its relationship to eternity. Much more can and should
be said not only about this topic, not only about whether or not such a
pneumatological model commits one to be for or against the dominant
philosophical and scientific views of time and history,47 but also about
the many other diffficult theological and philosophical issues which dis-
tinguish Christianity and Buddhism. My point here is simply that a pneu-
matological approach to the Christian-Buddhist dialogue perhaps has the
potential to chart a mediating path forward so as to extend and further
the conversation. The methodological impasse is bridgeable, I suggest, via
a pneumatological hermeneutic. The claims about the incommensura-
bility of the two traditions need to be heeded, but cautious and patient
comparative work guided by a pneumatological interpretive framework
can be fruitful.
The question now is whether this potential convergence does anything
to allay the fears of those skeptical about the religion and science dia-
logue to begin with. Even if those critics are willing to grant the potential
value of a pneumatological imagination for the Christian-Buddhist con-
versation, how can it contribute anything to a discussion where one of the
dialogue partners eschews notions related to the idea of pneumatology
altogether? Is not a pneumatological hermeneutic exactly that, an instru-
ment of interpretation? If so, what can it accomplish in the world of facts,
the domain widely agreed upon as belonging to science?

9.3Method in Science and Religion: A Pneumatological Assist

I have suggested that a pneumatological approach to the religion-science

dialogue provides a theological rationale for engaging the claims of sci-
ence on its own terms. In some ways, science has served as a neutral par-
ticipant in the Christian-Buddhist dialogue, not neutral in the a-historic

47And things here are not simple, as futurity oriented theologians like Moltmann and
Pannenberg have been accused of presupposing a block spatiotemporal universe rather
than a truly evolving one; see Luco J. Van den Brom, Eschatology and Time: Reversal of
the Time Direction? in David Fergusson and Marcel Sarot, eds., The Future as Gods Gift:
Exploration in Christian Eschatology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 15967. My limitations
force me to punt at this point since I wish only to spur on the conversation, not to resolve
all the issues.
218 chapter nine

sense, but neutral in the sense of being neither Christian nor Buddhist.
At the same time, it is not possible to adjudicate simplistically the dis-
agreements observed between Christianity and Buddhism by appealing
to science as final arbiter since the scientific enterprise itself comes with
its own set of assumptions and practices not entirely unconnected to reli-
gion or devoid of religious significance. Given this hermeneutical situa-
tion, my goal has been to show that these three languages, as it were,
are not incommensurable but potentially (at least) mutually illuminating.
My hypothesis is that the neutral categories of science will serve to facili-
tate conversation between the otherwise disparate and strange tongues of
Christianity and Buddhism so as to enable the task of comparative theol-
ogy to proceed. Therefore, the more specific questions are whether or not
the set of neutral and yet vague categories provided by science resonates
with the categories emergent from both Christian pneumatological theol-
ogy and Buddhist shunyata metaphysics so as to further the Christian-
Buddhist dialogue, and as a followup question, whether the Christian and
Buddhist perspectives themselves have shed any light on the scientific
enterprise.
To confront the full force of these questions, it is important first to heed
Abes distinction between science and scientism.48 The former is a valid
human enterprise designed to understand the phenomenal (conventional)
world. The latter is the absolutization of science and scientific method
which not only marginalizes the religious perspective but even goes as far
as to negate it. Here, Nishitanis concerns about the prospects of nihilism
arising out of the ashes of modernity are reiterated by Abe. However, it
remains inevitable that religion needs to confront the legitimate issues
which science raises about the place and extent of critical rationality.
For Abe, even if such rationality poses much more diffficult questions for
Christian theism, Buddhists nevertheless must still demonstrate the reli-
gious significance of Buddhist truth in relation to scientific truth.49
But this is exactly the methodological question persisting underneath
the entire religion-science discussion. What does religion concerned with
existential and soteriological issues have to do with science concerned
with empirical ones? Can religion with its afffirmation of transcendence
engage science with its assumptions about naturalism and the causal (at

48See Abe, Kenosis and Emptiness, 69, and Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata,
46. See also Abe Masao, Christianity and Buddhism: Centering around Science and Nihil-
ism, Japanese Religions 5:3 (1968): 3662.
49Abe, Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata, 6.
 spirit and method 219

least) closure of this world? What truck has Jerusalem and Kyoto with
Athens and Tokyo?
When we broached this question previously, we saw then that Pannen-
berg, at least, depended on the doctrine of analogy as enabling the appli-
cation of theological language and concepts to the realm of the sciences
(2.3). Arguably, in light of the present state of scientific knowledge sur-
rounding quantum mechanics, the principle of analogy applies in the sci-
ences as well. At least at the quantum level, our theories about reality are
more models that shed light on our interactions with the world than they
are objective descriptions of the way quanta are in themselves. However,
in the domain of the sciences, the conceptual designator for this interac-
tive modality is not analogy but complementarity. This derives from Niels
Bohrs understanding of light as both wave (with its peculiar characteris-
tics such as reflection, refraction, difffusion, and interference) and particle
(with its spatiality and position) and his solution to treat waves and
particles as primarily epistemic rather than ontological categories given
their contrariness. In this view, waves and particles are heuristic tools that
purport to explain the behavior of light as measured by human beings.
Lai Pan-chiu identifies this strategy of Bohr as realistic instrumentalism.50
He also suggests that Christianity and Buddhism have their own types of
complementarity that are at the same time analogous to that operating
in quantum mechanics. In the former case, there is certainly the para-
doxical complementarity of the two natures of Christ. In the latter case,
there is the complementarity of the Madhyamaka Middle Way doctrine,
including the two-truths theory (and Nishidas logic of self-contradictory
identity). In both traditions, however, the complementarity sought after
concerns chiefly the abyss between transcendence and immanence,
eternity and time, the one and the many,51 not that regarding empiri-
cal paradoxes. Now given a more scientifically defined understanding of
complementarityKafatos and Nadeaus is: 1) when the theory consists
of two individually complete constructs; 2) when the constructs preclude
one another in a description of the unique physical situation to which

50Lai Pan-chiu, Buddhist-Christian Complementarity in the Perspective of Quantum

Physics, Buddhist-Christian Studies 22 (2002): 14962, esp. 151.
51In these senses, Christianity and Buddhism could be considered as complementary.
Ninian Smart, Buddhism and Christianity: Rivals and Allies (Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press, 1993), ch. 8, uses the complementarity language to suggest that there is a conver-
gence of their ideals amidst divergences which also serves as useful criticisms in their
encounters with other traditions.
220 chapter nine

they both apply, and 3) when both constitute a complete description of

that situation52is such a notion analogous not only to Bohrs under-
standing but also to Buddhist and Christian ideas about complementar-
ity? The problem here is that the quantum physicist community has not,
in the last generation, been too enthusiastic about Bohrs complementar-
ity and even the most recent texts have been silent about the notions
implicit advocacy of contradiction.53 As such, while it may be arguable
that the doctrine of complementarity serves as a bridge from Christianity
to Buddhism and vice-versa, it may be too much to expect it to resolve
methodological issues in the religion and science dialogue.
But what if, for Christian theology at least, following the motivat-
ing intuitions of this theological thought experiment, we began with
pneumatology instead? While Loder and Niedhardt have suggested the
christomorphic character of complementarity according to the Chalcedo-
nian definition which identified Christ as two (distinct) natures in one
person,54 they have also seen the trinitarian and hence, pneumatological,
connection. They point out that this connection is made explicit in the
later Barth.55 Although Barth began with a christocentric hermeneutic,
his trinitarian commitments led him to ask specifically pneumatologi-
cal questions toward the end of his massive Church Dogmatics. So Barth
observed:

52Menas Kafatos and Robert Nadeau, The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Mod-
ern Physical Theory (New York and Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1990), 84.
53Edward Mackinnon, Complementarity, in W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wild-
man, eds., Religion and Science: History, Method, Dialogue (New York and London: Rout-
ledge, 1996), 25570, esp. 26970.
54Note that the way in which the Chalcedonian fathers protected the mystery of Christs
two natures in one personvia the four fences which declare apophatically the natures
to be without confusion, without change, without division, and without separationis
arguably parallel to the way which the Huayen tradition afffirmed the mysterious identity
of form and emptinessvia the four reality realms which declare form and emptiness
(or phenomena and principle) as distinct realms, form and emptiness integrated and yet
mutually noninterfering, and form (phenomena) as integrated and yet mutually noninter-
fering (see 6.2). In each case, there is distinction yet mutuality, but without numerical
identity. See Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1999), 23334, and 2021; cf. the Introduction to Thomas Cleary, trans., The Flower
Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra, 3 vols. (Boulder, Colo., and
London: Shambhala, 19841987), 1.2021.
55See James E. Loder and W. Jim Neidhardt, The Knights Move: The Relational Logic of
the Spirit in Theology and Science (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard, 1992); James E.
Loder, The Logic of Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998); and James E. Loder and W. Jim Niedhardt, Barth, Bohr and
Dialectic, in W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, eds., Religion and Science: His-
tory, Method, Dialogue (New York and London: Routledge, 1996), 27189.
 spirit and method 221

The work of the Holy Spirit...is to bring and to hold together that which is
diffferent and therefore, as it would seem, necessarily and irresistibly disrup-
tive in the relationship of Jesus Christ to His community, namely, the divine
working, being, and action on the one side and the human on the other,
the creative freedom and act on one side and the human on the other, the
eternal reality and possibility on one side and the temporal on the other. His
work is to bring and to hold them together, not to identify, intermingle nor
confound them, not to change the one into the other nor to merge the one
into the other, but to coordinate them, to make them parallel, to bring them
into harmony and herefore to bind them into a true unity.56
This leads me to recall our epistemological hypothesis (1.3): that all inter-
pretation proceeds from a pneumatological starting point wherein subject
and object, knower and known, find themselves already in a relationship.57
Let me flesh this out first from the standpoint of theology, and then from
the standpoint of science.
Theologically, I suggest that all interpretation is pneumatological
because human beings are en-spirited, that is, always already constituted
by the Spirit.58 The Spirit is the field of divine activity which not only
enables creaturely fields of activity, but also constitutes creatures relation-
ally. In the case of human beings, the relations are at least triadic: with
one another, with the natural world, and with the divine. Human knowing
is thus always already participatory, emergent from the mutuality and rec-
iprocity of the relationships which constitute human being and becoming.
The connections between this view and Nishidas Huayen-informed logic
of basho are clear, even if further analysis can always be undertaken.
Scientifically, I suggest that all interpretation is pneumatological in the
sense that pneumatology provides an intersubjectivist framework between,
beyond, and even before the dichotomy of objectivism or subjectivism.59
Here, I am transferring Nishidas notion of pure experience prior to the

56Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/3, 2nd half, eds. G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1962), 761. This quotation occurs in the context of Barths discus-
sion of the Spirit, the Church, and the Christian mission (72).
57Detailed argumentation for what follows can be found also in my Spirit-Word-
Community, Parts II and III.
58So D. Lyle Dabney suggests that we are Otherwise Engaged in the Spirit: A First The-
ology for the Twenty-First Century, in Miroslav Volf, Carmen Krieg, and Thomas Kucharz,
eds., The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of Jrgen Moltmann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 15463.
59Cf. Peter Gabel, Creationism and Evolution: Radical Perspectives on the Confron-
tation of Spirit and Science, Tikkun 2:5 (1987): 5563, and Richard J. Bernstein, Beyond
Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1983).
222 chapter nine

subject-object split from the domain of mysticism to that of day-to-day

social life. The emergence of this intersubjective paradigm acknowledges
that the positivistic notion of objectivity is a false ideal based on a clas-
sical mechanistic worldview (even if it continues to be advocated today
both by creation scientists and by staunch Darwinian evolutionists). On
the other side, neither are we shut up solipsistically within our perspec-
tives. Rather, human knowledge is personal knowledge (to use Polanyis
notion), proceeding in empathetic, sympathetic, and interactive engage-
ment with otherness and attempting to allow such otherness to inform
and instruct ourselves.
Methodologically, then, a pneumatological framework opens up to inter-
pretation as a triadic activity involving a) subjects (always constituted and
informed by other subjects); b) asking questions of objects (which could
include the self or others); c) directed toward enabling truthful and prac-
tical engagement with our world.60 Interpretation as subjective needs to
be checked continuously by with and against the community of interpret-
ers. Hence the import and necessity of a multiplicity of perspectives and
disciplines to the knowing process. Interpretation as objective means that
reality or the world is the measure of our interpretations.61 Better inter-
pretations identify what is important about the objects of interpretation
as defined first and foremost by the objects; worse interpretations impose
our own estimations of what is important on the objects of interpreta-
tion. Finally, interpretation as truthful and pragmatic means both that our
goal is to correlate our understanding to reality as it is so as to engage it
more successfully and that there are no such things as humanly-knowable
facts apart from the values and instrumental purposes with which we
approach these facts given the lived-needs of human beings. All this is
the case even while we recognize that our access to the correspondence of
our interpretations with reality (a dyadic relationship) is never direct but
always mediated semiotically, viz., through a sign standing for something
to someone (a triadic relationship). Hence the analogical character of all
knowing, including scientific knowing, as involving signs, symbols, mod-
els, and metaphors, even as these are not just merely constructed at whim,

60Again, as I spell out in my Spirit-Word-Community, part II.

61Spelled out most forcefully by Robert Cummings Neville, Recovery of the Measure:
Interpretation and Nature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1989).
 spirit and method 223

but are communally negotiated through ethicaland compassionate

engagement with the world.62
If this is the case, then perhaps the pneumatological methodology
adopted in this volume can indeed facilitate the complexities of a tria-
logical encounter. The many tongues of Christianity can meet and interact
with the many tongues of Buddhist traditions and scientific disciplines,
and even amidst that cacophony, some theological understanding can
emerge that is relevant to a pluralistic and modern scientific world.
Might other Christians grant that in and through these many discourses
and languages we hear them speaking about Gods deeds of power
(Acts 2:11)?

62This semiotic thesis has been recently developed at the interface of theology and
science by Andrew Robinson, God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Meta-
physical Semiotics of C.S. Peirce, Philosophical Studies in Science and Religion 2 (Leiden
and Boston: Brill, 2010).
 CHAPTER TEN

SPIRIT AND ENVIRONMENT: TOWARD A CHRISTIAN ECOLOGICAL

ETHIC AFTER BUDDHISM

The results of our trialogue among Christianity, Buddhism, and science

suggests that pneumatological categories can be informative both about
how Christians understand the presence of God in the world and about
how Buddhists comprehend reality as ultimately constituted and expe-
rienced. At the same time, science, religion and theology are interested
in truth not in the abstract but as lived. Hence the Christian-Buddhist-
science trialogue in these pages should conclude neither apophatically
nor with simply saying there is common ground for dialogue, but with a
positive theological and philosophical afffirmation. Of course, the preced-
ing has already included some suggestive theological reconstruction, and
much of what has been proposed can and should be further developed.
Thus, in the closing pages of this book I sketch what might be called
a Christian theology of the environment after Buddhism. After, again,
means not necessarily leaving behind, but being informed by crossing
over and returning transformed. I proceed by briefly summarizing Chris-
tian (10.1) and Buddhist (10.2) thinking on this topic respectively before
attempting an exploratory synthesis (10.3). The task is to illuminate the
practical and ethical dimensions of Christian, Buddhist and scientific per-
spectives on the natural world as mediated through the pneumatological
categories.1 From the Buddhist perspective, knowledge is purposive, always
in order to generate the compassionate activity that saves a world floun-
dering amid the desires and lusts of ignorance. For Christians, knowledge
also leads to sanctification and holiness, and their concomitant behaviors
designed to impact and transform the world in the name of Christ.
The goal here, then, is to sketch an environmental ethic that puts feet
on the pneumatological imagination at work in this volume. Of course,
in the scope of a brief chapter, we cannot hope to either adjudicate all of

1Here I build on the work of my colleagues, e.g., Shane Clifton, Preaching the Full
Gospel in the Context of Global Environment Crises, and Matthew Tallman, Pentecostal
Ecology: A Theological Paradigm for Pentecostal Environmentalism, both in Amos Yong,
ed., The Spirit Renews the Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of
Creation (Eugene, Ore.: Pickwick Publications, 2009), 11734 and 13554 respectively.
 spirit and environment 225

the moral issues or resolve all of the socio-political conundrums related

to an ecological philosophy and theology.2 But the question of how to
live relationally in a pluralistic and scientific world and yet be people of
Christian faithbegs for some kind of response.

10.1Pneumatological Theology and the Environment

Amidst the burgeoning literature on the environment since the late 1960s,3
theological contributions have been increasingly informed by pneuma-
tological perspectives. The creator Spiritus as the basis for natural theol-
ogy; spirituality and mysticism perspectives on Gaia- and eco-theology;
feminist approaches with emphases on relationality and embodiment;
liberationist and political theology frameworks lifting up the Spirit of life
over and against the exploitation of humankind; conciliar celebrations of
the Spirits cosmic activitythese and others have emerged over the past
generation in a attempt to construct what I think is fairly called a pneu-
matological theology of the environment.4 The pneumatological motif

2Other glimpses of the possibilities affforded by a multi-religious conversation that

engages science in varying degrees can be seen in John E. Carroll, Paul Brockelman,
and Mary Westfall, eds., The Greening of Faith: God, the Environment, and the Good Life
(Hanover, NH, and London: The University Press of New Hampshire, 1997). The suggestive-
ness of such a volume, along with other collections of introductory essays representing
the various religious traditions engaging a common theme in theology and philosophy
of nature, begs for more in depth comparative analysis. The present chapter is a step in
precisely this direction.
3The clarion call awakening the conscience of the West to the environmental crisis
was the now famous essay by Lynn White: originally, The Historical Roots of Our Ecologi-
cal Crisis, Science 155 (10 March 1967): 12037, and reprinted many times since.
4On the creator Spiritus, see George S. Hendry, Theology of Nature (Philadelphia: West-
minster Press, 1980), part II; Michael Lodahl, God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World
in a Wesleyan Way (Nashville: Kingswood Books, 2003), ch. 1; and Denis Edwards, Breath of
Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit (Maryknoll: Orbis, 2004). On Gaia- and eco-theology,
see Helder Camara, Sister Earth: Ecology and the Spirit (London, Dublin, Edinburgh: New
City, 1990); Michael Dowd, Earthspirit: A Handbook for Nurturing an Ecological Christianity
(Mystic, Conn.: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991); and Fritz Hull, ed., Earth and Spirit: The
Spiritual Dimension of the Environmental Crisis (New York: Continuum, 1993). On feminism
and pneumatological ecology, see Rebecca Button Prichard, Sensing the Spirit: The Holy
Spirit in Feminist Perspective (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 1999), ch. 2; Elisabeth A. Johnson,
Women, Earth, and the Creator Spirit (New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1993); and
the oeuvre of Sallie McFague. On liberation and political theology perspectives, see Jr-
gen Moltmann, God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God, trans.
Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), and David G. Hallman, ed., Ecotheol-
ogy: Voices from South and North (Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, and Maryknoll:
Orbis Books, 1994). At the conciliar level, see Vassilios Giultsis, Creation and the Ecologi-
cal Problem, in Gennadios Limouris, ed., Come Holy SpiritRenew the Whole Creation: An
226 chapter ten

has been an especially powerful resource given the seemingly intracta-

ble dualismsmind v. body; male v. female; spirit v. matter; humans v.
nature, etc.characterizing certain strands of the modern West.5 These
dualisms have contributed their fair share to the human objectification of
the environment, and been presumed by those looking to justify human
exploitation of earths resources. Part of the result is the emergence of
manipulative practices driven by a posture of consumerism rather than
an ethic of care. The way to overcome these destructive habits and ideas,
Grace Jantzen suggests, is to accentuate the Spirits relational character
and her healing and reconciling work.6
The beginnings of such a pneumatological theology of the environment
can be gleaned from the creation narrative itself. As we have previously
seen (3.1), the ruah Elohim who hovered over the face of the deep is the
one through whom the divisions, separations, and diffferentiations of cre-
ation have been called forth, even while the same breath of life is the
one through whom the distinct creatures of the world are interrelated. As
such, the divine spirit is not only the creator of diffferences and complexi-
ties, but also the principle and personality of communion. Leonardo Bofff,
the Brazilian theologian of liberation, thus calls the realm of the Spirit
the pneumatosphere which includes within itself the domains of plants,
animals, and human beings, including the especially inspired prophets of
God.7 In the latter domains, the Spirit is the source of human commu-
nity, socialization, and communication in general, and the giver of life-
sustaining and life-enhancing gifts more particularly. In all domains, the
Spirit is the source of life, initiating newness and novelty on the one hand,
and renewing the creation on the other, in anticipation of the already-but-
not-yet eschatological reign of God: The Spirit uniting everything inside

Orthodox approach for the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Canberra,
Australia 621 February 1991 (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990), 23449.
For a very brief overview, consult Veli-Matti Krkkinen, Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit
in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002), 15964.
5I develop this theme at much greater length in my The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh:
Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2005), esp. ch. 7, The Heavens Above and the Earth Below: Toward a Pneumatological
Theology of Creation.
6Grace M. Jantzen, Healing Our Brokenness: The Spirit and Creation, in Mary Heather
MacKinnon and Moni McIntyre, eds., Readings in Ecology and Feminist Theology (Kansas
City: Sheed and Ward, 1995), 28498.
7Leonardo Bofff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, trans. Philip Berryman (Maryknoll:
Orbis, 1997), 160.
 spirit and environment 227

and outside the Trinity will orchestrate the universal symphony. Ecology
will be complete, for all will be in their true oikos in an infinite bond of
sympathy, in their maternal and paternal home where the Spirit has ever
been dwelling, now fully illuminated and transfigured by the Spirits utter
self-communication.8
Such an ecological pneumatology has been developed most intention-
ally and at length by Mark I. Wallace.9 Preferring a rhetorical rather than
metaphysical approach, Wallaces strategy is to retrieve the biblical narra-
tives of the Spirit as the healing life-force engendering human flourishing
and the welfare of the planet in the hopes of revitalizing human resolve
in the face of the environmental crisis. Three aspects of Wallaces project
deserve to be highlighted. First, the biblical narratives of the Spirit are
not homogeneous, but conflicted. The Spirit both breathes life into dry
bones and slays Ananias and Sapphira. Might focus on this dark side of
the divine life highlight divine violence in the biblical texts alongside the
experienced reality of human violence to others and to the earth? And
might not this also enable an understanding of the divine Spirit as desta-
bilizing and disrupting of the status quo in order to establish righteous-
ness, peace, and justice on the earth? Second, the Spirit of truth and the
truth of the Spirit is understood in performative terms. Wallaces wager
is that the retrieval of the biblical narratives toward an ecological pneu-
matology transforms the communal identity in a way which empowers its
members to take up and embody the Spirits reality in the establishment
of a just society and in the development of a sustainable environmental
praxis. This leads, finally, to a teleological or even eschatological under-
standing of the Spirit who emerges amidst the co-partnership of human
beings with one another, the creaturely and natural world. As such, the
Spirit is the life-breath of the creation at one level, but is also the life-force
which emerges from the co-partnership of creatures at another.
So Wallaces ecological pneumatology turns out to be more than a
rhetorical enterprise insofar as it is suggestive of a socio-political and
practical agenda directed toward the healing of a broken and fragmented

8Bofff, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor, 16263 and 16667; quote from 173.
9The book-length arguments are Mark I. Wallace, Fragments of the Spirit: Nature, Vio-
lence, and the Renewal of Creation (New York: Continuum, 1996; reprint, Harrisburg, Penn.:
Trinity Press International, 2002), and Finding God in the Singing River: Christianity, Spirit,
Nature (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005). The synopsis is Wallace, The Wounded
Spirit as the Basis for Hope in an Age of Radical Ecology, in Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary
Radford Ruether, Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Bring of Earth and Humans
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2000), 5172.
228 chapter ten

world. For explicit movement from theory to praxis, however, we need

to look at the work of Reformed theologian, Marthinus Daneel.10 Draw-
ing not from Wallace (he is not cited by Daneel) but from his longtime
experience as missionary and theological educator among the Shona in
Zimbabwe, Daneels distinctive contribution is his bridging the worlds of
the African Initiated Churches (AICs) and African Traditionalist Religion.
Involvement with grassroots organizations like the Zimbabwean Institute
for Religious Research and Ecological Conservation and their two afffili-
ated groups, the Association of Zimbabwean Traditional Ecologists and
the Association of African Earthkeeping Churches, has led Daneel into the
thickets of not only interfaith dialogue but also interfaith cooperation.
At this interreligious level, Daneel has learned much from African Tra-
ditionalists. Their effforts to liberate the land from exploitation through
what is called ecological warfare involve an understanding of the envi-
ronment as an en-spirited domain, the realm which unites present occu-
pants with past ancestors and future descendents. Oracular directives from
spirit-mediums through ritual activity have contributed to the emergence
of a distinctive strategy for salvaging the land, including reforestation and
protecting and increasing wildlife and water resources. The result is that
stewardship over the environment is the responsibility not only of govern-
mental politics but also of the Traditionalist religious community.
Engaging the indigenous worldview from a Christian theological per-
spective has resulted not only in a renewed ecclesiology, theology and
christologythe Church as a healing and liberating institution, the creator
as transcendent and immanent, and Christ as healer and earthkeeper
but also in a pneumatological theology of the environment which empha-
sizes the Spirit as both the fountain of life and the healer of the land.
Concretely, however, this means that the Spirits presence and activity
is directed against the destroyer of the world.11 This is manifest first in
the Spirits bringing to awareness our ecological sinfulness and complicity
with the destructive wizardry at work through the realm of the human,
whether that be in our excessive consumption of natural resources, ignor-
ing land husbandry laws, unrestricted tree-felling, blatant promotion of
soil erosion, acts of pollution, over-fishing, over-hunting (out of season or
in outlawed areas), etc. Such Spirit-wrought confession and repentance

10Marthinus L. Daneel, African Earthkeepers: Wholistic Interfaith Mission (Maryknoll:

Orbis, 2001), especially ch. 11, Toward an African Theology of the Environment: The Holy
Spirit in Creation.
11See further my discussion in The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh, 1.3.1.
 spirit and environment 229

are the initial steps in the ritual expulsion of evil from the midst of the
community.12 This might be followed by ritual acts of tree-planting which
are given sacramental significance around the Eucharistic table. The ritual
re-enactment emphasizes the divine overcoming of evil rather than on
the present or future power of the satan and his demons.
The result, theologically, is that AICs have developed an indigenous
theology of healing and exorcism in the African context without neglect-
ing the transformative element of the gospel. A holistic and even social
understanding of sin enables both personal and environmental soterio-
logical visions to converge, or at least be mutually informing and per-
haps transforming. There is the recognition that the power of the Holy
Spirit is available as gift, rather than through magical means. A pneuma-
tological theology of the environment thus empowers the AICs toward
socio-environmental action and concrete engagement with urgent envi-
ronmental and ecological issues within a interfaith context.
Thus pneumatological is not merely otherworldly in its orientation,
as might be the case with some charismatic groups or movements. As
already noted, the ruah Elohim gives life to the materiality of the earth
and the Spirit of God herself descends not only upon the incarnate Christ
but also is poured out upon all flesh.13 In that case, the gift of the Spirit
graces the created order and empowers responsible human activity as co-
creators with God in caring for the earth.14

10.2Buddhist Self-Emptying and the Environment

Awareness of the environmental crisis has also led Buddhists to produce a

humongous literature addressing the current situation.15 In this overview,

12I explicate the political and environmental implications of charismatic practices in

my In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political TheologyThe Cadbury Lectures
2009, Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age series (Grand Rapids and
Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), chs. 4 and 9.
13The materiality of the Spirits person and work is emphasized by Eugene F. Rogers, Jr.,
After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources outside the Modern West
(Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005).
14See also my Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace (Waco, Tex.: Baylor Univer-
sity Press, 2012), for further discussion of the Spirit as the gift of God.
15For starters, see Brian Brown, Toward a Buddhist Ecological Cosmology, in Mary
Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim, eds., Worldviews and Ecology: Religion, Philosophy and
the Environment (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1994), 12437; Alan Sponberg, The Buddhist
Conception of an Ecological Self, in Sallie B. King and Paul O. Ingram, eds., The Sound
of Liberating Truth: Buddhist-Christian Dialogues (Richmond: Curzon, 1999), 10727; and
230 chapter ten

however, I want to focus on reflections out of the Mahayana tradition in

general and the idea of shunyata emphasized in the Madhyamaka lineage
more specifically. In terms introduced previously, the Prajnaparamita
idea of the self-emptying and interdependently originating nature of all
things, the Huayen doctrine of the interpenetration of all things, and the
Kyoto School non-dual standpoint of absolute nothingness all combine to
inform the discussion. Within this framework, the following aspects of a
Buddhist environmental ethic deserve elaboration.
First, Buddhism can be said to be biocentric insofar as its soteriologi-
cal focus is on the decentering of the self or ego.16 The latter seeks to relo-
cate the self within the web of interrelatedness. This does not mean that
we still cannot distinguish the self from otherness. It only means that the
causal relations between self and otherness are intimate and complex. In
fact, our environment includes not only our selves and the natural world
but also the tools we have developed from natures resources to help us
get around. So, to use Nishidas language, there is a mutual determina-
tion between ourselves as historical beings and our environment within
which we are located: basho is the environmental sum of myself and other
selvessentient and nonsentientas mutually defining.17
Second, the Madhyamaka teaching on emptiness as form and vice versa
leads to a nondual understanding of mind and nature. This is the basis, of
course, for the flowering of the doctrine that all things are Buddha Mind
or have Buddha Nature precisely in their self-emptying character. The
result, however, is the Middle Way doctrine which collapses the distinc-
tion between sentient and nonsentient beings. If enlightenment itself is
understood as being awakened to the nonduality of all things, this means
that nonsentient beings also realize Buddha Nature upon the realiza-
tion of Buddha Mind by sentient beings.18 Hence the import of medita-
tion for raising ecological consciousness. In meditation, awareness of our

Stephanie Kaza and Kenneth Kraft, eds., Dharma Rain: Sources of Buddhist Environmental-
ism (Boston and London: Shambhala, 2000).
16Malcolm David Eckel, Is There a Buddhist Philosophy of Nature? in Mary Evelyn
Tucker and Duncan Ryuken Williams, eds., Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of
Dharma and Deeds (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 32749, esp. 343.
17Michiko Yusa, From topos to Environment: A Conversation with Nishida Kitaro, in
Christopher Lamb and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, eds., The Future of Religion: Postmodern Per-
spectivesEssays in Honour of Ninian Smart (London: Middlesex University Press, 1999),
11227.
18William Grosnick, The Buddhahood of the Trees and the Trees: Ecological Sensitiv-
ity or Scriptural Misunderstanding? in Michael Barnes, ed., An Ecology of the Spirit: Reli-
gious Reflection and Environmental Consciousness, The Annual Publication of the College
 spirit and environment 231

environment deepens and our identity expands to include the multitude of

circumstances and conditions that come together to form our existence.19
Now while meditation practice with its emphasis on interiority and its
focus on the present moment can detract from an active stance toward
social and environmental issues, its cultivating mindfulness and awaken-
ing to the true self amidst the ordinary world also counters the ten-
dency toward dichotomizing inwardness and outwardness and activates
skillful means designed to address the problems of our local situations
and global environment. In this way, meditation brings to awareness the
interconnectedness of the pollution of mind and that of nature, and cul-
tivates a non-anthropocentric sense of compassion that motivates human
environmental activity on behalf of all things. Hence planetary health and
wholeness arise along with mental health and wholeness. If we accept
the thesis that the pollution of nature and the pollution of mind are fac-
ets of one problem, exploring an environmental psychology becomes a
significant venture.20
Third, the pan-Buddhism found especially in the Huayen tradition
demands greater consideration with regard to developing an environ-
mental ethic.21 This view understands the universe as a whole and every
particle of dust within it as the bodily manifestation of the cosmic Vairo-
cana Buddha. This is possible, of course, because the principle of form is
emptiness and vice versa leads to that of emptiness is fullness and vice
versa: the self-emptying dynamic of the universe as a whole, every particle
of dust, and the Vairocana Buddha itself enables appreciation and valua-
tion of the each particle within the whole.22 The Zen tradition therefore
says that before enlightenment, the flower is a flower or the mountain a
mountain; with initial enlightenment, the flower is no longer a flower, nor
the mountain a mountain; with full enlightenment the flower is again just
a flower and the mountain a mountain. The point here is that Buddhist

Theology Society 36 (Lanham, New York and London: University Press of America, 1994),
197208, esp. 201.
19Allan Hunt Badiner, Introduction to Badiner, ed., Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays
in Buddhism and Ecology (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1990), xiiixviii; quote from xvii.
20Padmasiri de Silva, Buddhist Environmental Ethics, in Allan Hunt Badiner, ed.,
Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and Ecology (Berkeley: Parallax Press, 1990),
1419, quote from 16.
21See David Landis Barnhill, Relational Holism: Huayan Buddhism and Deep Ecology,
in David Landis Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb, eds., Deep Ecology and World Religions: New
Essays on Sacred Grounds (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), 77106.
22Francis Cook, Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra (University Park: Pennsylva-
nia State University Press, 1977), ch. 7.
232 chapter ten

enlightenment produces an environmental consciousness sensitive to the

particularity of each and every thing and its causal relations within the
Jewel Net of Indra. The pollution of one region of the world has impli-
cations for the whole. Realization of global crises like the Greenhouse
Efffect therefore means that the individualistic paradigms of addressing
the environmental condition are no longer viable. Some kind of holistic or
systems model is called for which is able to account for multi-directional
causal conditions linking cells, atoms, organs, organisms, families, com-
munities, nations, systems of economies, etc., in terms of organization as
integrated and integrating wholes rather than as mechanistic aggregates
in isolated networks.23
How does this work in the real world? From the perspective of the
enlightenment experience, then, Buddhist awareness emphasizes the
cultivation of certain dispositions, orientations, and postures for ecologi-
cal engagement. Afffection, love, and compassion are the most important
of these.24 These enable the bodhisattva to carry out the vow to save all
sentient beings, and therefore also empower Buddhist social and environ-
mental action. From this, the right conduct necessary to restore earth from
its degenerated state can ensue. Buddhist examples across the spectrum
of the tradition range from the respect for and nurturance of animal and
plant life to the ecological activity of the forest monks in Thailand, and
from the creation of ecological communities in America to the engaged
Buddhism of Thich Nhat Hanh and others regarding nuclear ecology, pop-
ulation and consumption management, and global ethics and the Earth
Charter.25
So far so good. The Buddhist emphasis on interdependent origination,
interconnectedness, and interrelatedness necessitates an ecological vision

23See Peter Timmerman, It is Dark Outside: Western Buddhism from the Enlighten-
ment to the Global Crisis, in Martine Batchelor and Kerry Brown, eds., Buddhism and Ecol-
ogy (New York: Cassell, 1992), 6576. Cf. Filita P. Bharucha, Buddhist Theory of Causation
and Einsteins Theory of Relativity, Bibliotheca Indo Buddhica Series 111 (Delhi: Sri Satguru
Publications/Indian Books Centre, 1992), esp. ch. 7.
24See Dalai Lama (Tenzin Gyatso), A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective on Spirit in Nature,
in Steven C. Rockefeller and John C. Elder, eds., Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment is
a Religious Issue (Boston: Beacon Press, 1992), 10923.
25These are discussed in the various sections of Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan
Ryuken Williams, eds., Buddhism and Ecology: The Interconnection of Dharma and Deeds
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997). Cf. Amy Morgante, ed., Buddhist Per-
spectives on the Earth Charter (Cambridge, Mass.: Boston Research Center for the 21st Cen-
tury, 1997), and Stephanie Kaza, To Save All Beings: Buddhist Environmental Activism, in
Christopher S. Queen, ed., Engaged Buddhism in the West (Boston: Wisdom Publications,
2000), 15983.
 spirit and environment 233

consistent with contemporary systems theory understandings of natural

environments. Holistic modes of thinking are better equipped to deal
with the various problems confronting the global village. The nondual-
ity of mind and nature, of human and other creatures, and of sentient
and nonsentient beings, all provide a theoretical and existential (inso-
far as realization of these truths are acted upon) framework toward an
environmentally conscious Buddhist ethic.26 Yet there are also important
questions which need to be attended to within this framework. The chief
of these derives from the implications of central doctrinal assumptions
embedded within the Madhyamaka tradition. I refer primarily to the
Huayen notions of totality and the interpenetration of all things which,
arguably, make explicit the axiomatic intuitions of the idea of shunyata in
Nagarjuna and other preceding Buddhist traditions and from there inform
succeeding generations of Buddhist reflection including that of the Kyoto
School thinkers.
Let me make this critical question more explicit. Put theoretically, the
central issue is that the holism of Huayen with its emphasis on mutual
identity would understand each and every particularity to interpenetrate
and in that sense be a contributing cause of every other particularity and
of the whole. This is, of course, not only consistent with, but assumes the
Madhyamaka doctrine of interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada).
The whole is what it is precisely because all the parts arise together, and
each part is what it is precisely through its relationship with everything
else in the universe. Put concretely, of course, Ian Harris points out that
the Huayen position of total interpenetration of all things results in the
view that nuclear waste and the endangered plant species are intercon-
nected such that everything in the universe, not just the endangered plant
species, is dependent on nuclear waste!27 Put ethically and eminently
practically, the question is how to go about saving the endangered plant
species given its dependence upon nuclear waste, precisely the cause of
endangerment.
We have already seen (9.2) a very preliminary response to this ques-
tion which emphasizes that the ethical domain pertains precisely to the
conventional world. Thus this puts the ethical question squarely back on

26David Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy (Atlantic Highlands, NJ:

Humanities Press, 1997), 29598, discusses the ethical implications of Madhyamakan non-
dualism.
27Ian Harris, Buddhism and Ecology, in Damien Keown, ed., Contemporary Buddhist
Ethics (Richmond, UK: Curzon, 2000), 11335, esp. 125.
234 chapter ten

the discussion table since it is precisely a world in which nuclear waste

does not arise that endangered plant species are also absent. So, to press
the issue pointedly: what can we do to bring such a world in which both
nuclear waste and endangered plant species are absent?

10.3Toward a Pneumato-ecological Ethic: Christian-Buddhist

Convergences

Yet even with the preceding response, it is important to note that this
question is problematic not only within the Madhyamaka system (as
developed specifically in the Huayen teaching) or within systems theory.
In fact, it reflects, from the perspective of Christian theological discourse,
the combined and related conundrums of both the problem of evil and
the freedom of creatures. The former is the question of how evil arises
in a world created and recognized by God to be good. The latter is the
question not only of how free creatures can actualize evil states of afffairs,
but how such states of afffairs can be rectified. The ethical, moral, and
existential question is if and how free creatures such as human beings
can go about doing the good which is necessaryin the case delineated
aboveto abolish nuclear weapons and save endangered plant species.
In the Christian theological tradition, of course, the combined prob-
lem of evil and creaturely freedom leads to the challenge of theodicy. In
its starkest form: from whence comes evil if God as creator of the world
is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent? If for Buddhists evilwith its
desire and suffferingis simply part of the conventional world of samsara
as we know it, for Christians, evil is simply part of the fallen human con-
dition as we experience it. If Buddhists say that evil is ultimately related
to the grasping and desiring of sentient beings, then Christians might say
that evil is ultimately due to the disobedient propensities and proclivi-
ties that afffectively motivate creaturelywhether human or angelic or
demonicchoices and behaviors. If the Buddhist argument is that evil
is ultimately illusory, to be unveiled as such through human awaken-
ing to enlightenment and the true Buddha nature, the Christian version
might say that what is thought to be evil from a finite perspective will
ultimatelyeschatologicallybe shown, if not to be good, at least to
have served the good purposes of God. Neither of these lines of responses,
however, resolve the problem; they only push the question back even fur-
ther: for Christians, is God justified for permitting creaturely freedom and
the horrendous evils that has brought, and for Buddhists, even if illusion
 spirit and environment 235

itself is the key evil, from whence comes illusion if the Buddha nature is
true human nature?28
Neither religious traditionnor their theological and philosophical
counterpartshas satisfactorily resolved the intellectual aspects of the
problem of evil. Yet the problem of evil as an intellectual puzzle is only
one side of the question; more importantly on the other side is the ethi-
cal issue of how evil should be responded to.29 This is also the more cru-
cial issue if our task concerns the possibility of developing a Christian
environment ethic after (having crossed over and returned from) the
dialogue with Buddhism given the Buddhas focus on the practicalities
of liberation. On this front, then, the question concerns the possibility of
such an ethical response given the implications of pratityasamutpada on
the one side and the interpenetration of all things on the other.
As it is articulated within the Augustinian tradition, the problem sim-
ply put is this: in a fallen and sinful world, how can free creatures accom-
plish the required good in order to be saved? Translated into our present
concerns, the question is: in a fallen and sinful world which includes both
nuclear waste and endangered plant species, how can free creatures bring
about a better world without these evils? The Augustinian response, of
course, is that the problem is the result of free creatures left to their own
fallen and sinful devises. In this state of afffairs, such creatures are free
only to perpetuate their fallen and sinful practices, and are throughout
incapable in themselves of remedying their plight. As such, salvation has
to come from outside the human condition. And it has, of course, been
given to us purely gratuitously by God in Jesus Christ.
Observe, however, the intriguing parallels precisely here with the sote-
riological claims of Buddhism. First, there is the emphasis on nirvana not
as something to be gained or earned through efffort but to be awakened to
and realized here and now; more specifically, this is seen in the afffirma-
tion of enlightenment as a sudden awakening (in the Soto Zen traditions)

28Some of these issues related to the problem of evil are discussed in James W. Boyd,
Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil, Studies in the History of Religions
(Supplements to Numen) 27 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), and Peter N. Gregory, The Problem of
Theodicy in the Awakening of Faith, Religious Studies 22 (1986): 6378; see also part III
of my Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the
Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012).
29This is the argument of Terrence W. Tilley, The Evils of Theodicy (Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press, 1991). Another praxis- and ethically-oriented response is
provided by Sarah Katherine Pinnock, Beyond Theodicy: Jewish and Christian Continental
Thinkers Respond to the Holocaust (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002).
236 chapter ten

rather than being the result of a long and gradual process of self-efffort.30
Further, there is the claim (in Huayen) that salvation derives from the
vow of the bodhisattva to save all sentient beings. Finally, there is the
insistence (in the Amida and Pure Land traditions) that entry into nirvana
is purely a gift given (or accessed) in response to uttering the Buddhas
name since, in the current age, sentient beings are thoroughly incapable
of saving themselves. This would be to recall Tanabes insistent emphasis
on the vow of Amida Buddha as opposed to Nishidas deliberations about
self-power (7.3).
Now while the full force of these soteriological visions, both Christian
and Buddhist, should not be blunted to avoid reducing the marvelous good
news they proclaim, it is nevertheless clear that they implicitly sanction
a kind of quietism that would undermine the necessity of ethical reflec-
tion at the theoretical level and of moral activity at the practical level. So
how do we negotiate a middle/way between understanding salvation or
enlightenment as nothing but a gift even while afffirming the centrality of
response and activity? From the Christian point of view, how do we work
out our salvation with fear and trembling even while afffirming that it is
God who is at work in us enabling our willing and working for his good
pleasure (cf. Phil. 2:1213)? From a Buddhist perspective, what is the role
of self power as opposed to the gratuitous and necessary gift of other
power represented in taking refuge in the Dharma of the Buddha?
It should come as no surprise that the via media attempted here is also
pneumatologically formulated.31 Going back to the creation as emergent
from the Spirits hovering over the waters, three points should be recalled.
First, creation itself was gifted with the capacity to participate in the cre-
ative work of God: the earth brought forth, co-created, as enabled by the
empowering of the Spirit. Second, there was a genuine emergence of com-
plexity, a movement from chaos to order, in varying steps and diffferenti-
ated levels: the six days culminating with the final en-spiriting of specific

30See Sung Bae Park, Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment (Albany, NY: State Uni-
versity of New York Press, 1983).
31While the doctrine of the Holy Spirit has long been connected with the doctrine of
sanctification, explicit articulation of a pneumatological ethics has been lacking. The start-
ing point for such a task must be, Karl Barths The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The
Theological Basis of Ethics, ed. Robin W. Lovin (1938; reprint, Louisville: Westminster/John
Knox Press, 1993), which has since been expanded by Paul Chung, Spirituality and Social
Ethics in John Calvin: A Pneumatological Perspective (Lanham: University Press of America,
2000). The following represents my minuscule contribution, focused on an environmental
ethics.
 spirit and environment 237

forms of dust resulting in living creatures. Finally, there is a genuine and

systemic interrelationalitybetween male and female; between human
and other sentient beings; between sentient beings and the natural world;
between the natural and spiritual domains, etc.brought about by the
Spirit. Creation is herein realized as a web of living interconnectedness,
but yet comprised of particularities, separatedness, and diffferentiated-
ness: each is in its own place amidst the whole, with its own functions and
contributions to the whole, and having its own density and value among
the whole.
So, from the Genesis account, I suggest that a pneumatological under-
standing of the creation is poised to negotiate the tensions between the
created order as systematically interrelated and interconnected on the
one hand, and the created order as en-spirited, emergent, and dynamic
on the other. This allows emphasis on and valuation of the individuality
and particularity of systemic levels and parts within the whole, while it
permits and even encourages the ongoing transformation of the status
quo in anticipation of the eschatological reign of God. Both are gifts from
God. The former provides the relational matrices within which we live,
move, and have our being, while the latter empowers the dynamism of
creaturely activities and participation in actualizing the divine mandate
to be, to bring forth, to reproduce. Understood pneumatically, freedom
can be given a suffficiently robust account so as to illuminate how horrific
evils such as nuclear waste and endangered plant species have actualized
(not to mention the Holocaust) even while hope for the elimination of
such evils can also be anticipated.
The creational breath of life enables and the pentecostal wind and fire
of the Spirit empowers creaturely compliance with the common good,
symbolized (for Christians) in the metanarrative as the coming reign of
God and (for Buddhists) in the Mahayana vision as the Pure Land of com-
passionate bliss. While such hopes are ultimately eschatological confes-
sions, they can begin to be actualized in the here and now as creatures
align their directives with the divine will (for Christians) and the teachings
of the Buddha (for those committed to Buddhist practice). For Christians,
there is newness and novelty to the eschatological work of Spirit, and
such comes about at least in part through their responses to the Spirits
enabling and prompting.
The connections between pneumatology and eschatology are most
clearly pronounced in the Day of Pentecost narrative in Acts 2. In his
account of the events on that day, the author of Acts recorded St. Peters
appeal to the Hebrew prophet Joel as prophesying that the outpouring
238 chapter ten

of the Spirit upon all flesh would occur In the last days (Acts 2:17). My
argument, however, is that such a thoroughly pneumatological approach
to eschatology is more this-worldly than it is other-worldly: the outpour-
ing of the Spirit announces the coming of the reign of God with ethical
implications for human action, behavior, and responsibility in the here
and now.32
So might a Christian pneumato-ecological theology of nature in global
context after Buddhism see the convergence of the following themes
and their attendant ethical implications? First, could the Spirit as the
supremely mediational and relational symbol parallel the self-emptying
nature of all things understood in terms of interdependence and interre-
lationality? If so, would this signify a possible convergence of theological
and philosophical rationales for privileging a metaphysics of intercon-
nectedness rather than one of substance? Second, might the Spirit as
enabling the intersubjectivity of human persons and the interrelational-
ity of humans and the environment parallel the self-emptying and inter-
penetrating character of all things? If so, would this signify a potential
convergence of personalist and impersonalist rationales motivating envi-
ronmental responsibility and ecological activity?33 Third, if the Spirit is
not only the source of life but also of gifts and charisms appropriate to
creaturely functions in inviting their participation in the creative process,
would this parallel shunyata as the locus or field of action and activity
which inviteseven nurturescreaturely participation in the creative
process? And if so, is this significant of a plausible convergence of the
ruah Elohim with the Buddhas Dharma insofar as each is concerned with
spirituality, community, ethics, values, and the quality of human life and
flourishing?34 Fourth, a pneumatological perspective would emphasize

32I argue this pneumatological-eschatological-ethical connection in my In the Days of

Caesar, esp. ch. 8; Spirit of Love, esp. part II; and Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the
Apostles (Brewster, Mass.: Paraclete Press, 2011), passim.
33Here, might I go even farther and recognize with Michael Lodahl that the Spirit has
a diffferent sort of persona than that of Father or Son? After all, the Spirit is their common
breath in communication and communion. Yet as Richard of St. Victor shows, the Spirit
is person and personal precisely in and through the interpersonal bond of love between
the Father and Son. See Michael E. Lodahl, Una Natura Divina, Tres Nescio Quid: What
Sorts of Personae are Divine Personae? Wesleyan Theological Journal 36:1 (Spring 2001):
21830; and on Richard, see my discussion in Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Herme-
neutics in Trinitarian Perspective, (Burlington, Vt., and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing
Ltd., and Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock, 2002), 6667.
34This last question is motivated by Kosuke Koyamas discussion of The Buddhist
Dharma and the Christian Ruah; see Koyama, Observation and Revelation: A Global
Dialogue with Buddhism, in Max L. Stackhouse and Diane B. Obenchain, eds., God and
 spirit and environment 239

that the Spirit groans with human beings and with creation itself for its
redemption and renewal (Rom. 8:1827) even as Buddhists earnestly await
the illuminating power of the bodhisattvas vow, the Buddhas Dharma,
and the coming of Matreiya Buddha to save all sentient beings.35
But perhaps most importantly, a pneumatological approach to a Chris-
tian environmental ethic after Buddhism can capitalize on the Buddhist
resistance to any reductionistic or materialistic view of nature as well.
This is because a pneumatological theology of nature, while not involv-
ing a dualistic construal of spirit versus nature (as the preceding argu-
ments should have made clear), nevertheless views nature as en-spirited
with the divine breath of life. Nature does not consist ultimately only
of inert matter, and Buddhist emphases on the fundamental nature of
mind or consciousness also suggest a potential rapprochement regarding
an enchanted world. This is not to suggest that there are spirit beings
behind every tree, but that human beings have a responsibility to care for
a world of which they are part, rather than being entirely distinct.
Granted the foregoing connections, the gift of the Spirit is supremely
relevant for the contemporary environmental crisis. According to the
words of the prophet Isaiah (32:1517):
...until a spirit from on high is poured out on us,
and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,
and the fruitful field is deemed a forest.
Then justice will dwell in the wilderness,
and righteousness abide in the fruitful field.
The efffect of righteousness will be peace,
and the result of righteousness, quietness and trust forever.
Here, the interdependence of the environment, living creatures, human
flourishing, and the Spirits presence and activity is clear. A pneumatologi-
cal approach would sustain an ethic of embodiment, participation, and
relationality vis--vis the environment.36 Therefore, the call should thus
be for a deeper and more conscious realization of the Spirits presence

Globalization, Vol. 3: Christ and the Dominions of Civilization (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity
Press International, 2002), 23971, esp. 24552.
35See Alex Wayman, Eschatology in Buddhism, in Eschatology in Christianity and
Other Religions, Studia Missionalia 32 (Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1983), 7194.
36E.g., Sharon Betcher, Grounding the Spirit: An Ecofeminist Pneumatology, in Laurel
Kearns and Catherine Keller, eds., Ecospirit: Religions and Philosophies for the Earth (New
York: Fordham University Press, 2007), 31536.
240 chapter ten

and activity in our midst. In this case, might we be able to agree with
Ruben Habito who writes:
Zen practice brings all this from an abstract and conceptual theological
plane down to a very concrete and experiential level in ones awareness, as
one deepens in familiarity and intimacy with the Breath in day-to-day life.
As I live my life in full attunement with the Breath and let it become the
guiding power in my life, I experience the gift of being healed of my own
woundedness and am empowered in my own little way to become an instru-
ment of this breath in its work of healing a wounded Earth.37
A pneumatological ethics of the environment, then, would emphasize
a threefold task in our contemporary multireligious context. First, human-
ity has the responsibility of restoring and renewing the environmental
resources that are being used for human purposes; life in the Spirit involves
participation in such renewing activity. Second, human beings ought to be
mindful of the waste that is generated by modern ways of life and formu-
late appropriate responses to handling and disposing of such waste; life
in the Spirit includes articulating and embodying a doctrine of sanctifica-
tion which has implications for environmental care. Finally, humankind
is obligated to develop a sustainable plan of environmental and ecological
care that looks out for the wellbeing of our children and our childrens
children into the far offf future; life in the Spirit is eschatological, which
intertwines those who are coming with our lives in the present. These are
interrelated and fundamental ethical tasks which details can be fleshed
out in myriads of directions. A pneumatological theology of nature and
environmental ethic will engage all voicesscientific, interdisciplinary,
and interreligiousthat can shed practical light on these tasks.
Notice then here that what is being proposed is not an un-thoughtful
syncretism of Buddhist and Christian ideas, but a resolutely Christian
ecological theology and environmental ethic, albeit one that is now more
deeply Christian in part because it has also been informed by a dialogue
with Buddhist traditions. It is more deeply Christian, I suggest, because it is
now able to return to, retrieve, and reappropriate the scriptural resources
of Christian theology albeit within a global, intercultural, interdisciplinary,
and interreligious discursive context. Christians should not be hesitant
about testing their beliefs in a pluralistic world and this testing happens

37Ruben L.F. Habito, Healing Breath: Zen Spirituality for a Wounded Earth (Maryknoll:
Orbis, 1993), 57; cf. Habito, Total Liberation: Zen Spirituality and the Social Dimension
(Maryknoll: Orbis, 1989), 1046.
 spirit and environment 241

in authentic dialogue with those in other faiths. If true for more than just
Christians, such claims will survive dialogical testing, even if they might
be reformulated in surprising ways. It is precisely because I believe in the
truth of Christianity that I have endeavored to comprehend its claims in
a pluralistic world in dialogue with Buddhist traditions.38
Provisionally, then, I suggest that a pneumatological approach to the
Christian-Buddhist-science trialogue opens up fruitful lines of mutual
inquiry. It provides various perspectives on important contemporary
issues ranging from the cosmological sciences through the cognitive sci-
ences to the environmental sciences. It also has the potential to empower
ethically compassionate feelings, thoughts, and actions on behalf of a suf-
fering world. These are gains that we can now claim having achieved in
the preceding. Yet the last word has hardly been said. But enough has
been said, I hope, to further the conversation and to demonstrate the
potentiality of the pneumatological approach to the Christian-Buddhist-
science trialogue.

38This is the constructive dimension to theology that has to be vulnerable to the widest
possible public that might have an interest in its claims; for Christian theology, this would
be the global context as a whole. See Yong, Spirit-Word-Community, part II.
 EPILOGUE

So what has been accomplished in this volume? After working our way
through this long book, some readers might be disappointed that there
may not seem to be any firm answers in response to some of the peren-
nial questions confronting Christian theology in a world of many faiths.
Perhaps some Christians might be able to afffirm at least some of the dis-
cussion of Christian views especially in part I and perhaps also at vari-
ous places in the third part of this book. Other Christians will no doubt
suggest alternative Christian responses are available even as the reaction
to Christian reflections after Buddhism will be divided: on the one side
will be those who do not think I have gone far enough while on the other
side will be those who think I have gone too far. Similarly, some Bud-
dhists might be able to afffirm at least some of my discussion in part II
and perhaps also aspects of the proposals in part III. Other Buddhists will
no doubt register diffferent Buddhist perspectives on these matters even
as my own theological musing after Buddhism will be disputed: on the
one side will be those who think that I have instrumentalized Buddhist
traditions for Christian purposes while on the other wise will be those
who wonder why, after perceiving all that Buddhism has to offfer, I remain
a Christian.
All of this is to recognize that interfaith dialogue in general and the
Buddhist-Christian dialogue in particular is hard work that does not always
result either in clear syntheses or in perspicacious answers to old ques-
tions. In fact, it has taken Christians almost two thousand years to wrestle
with the pagan legacy of Plato and his descendents, and Christians still
debate not only about the legitimacy but also about the pay-offf of such an
enterprise. Why then might we think one book will resolve questions at
the frontier of the Buddhist-Christian encounter that have been contested
for two millennia quite apart from Buddhist interlocutors? As I hope we
have seen in the preceding pages, on some issues Buddhists can appeal to
Christian dialogue partners against their own Buddhist opponents, while
on other issues Christians can draw from and be resourced by Buddhist
conversationalists against their own Christian disputants. If nothing else,
the Buddhist-Christian dialogue unfolded in these pages shows that things
dont always line up between Christians on one side and Buddhists on the
other.
 epilogue 243

The situation has been complicated in this volume in light of the ongo-
ing religion and science dialogue as well. Buddhists and Christians here
have been engaging not just one another but also with secularists, scien-
tists, and scientistic opponents. It has been all the more imperative then
to have identified adequate comparative categories that can facilitate
proper comparisons and contrasts in such a trialogue between Christian-
ity, Buddhism, and science. As we have seen, the notions of salvation
and nature have functioned as vague categoriesthe former more reli-
gious and the latter more scientificthat have allowed some semblance
of a trialogical conversation. I have also suggested pneuma and shunyata
as bridges from the Christian and Buddhist sides, respectively, to the other
two domains. Have we made advances in mutual understanding or are
things even more obfuscated than before we began?
Still, let me suggest that there are at least three possible sets of next
steps regarding the exercise in comparative theology of nature unfolded
in this volume. First, some readers might experience a change of mind of
some sort, perhaps in more than one direction. Christians might certainly
decide that either Buddhist or scientific perspectives provide for greater
intellectual and/or existential coherence and be set offf on a journey in
either or both directions. Buddhists might also become more interested
in Christian or scientific perspectives and decide to explore either or both
further. Or scientists might decide that there is more to nature than mate-
rial entities and seek to inquire into Christian and/or Buddhist perspec-
tives to enable further understanding on these matters. Such a response
is unpredictable at the beginning of any authentic conversation involving
respectful hearing out of the other sides and the willingness to entertain
novel ideas and arguments. I can say that I did not set out on this task to
achieve this kind of goal intentionally, but I cannot control what readers
decide to do with this exploratory undertaking.
A second possible response might be along the following lines: that
since such an extended trialogical conversation has not resulted in any
meaningful (that is, quantitatively measurable) answers or theological or
philosophical progress, then such activities are a waste of time. I hope
that none of my readers feel this way, although I cannot also dismiss the
possibility that some will come to such a conclusion. In our continually
shrinking global village, we cannot ignore either the advance of science
or the presence of religious others. This is especially the case for those of
us who are interested in pursuing the truth: I do not see how either Chris-
tians or Buddhists or scientists can proceed on their merry ways without
paying some attention to how those in these other camps think about
244 epilogue

matters that they have not only long thought about but probably also dis-
puted, in many cases, heatedly and persistently so. If anything, I hope
the preceding has provided one model of how we might be able to gain
something of value from patient engagement with other points of view; if
nothing else, perhaps we are now in a better position to articulate what
we believe about matters of common interest.
This leads us to the third type of outcome possible from this volume,
one that I hope is engendered in most of my readers: that interdisciplin-
ary and interreligious expertise is not only important and needed but also
valuable for our ongoing vocations, whatever that may be. Even if scien-
tists do not become religious, perhaps they might become more cognizant
of religious perspectives that can enable them to be better scientists and
do their scientific work in ways that shed light on religious phenomena
and takes into account religious perspectives. Even if Buddhists or Chris-
tians do not convert, perhaps our respective faiths can be deepened, at
least as we understand them, in light of patient dialogue and collabora-
tive conversation. While there is a place for Buddhist philosophy inter-
nal to the global Buddhist Sangha, and even as there is surely value for
what Barth termed church dogmaticsin terms of second order reflec-
tion produced by, in, and for the church or the Christian communityI
also feel it is increasingly nave to think that such considerations can take
place in any kind of historical vacuum that ignores the results of science
and the ideas of those in other faiths. We cannot now go back as if to
exist without knowledge of science or of other religions traditions, just as
we cannot now undo the Renaissance, or the Reformation, or the Great
Awakenings.
Note that I am not saying that we cannot be confirmed Christians or
Buddhists. But, I am saying that the substance of our afffirmation cannot
and do not occur in the silos of our own halls without any onlookers.
So while that does not mean that we will need to tailor our confessions
for the outsider, it does mean that at some point, we will need to ask
if the substance of our confessions make sense in the kind of interdis-
ciplinary and interreligious world that characterizes human existence
in the twenty-first century. I, for one, feel as a result of the Christianity-
Buddhism-science trialogue even more deeply committed to the Christian
faith, but my understanding of that faith has indeed been afffected by the
thinking of others. Is this a betrayal of Christian commitments? Probably
for some who believe in and adhere to prior formulations of that faith
as being inviolable, yes. But for me, who believes in and is committed to
 epilogue 245

following a living Christ as carried by the Spiritwhose wind blows

where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know
where it comes from or where it goes (John 3:8)such openness is one
prominent characteristic of Christian faithfulness.
It is Christian faithfulness that is and remains hopeful when we see
through a mirror dimly (1 Cor. 13:12). Such faithfulness persists in asking
questions and believing that the Spirit of Christ is also the Spirit who leads
into all truth, wherever that may be found. Such inquiry will involve the
sciences, even as it has the potential to transform what happens in sci-
entific inquiry; such exploration will also involve those in other faiths,
including Buddhists, even as it has the potential to make a diffference also
in such conversations.
Further, such dialogical inquiry is essential to understanding our Bud-
dhist neighbors who are global citizens with us, and this understanding is
crucial to bearing proper witness to and about them. Christians have per-
petuated too many false stereotypes about our Buddhist friends over the
centuries, mostly informed by half-truths or otherwise simply the result of
thoughtless ignorance. In worst case scenarios, Christians and Buddhists
have responded in violence to one another, betraying fundamental com-
mitments of their own religious traditions along the say; and the world
remains fraught with wars and rumors of wars, some tinged and others
driven directly, at least in part, by religious rhetoric and disagreements
witness the case of Sri Lanka, for example. We ought to oppose violence
and usually such begins by telling the truth rather than bearing false wit-
ness. Herein are our Christian ethical responsibilities in light of the Gospel
of Christ, which urges us always to speak truthfully to and about others.
Yet we cannot tell the truth about others if we know little about who they
are or if we do not take the time to get to know them quite apart from the
otherwise valid activity of evangelization. This book urges us to take the
time to learn about them so that we can live more faithfully as Christ-
followers in a pluralistic world.
However, most of all, such faithfulness will result in the transformation
of ourselves. We will be shaped and impacted by the gifts of the interdis-
ciplinary and interreligious dialogues, and these will be, for us at least,
means of divine grace to enable more faithful engagement with the world.
In the end, such transformations will and must involve ethical activity:
loving God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and strength will involve
loving othersincluding our neighbors in other faiths and, in light of the
convictions of our Buddhist friends, all sentient beingsas ourselves.
246 epilogue

Such interdisciplinary and interreligious trialogue cannot but empower

more faithful witness to the living Christ that will benefit the common
good. That itself will be a living expression of what Christians call the
Holy Spirit, even if our Buddhist interlocutors might only experience this
reality as no more than an ephemeral cosmic breath.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abe, Masao. Buddhism and Interfaith Dialogue. Edited by Steven Heine. Honolulu, HI: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press, 1995.
. Christianity and Buddhism: Centering around Science and Nihilism. Japanese Reli-
gions 5, no. 3 (1968): 3662.
. God, Emptiness, and the True Self. The Eastern Buddhist 2, no. 2 (1969): 1530.
. Kenosis and Emptiness. In Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity: Essays and
Explorations, edited by Roger Corless and Paul F. Knitter, 525. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist,
1990.
. Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata. In The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-
Christian Conversation, edited by John B. Cobb Jr. and Christopher Ives, 365. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1990.
. Rejoinder. In Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian
Conversation with Masao Abe, edited by Christopher Ives, 175204. Valley Forge, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1995.
. A Rejoinder. In The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation, edited
by John B. Cobb Jr. and Christopher Ives, 157200. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.
. A Study of Dogen: His Philosophy and Religion. Edited by Steven Heine. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 1992.
. Zen and Comparative Studies. Edited by Steven Heine. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press, 1997.
. Zen and Western Thought. Edited by William R. LaFleur. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press, 1985.
Achtner, Wolfgang, Stefan Kunz, and Thomas Walter. Dimensions of Time: The Structures of
the Time of Humans, of the World, and of God. Translated by Arthur H. Jr. Williams. Grand
Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.
al Frq, Ismal Rj, ed. Trialogue of the Abrahamic Faiths: Papers Presented to the Islamic
Studies Group of American Academy of Religion. Herndon, VA: International Institute of
Islamic Thought, 1982; 4th ed., Geltsville, MD: Amana Publications, 1995.
Alfaro, Sammy. Divino Compaero: Toward a Hispanic Pentecostal Christology. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick Press, 2010.
Anderson, C.A. Scott. What Happened at Pentecost. In The Spirit: God and His Relation
to Man Considered from the Standpoint of Philosophy, Psychology and Art, edited by B.H.
Streeter, 11758. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 1935.
Arweck, Elisabeth, and Martin D. Stringer, eds. Theorizing Faith: The Insider/Outsider Prob-
lem in the Study of Ritual. Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham Press, 2002.
Ashbrook, James. The Human Mind and the Mind of God: Theological Promise in Brain
Research. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1984.
, ed. Brain, Culture, and the Human Spirit: Essays from an Emergent Evolutionary Per-
spective. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1993.
Ashbrook, James, and Carol Rausch Albright. The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and
Neuroscience Meet. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1997.
Austin, James H., MD. Zen and the Brain: Towards an Understanding of Meditation and
Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
Badiner, Allan Hunt. Introduction. In Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays in Buddhism and
Ecology, edited by Allan Hunt Badiner, xiiixviii. Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press, 1990.
Baggott, Jim. The Meaning of Quantum Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Balasubramaniam, Arun. Explaining Strange Parallels: The Case of Quantum Mechan-
ics and Madhyamika Buddhism. International Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 2 (1992):
20523.
248 bibliography

Barbour, Ian G. Issues in Science and Religion. 1966. New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1971.
. Myths, Models, and Paradigms: The Nature of Scientific and Religious Language. Lon-
don: SCM Press, 1974.
. Nature, Human Nature and God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002.
Barnhill, David Landis. Relational Holism: Huayan Buddhism and Deep Ecology. In Deep
Ecology and World Religions: New Essays on Sacred Grounds, edited by David Landis
Barnhill and Roger S. Gottlieb, 77106. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
2001.
Barr, Stephen M. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame
Press, 2003.
Barrow, John D., and Frank J. Tipler. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. New York:
Oxford University Press, and Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
Barrows, Paul. Beyond the Self: Consciousness, Mysticism and the New Physics. London:
Janus Publishing Company, 1998.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV/3, 2nd half. Edited by G.W. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1962.
. The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life: The Theological Basis of Ethics. Edited by
Robin W. Lovin. 1938. Reprint, Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Bartholomeusz, Tessa. Dharmapala at Chicago: Mahayana Buddhist or Sinhala Chauvin-
ist? In A Museum of Faiths: Histories and Legacies of the 1893 World Parliament of Reli-
gions, edited by Eric J. Ziolkowski, 23550. Classics in Religious Studies 9. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1993.
Batchelor, Stephen. Verses from the Center: A Buddhist Vision of the Sublime. New York:
Riverhead Books, 2000.
Bauer, Henry. Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other
Heterodoxies. Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press, 2001.
Beck, T. David. The Holy Spirit and the Renewal of All Things: Pneumatology in Paul and
Jrgen Moltmann. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2007.
Benoit, Hubert. The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought. New York:
Pantheon, 1955.
Berkson, William. Fields of Force: The Development of a Worldview from Faraday to Einstein.
New York: Wiley, 1974.
Berman, Morris. The Reenchantment of the World. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 1981.
Bernstein, Richard J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Berry, R.J. Gods Book of Works: The Nature and Theology of Nature. London and New York:
T & T Clark, 2003.
Betcher, Sharon. Grounding the Spirit: An Ecofeminist Pneumatology. In Ecospirit: Reli-
gions and Philosophies for the Earth, edited by Laurel Kearns and Catherine Keller, 315
36. New York: Fordham University Press, 2007.
Bharucha, Filita P. Buddhist Theory of Causation and Einsteins Theory of Relativity. Biblioth-
eca Indo Buddhica Series 111. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications/Indian Books Centre, 1992.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, trans. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the
Samyutta Nikaya. 2 vols. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2000.
Bielfeldt, Dennis. The Peril and Promise of Supervenience for the Science-Theology Discus-
sion. In The Human Person in Science and Theology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen,
Willem B. Drees, and Ulf Grman, 11752. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, and Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 2000.
Blood, Casey. Science, Sense and Soul: The Mystical-Physical Nature of Human Existence. Los
Angeles, CA: Renaissance Books, 2001.
Bofff, Leonardo. Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor. Translated by Philip Berryman. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1997.
 bibliography 249

Boisvert, Mathieu. The Five Aggregates: Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriol-
ogy. Editions SR 17. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995.
Bonevac, Daniel. Reduction in the Mind of God. In Supervenience: New Essays, edited by
Elias E. Savellos and mit D. Yalin, 12439. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1995.
Bonting, Sjoerd L. Chaos Theology: A Revised Creation Theology. Ottawa, Canada: Novalis
and St. Paul University Press; and Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2002.
Bowers, Russell H., Jr. Someone or Nothing? Nishitanis Religion and Nothingness as a Foun-
dation for Christian-Buddhist Dialogue. Asian Thought and Culture 27. New York: Peter
Lang, 1996.
Bowler, Peter J. Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century
Britain. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Boyd, James W. Satan and Mara: Christian and Buddhist Symbols of Evil. Studies in the His-
tory of Religions, Supplements to Numen 27. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Boyer, Pascal. The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press, 1994.
Bracken, Joseph A. The Divine Matrix: Creativity as Link between East and West. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1995.
. The One in the Many: A Contemporary Reconstruction of the God-World Relationship.
Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2001.
. Panentheism from a Process Perspective. In Trinity in Process: A Relational Theol-
ogy of God, edited by Joseph A. Bracken and Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, 95113. New
York: Continuum, 1997.
. Spirit and Society: A Study of Two Concepts. Process Studies 15, no. 4 (1986): 24455.
. Spirit and Society: A Trinitarian Cosmology. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University
Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1991.
. The Triune Symbol: Persons, Process, and Community. Lanham, MD: University Press
of America, 1985.
. What are They Saying about the Trinity? New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
. The World: Body of God or Field of Cosmic Activity? In Charles Hartshornes Con-
cept of God: Philosophical and Theological Responses, edited by Santiago Sia, 89102.
Studies in Philosophy and Religion 12. Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1990.
Bradnick, David. A Pentecostal Perspective on Entropy, Emergent Systems, and Eschatol-
ogy. Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 43, no. 4 (2008): 92542.
Brothers, Leslie. Mistaken Identity: The Mind-Brain Problem Reconsidered. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 2001.
Brown, Brian. Toward a Buddhist Ecological Cosmology. In Worldviews and Ecology: Reli-
gion, Philosophy and the Environment, edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John A. Grim,
12437. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994.
Bunge, Mario. The Mind-Body Problem: A Psychobiological Approach. Oxford: Pergamon
Press, 1980.
Buri, Fritz. The Buddha-Christ as the Lord of the True Self: The Religious Philosophy of the
Kyoto school and Christianity. Translated by Harold H. Oliver. Macon, GA: Mercer Uni-
versity Press, 1997.
Cabanne, E.D. Beyond Kenosis: New Foundations for Buddhist-Christian Dialogue.
Buddhist-Christian Studies 13 (1993): 10317.
Camara, Helder. Sister Earth: Ecology and the Spirit. London, Dublin, Edinburgh: New City,
1990.
Capra, Fritjof. The Tao of Physics. 1975. Reprint, New York: Bantam Books, 1977.
. The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. New York: Bantam Books,
1983.
. The Web of Life: A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems. New York: Anchor
Books, 1996.
250 bibliography

Carlson, Richard F., ed. Science and Christianity: Four Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVar-
sity Press, 2000.
Carroll, John E., Paul Brockelman, and Mary Westfall, eds. The Greening of Faith: God, the
Environment, and the Good Life. Hanover, NH, and London: The University Press of New
Hampshire, 1997.
Carter, Robert E. The Nothingness Beyond God: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Nishida
Kitaro. New York: Paragon House, 1989.
Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part I: From Adam to Noah, Gen-
esis IVI8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. 1961. Reprint, Jerusalem: The Magnes Press,
The Hebrew University, 1989.
Chan, Wing-tsit, trans. A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, 1963.
Chang, Garma C.C. The Buddhist Teaching of Totality: The Philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism.
University Park, PA, and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971.
Cheng Chien, Bhikshu. Manifestation of the Tathagata: Buddhahood according to the
Avatamsaka Sutra. Boston, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1993.
Cheng, Hsueh-li. Empty Logic: Madhyamika Buddhism from Chinese Sources. New York:
Philosophical Library, 1984.
Ching, Julia. Paradigms of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhist-Christian Stud-
ies 4 (1984): 3150.
Chryssavgis, John. The World of the Icon and Creation: An Orthodox Perspective on Ecol-
ogy and Pneumatology. In Christianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Bring of Earth and
Humans, edited by Dieter T. Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether, 8396. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Chung, Paul. Spirituality and Social Ethics in John Calvin: A Pneumatological Perspective.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2000.
Cilliers, Paul. Complexity and Postmodernism: Understanding Complex Systems. London
and New York: Routledge, 1998.
Clayton, Philip. Explanation from Physics to Theology: An Essay in Rationality and Religion.
New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1989.
. God and Contemporary Science. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, and Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998.
. Mind and Emergence: From Quantum to Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2004.
. Neuroscience, the Human Person, and God. In Bridging Science and Religion, edited
by Ted Peters and Gaymon Bennett, 10720. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.
. Neuroscience, the Person, and God: An Emergentist Account. In Neuroscience and
the Person: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey
Murphy, Theo C. Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib, 181214. Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory Publications, and Berkeley, CA: The Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences, 1999.
. In Quest of Freedom: The Emergence of Spirit in the Natural World. Religion Theologie
und Naturwissenschaft / Religion Theology and Natural Science 13. Gttingen: Venden-
hoeck & Ruprecht, 2009.
Clearly, Thomas. Entry into the Inconceivable: An Introduction to Hua-yen Buddhism. Hono-
lulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1983.
, trans. The Flower Ornament Scripture: A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra. 3 vols.
Boulder, CO, and London: Shambhala, 19841987.
Clifton, Shane. Preaching the Full Gospel in the Context of Global Environment Crises.
In The Spirit Renews the Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of
Creation, edited by Amos Yong, 11734. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009.
Cobb, John B., Jr. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and
Buddhism. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1982.
 bibliography 251

Cobb, John B., Jr., and Christopher Ives, eds. The Emptying God: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian
Conversation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.
Coe, John H. Beyond Relationality to Union: Musings Toward a Pneumadynamic Approach
to Personality and Psychopathology. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 18, no. 2
(1999): 109128.
Cohn-Sherbok, Dan. Incarnation and Trialogue. In Islam in a World of Diverse Faiths,
edited by Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 1832. New York: St. Martins Press, 1997.
Conn, Harvie M. Eternal Word and Changing Worlds: Theology, Anthropology, and Mission
in Trialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
Cook, Francis. Hua-yen Buddhism: The Jewel Net of Indra. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1977.
Cooper, John W. Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting: Biblical Anthropology and the Monism-
Dualism Debate. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.
Cooper, Robin. The Evolving Mind: Buddhism, Biology, and Consciousness. Birmingham, UK:
Windhorse Publications, 1996.
Copan, Paul, and William Lane Craig. Creation Out of Nothing: A Biblical, Philosophical, and
Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004.
Corcoran, Kevin, ed. Soul, Body and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons.
Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press, 2001.
Corless, Roger, and Knitter, eds. Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity: Essays and
Explorations. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990.
Corrington, Robert. Nature and Spirit: An Essay in Ecstatic Naturalism. New York: Fordham
University Press, 1992.
. Natures Religion. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1997.
. Natures Self: Our Journey from Origin to Spirit. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield,
1996.
Coveney, Peter, and Roger Highfield. The Arrow of Time. New York: Fawcett Columbine, 1990.
Crook, John. Mind in Western Zen. In Space in Mind: East-West Psychology and Contem-
porary Buddhism, edited by John Crook and David Fontana, 92109. Dorset, UK: Ele-
ment, 1990.
Csordas, Thomas J. The Sacred Self: A Cultural Phenomenology of Charismatic Healing.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994.
Dabney, D. Lyle. The Nature of the Spirit: Creation as a Premonition of God. In Starting
with the Spirit: The Task of Theology Today II, edited by Gordon Preece and Stephen
Pickard, 83110. Adelaide, Australia: Australia Theological Forum, Inc., and Openbook
Publishers, 2001.
. Otherwise Engaged in the Spirit: A First Theology for the Twenty-First Century.
In The Future of Theology: Essays in Honor of Jrgen Moltmann, edited by Miroslav Volf,
Carmen Krieg, and Thomas Kucharz, 15463. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.
Daecke, Sigurd-M. GottOpfer oder Schopfer der Evolution: christlicher Glaube und Ent-
wicklungslehre. Kerygma und Dogma 28 (1982): 23047.
Dahlke, Paul. Buddhism and Science. Translated by Bhikkhu Slcra. London: Macmillan,
1913.
Dalai Lama XIV. A Tibetan Buddhist Perspective on Spirit in Nature. In Spirit and Nature:
Why the Environment is a Religious Issue, edited by Steven C. Rockefeller and John C.
Elder, 10923. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1992.
. The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality. New York:
Morgan Road, 2005.
Damasio, Antonio R. Descartes Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York:
Grosset/Putnam, 1994.
. Mapping Brain Functions: The Evidence of Damage to Specific Brain Regions. In
Consciousness at the Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Brain Science
and Buddhism, edited by Zara Houshmand, Robert B. Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace,
5768. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 1999.
252 bibliography

Daneel, Marthinus L. African Earthkeepers: Wholistic Interfaith Mission. Maryknoll, NY:

Orbis, 2001.
Davidson, Richard J., and Anne Harrington, eds. Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists
and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Davidson, Richard J., Anne Harrington, Cliffford Saran, and Zara Houshmand. Training
the Mind: First Steps in a Cross-Cultural Collaboration in Neuroscientific Research. In
Visions of Compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature,
edited by Richard J. Davidson and Anne Harrington, 317. Oxford and New York: Oxford
University Press, 2002.
Davies, Mansel. A Scientist Looks at Buddhism. Sussex, England: The Book Guild Ltd.,
1990.
Davies, Paul, and John Gribbin. The Matter Myth. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
DAquili, Eugene G., and Andrew B. Newberg. The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of
Religious Experience. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1999.
de Alwis, Tissa Brian. Christian-Buddhist Dialogue in the Writings of Lynn A. de Silva.
Unpublished ThD diss., Andrews University, 1982.
deCharms, R. Christopher. Two Views of Mind: Abhidharma and Brain Science. Ithaca, NY:
Snow Lion, 1997.
de Riencourt, Amaury. The Eye of Shiva: Eastern Mysticism and Science. New York: William
Morrow and Company, Inc., 1981.
de S. Wettimuny, R.G. Buddhism and Its Relation to Religion and Science. Colombo, Sri
Lanka: M.D. Gunasena and Co. Ltd., 1962.
de Silva, Lynn A. Buddhism and Christianity Relativised. Dialogue NS 9, nos. 13 (1982):
4372.
. The Problem of the Self in Buddhism and Christianity. New York and London: Barnes
& Noble Import Division of Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., and The Macmillan Press
Ltd., 1979.
de Silva, Padmasiri. Buddhist Environmental Ethics. In Dharma Gaia: A Harvest of Essays
in Buddhism and Ecology, edited by Allan Hunt Badiner, 1419. Berkeley, CA: Parallax
Press, 1990.
Del Colle, Ralph. Christ and the Spirit: Spirit-Christology in Trinitarian Perspective. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1994.
Dhamma, Rewata. Sunyata-Emptiness and Self-Emptying-Kenosis. Middle-Way 68 (1993):
7784.
Dharmapala, Anagarika. The Worlds Debt to Buddha. In The Dawn of Religious Pluralism:
Voices from the Worlds Parliament of Religion, 1893, edited by Richard Hughes Seager,
41019. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1993.
Dharmasiri, Gunapala. A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God. Antioch, CA:
Golden Leaves, 1988.
Dhonden, Yeshi. Healing from the Sources: The Science and Lore of Tibetan Medicine. Edited
by B. Alan Wallace. Translated by B. Alan Wallace. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion, 2000.
Dillon, John A. Jr. Foundations of General Systems Theory. Seaside, CA: Intersystems Pub-
lications, 1983.
Dilworth, David. The Concrete World of Action in Nishidas Later Thought. In Japanese
Phenomenology: Phenomenology as the Trans-cultural Philosophical Approach, edited by
Yoshinoro Nitta and Hirotaka Tatematsu, 24970. Analecta Husserliana: The Yearbook
of Phenomenological Research 8. Dordrecht, Boston and London: D. Reidel Publishing
Company, 1979.
Dow, Tsung-I. Modern Science and the Rediscovery of Buddhism. In Buddhism and
the Emerging World Civilization: Essays in Honor of Nolan Pliny Jacobson, edited by
Ramakrishna Puligandla and David Lee Miller, 11324. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1996.
Dowd, Michael. Earthspirit: A Handbook for Nurturing an Ecological Christianity. Mystic,
CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1991.
 bibliography 253

Dunne, John S. The Way of All the Earth: Experiments in Truth and Religion. New York:
Macmillan, and London: Collier Macmillan, 1972.
Eckel, Malcolm David. The Concept of the Ultimate in Madhyamaka Thought: In Mem-
ory of Frederick Streng. In The Sound of Liberating Truth: Buddhist-Christian Dialogues,
edited by Sallie B. King and Paul O. Ingram, 84100. Richmond, VA: Curzon, 1999.
. Is There a Buddhist Philosophy of Nature? In Buddhism and Ecology: The Intercon-
nection of Dharma and Deeds, edited by Mary Evelyn Tucker and Duncan Ryuken Wil-
liams, 32749. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Edwards, Denis. Breath of Life: A Theology of the Creator Spirit. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2004.
. The Discovery of Chaos and the Retrieval of the Trinity. In Chaos and Complexity:
Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy,
and Arthur R. Peacocke, 15775. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, and Berkeley,
CA: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995.
Fagg, Lawrence W. The Becoming of Time: Integrating Physical and Religious Time. Atlanta,
GA: Scholars Press, 1995.
. Electromagnetism and the Sacred: At the Frontier of Spirit and Matter. New York:
Continuum, 1999.
Fenner, Peter. The Ontology of the Middle Way. Studies of Classical India 11. Dordrecht,
Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990.
Ferguson, Kitty. The Fire in the Equations: Science Religion & Search For God. Philadelphia,
PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004.
Fittipaldi, Silvio E. Zen-Mind, Christian-Mind, Empty-Mind. Journal of Ecumenical Studies
19, no. 1 (1982): 6984.
Flanagan, Owen. Consciousness Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA, and London: Bradford Book/
The MIT Press, 1992.
Ford, David F. Self and Salvation: Being Transformed. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999.
Fox, Douglas A. The Heart of Buddhist Wisdom: A Translation of the Heart Sutra with Histori-
cal Introduction and Commentary. Studies in Asian Thought and Religion 3. Lewiston,
Queenston, Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1985.
Frank, Adam. The Constant Fire: Beyond the Science vs. Religion Debate. Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press, 2009.
Fredericks, James. The Kyoto School: Modern Buddhist Philosophy and the Search for a
Transcultural Theology. Horizons 15, no. 2 (1988): 299315.
Friedman, Norman. Bridging Science and Spirit: Common Elements in David Bohms Phys-
ics, the Perennial Philosophy and Seth. 1990. Reprint, St. Louis, MO: Living Lake Books,
1994.
Gabel, Peter. Creationism and Evolution: Radical Perspectives on the Confrontation of
Spirit and Science. Tikkun 2, no. 5 (1987): 5563.
Garfield, Jay L. Empty Words: Buddhist Philosophy and Cross-Cultural Interpretation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Genz, Henning. Nothingness: The Science of Empty Space. Translated by Karin Heusch.
Reading, MA: Perseus Books, 1999.
Gethin, Rupert. The Foundations of Buddhism. New York and Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998.
Gillman, Ian. Some Reflections on the Self in Christianity and BuddhismAfter and
Beyond Those of Lynn De Silva. Asia Journal of Theology 1, no. 1 (1987): 10612.
Gimello, Robert. Li Tung-Hsan and the Practical Dimensions of Hua-yen. In Studies in
Chan and Hua-yen, edited by Robert Gimello and Peter N. Gregory, 32189. Studies in
East Asian Buddhism 1. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1983.
Giultsis, Vassilios. Creation and the Ecological Problem. In Come Holy SpiritRenew the
Whole Creation: An Orthodox approach for the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of
Churches, Canberra, Australia 621 February 1991, edited by Gennadios Limouris, 23449.
Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1990.
254 bibliography

Gleick, James. Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking, 1987.
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Complexity and the Function of Mind in Nature. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1996.
Goleman, Daniel, ed. Healing Emotions: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Mindfulness,
Emotions, and Health. Boston, MA, and London: Shambhala, 1997.
Goleman, Daniel, and Robert A.F. Thurman, eds. MindScience: An East-West Dialogue. Bos-
ton, MA: Wisdom, 1991.
Goodman, Felicitas D. How about Demons? Possession and Exorcism in the Modern World.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
. Where the Spirits Ride the Wind: Trance Journeys and Other Ecstatic Experiences.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.
Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York:
Ballantine, 1999.
Green, Joel B. BodiesThat Is, Human Lives: A Re-examination of Human Nature in the
Bible. In Whatever Happened to the Soul? Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human
Nature, edited by Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy, and H. Newton Malony, 14973.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998.
. Body, Soul, and Human Life: The Nature of Humanity in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2008.
. What Does It Mean to Be Human? Another Chapter in the Ongoing Interaction
of Science and Scripture. In From Cells to Soulsand Beyond: Changing Portraits of
Human Nature, edited by Malcolm Jeeves, 17998. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge,
UK: Eerdmans, 2004.
Gregersen, Niels Henrik. From Anthropic Design to Self-Organized Complexity. In
From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of Life and Meaning, edited by Niels Henrik
Gregersen, 20634. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
. Gods Public Trafffic: Holist versus Physicalist Supervenience. In The Human Person
in Science and Theology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, Willem B. Drees, and Ulf Gr-
man, 15388. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000.
Gregersen, Niels Henrik, and J. Wentzel van Huyssteen, eds. Rethinking Theology and Sci-
ence: Six Models for the Current Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Wil-
liam B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998.
Gregory, Peter N. The Problem of Theodicy in the Awakening of Faith. Religious Studies
22 (1986): 6378.
. The Teaching of Men and Gods: The Doctrinal and Social Basis of Lay Buddhist
Practice in the Hua-yen Tradition. In Studies in Chan and Hua-yen, edited by Robert
Gimello and Peter N. Gregory, 252319. Studies in East Asian Buddhism 1. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press, 1983.
. What Happened to the Perfect Teaching? Another Look at Hua-yen Buddhist
Hermeneutics. In Buddhist Hermeneutics, edited by Donald S. Jr. Lopez, 20730. Stud-
ies in East Asian Buddhism 6. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1988.
Gregory, Peter N., ed. Sudden and Gradual: Approaches to Enlightenment in Chinese Thought.
Studies in East Asian Buddhism 5. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
Grenz, Stanley J. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago
Dei. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Grifffin, David Ray. Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body
Problem. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998.
Grifffin, David Ray, ed. Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time: Bohm, Prigogine, and
Process Philosophy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986.
. The Reenchantment of Science: Postmodern Proposals. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 1988.
Grifffiths, Paul J. An Apology for Apologetics: A Study in the Logic of Interreligious Dialogue.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
 bibliography 255

Grimm, George. Buddhist Wisdom: The Mystery of the Self. Edited by M. Keller-Grimm.
Translated by Carroll Aiken. 2nd rev. ed. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1978.
Grosnick, William. The Buddhahood of the Trees and the Trees: Ecological Sensitivity or
Scriptural Misunderstanding? In An Ecology of the Spirit: Religious Reflection and Envi-
ronmental Consciousness, edited by Michael Barnes, 197208. The Annual Publication
of the College Theology Society 36. Lanham, New York and London: University Press
of America, 1994.
Gunton, Colin. The One, the Three, and the Many: God, Creation and the Culture of Moder-
nity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
. The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Study. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cam-
bridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1998.
Gurwitsch, Aron. The Field of Consciousness. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, 1964.
Habito, Ruben L.F. Healing Breath: Zen Spirituality for a Wounded Earth. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1993.
. Total Liberation: Zen Spirituality and the Social Dimension. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books, 1989.
Hall, Eric. Kenosis, Sunyata, and Comportment: Interreligious Discourse beyond Con-
cepts. Journal of Interreligious Dialogue 7. [http://irdialogue.org/category/journal/
issue07/] (August 2011).
Hallman, David G., ed. Ecotheology: Voices from South and North. Geneva, Switzerland:
WCC Publications, and Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1994.
Hamar, Imre. Interpretation of Yogcra Philosophy in Huayan Buddhism. Journal of Chi-
nese Philosophy 37, no. 2 (2010): 18197.
Happel, Stephen. Metaphors for Gods Time in Science and Religion. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2002.
Harman, P.M. Energy, Force, and Matter: The Conceptual Development of Nineteenth-
Century Physics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
Harrington, Anne, and Arthur Zajonc. The Dalai Lama at MIT. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2006.
Harris, Ian. Buddhism and Ecology. In Contemporary Buddhist Ethics, edited by Damien
Keown, 11335. Richmond, UK: Curzon, 2000.
Harvey, Peter. The Selfless Mind: Personality, Consciousness and Nirvana in Early Buddhism.
Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 1995.
Hasker, William. The Emergent Self. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press,
1999.
Hayles, N. Katherine. Making the Cut: The Interplay of Narrative and System, or What
Systems Theory Cant See. In Observing Complexity: Systems Theory and Postmodernity,
edited by William Rasch and Cary Wolfe, 13762. Minneapolis, MN, and London: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, 2000.
Hayward, Jeremy W. Shifting Worlds, Changing Minds: Where the Sciences and Buddhism
Meet. London: New Science Library, and Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1987.
Hayward, Jeremy W., and Francisco J. Varela, eds. Gentle Bridges: Conversations with the
Dalai Lama on the Sciences of Mind. Boston, MA, and London: Shambhala, 1992.
Hefner, Philip J. The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion. Minneapolis, MN:
Augsburg Fortress, 1993.
. Self-definition of Life and Human Purpose: Reflections upon the Divine Spirit and
the Human Spirit. Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 8 (1973): 395411.
Heine, Steven. The Buddha or the Bomb: Ethical Implications in Nishitani Keijis Zen
View of Science. In Buddhist Ethics and Modern Society: An International Symposium,
edited by Charles Wei-hsun Fu and Sandra A. Wawrytko, 28195. Contributions to the
Study of Religion 31. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1991.
. Philosophy for an Age of Death: The Critique of Science and Technology in
Heidegger and Nishitani. Philosophy East and West 40, no. 2 (1990): 17593.
256 bibliography

Heisig, James W. Philosophers of Nothingness: An Essay on the Kyoto School. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press, 2001.
Heisig, James W., and John C. Maraldo, eds. Rude Awakenings: Zen, the Kyoto School, and
the Question of Nationalism. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1994.
Heller, Michael. Creative Tension: Essays on Science and Religion. Philadelphia, PA, and
London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2003.
Hendry, George S. Theology of Nature. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1980.
Hesse, Mary B. Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Phys-
ics. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1961.
Hick, John. An Interpretation of Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press, 1991.
Hirota, Dennis, ed. Toward a Contemporary Understanding of Pure Land Buddhism: Creat-
ing a Shin Buddhist Theology in a Religiously Plural World. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 2000.
Hodgson, Peter C. Winds of the Spirit: A Constructive Christian Theology. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1994.
Holland, John H. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Reading, MA: Helix Books, 1998.
. Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
1995.
Honda, Winston. The Encounter of Christianity with the Buddhist Logic of Soku: An Essay
in Topological Theology. In Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Mutual Renewal and Transfor-
mation, edited by Paul O. Ingram and Frederick J. Streng, 21730. Honolulu, HI: Univer-
sity of Hawaii Press, 1986.
Hood, Ralph W. Jr. Methodological Agnosticism for the Social Sciences? Lessons from
Sorokins and Jamess Allusions to Psychoanalysis, Mysticism and Godly Love. In
Matthew T. Lee and Amos Yong, eds., The Science and Theology of Godly Love, 12140.
DeKalb, Ill., Northern Illinois University Press, 2012.
Houshmand, Zara, Robert B. Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, eds. Consciousness at the
Crossroads: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism. Ithaca,
NY: Snow Lion, 1999.
Hubbard, Jamie, and Paul L. Swanson. Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Bud-
dhism. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1997.
Huchingson, James E. Pandemonium Tremendum: Chaos and Mystery in the Life of God.
Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2001.
Hull, Fritz, ed. Earth and Spirit: The Spiritual Dimension of the Environmental Crisis. New
York: Continuum, 1993.
Humphreys, Christmas. Buddhism. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1951.
Huntington, C.W. Jr., and Gesh Namgyal Wangchen. The Emptiness of Emptiness: An Intro-
duction to Early Indian Madhyamika. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1989.
Htter, Reinhard. Sufffering Divine Things: Theology as Church Practice. Grand Rapids, MI,
and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2000.
Inada, Kenneth K. Nagarjuna: A Translation of His Mulamadhyamakakarika with an Intro-
ductory Essay. Tokyo: The Hokuseido Press, 1970.
. Problematics of the Buddhist Nature of Self. Philosophy East and West 29, no. 2
(1979): 14158.
Ingram, Paul O. Buddhist-Christian Dialogue in an Age of Science. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2008.
. The Process of Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009.
Irvin, Dale T. Christian Histories, Christian Traditioning: Rendering Accounts. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis, 1998.
Isaacs, Marie E. The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bear-
ing on the New Testament. Heythrop Monographs 1. London: Heythrop Journal, 1976.
Issar, Arie S., and Robert G. Colodny. From Primeval Chaos to Infinite Intelligence: On Informa-
tion as a Dimension and on Entropy as a Field of Force. Aldershot, UK: Avebury, 1995.
 bibliography 257

Ives, Christopher, ed. Divine Emptiness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian

Conversation with Masao Abe. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Jammer, Max. Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics. Cambridge: Har-
vard University Press, 1957. Reprinted with corrections, New York: Harper Torchbooks
and The Science Library, 1962.
Jansen, Henry. Relationality and the Concept of God. Currents of Encounter 10. Amsterdam
and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1995.
Jantzen, Grace M. Healing Our Brokenness: The Spirit and Creation. In Readings in Ecol-
ogy and Feminist Theology, edited by Mary Heather MacKinnon and Moni McIntyre,
28498. Kansas City, KS: Sheed and Ward, 1995.
Jayatilleke, K.N., Robert F. Spencer, and Wu Shu. Buddhism and Science: Collected Essays.
Kandy, Ceylon: Buddhist Publication Society, 1958.
Jeeves, Malcolm. Mind Fields: Reflections on the Science of Mind and Brain. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Books, 1993.
Jeeves, Malcolm A., and R.J. Berry. Science, Life and Christian Belief: A Survey of Contempo-
rary Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998.
Jensen, David H. In the Company of Others: A Dialogical Christology. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim,
2001.
Jenson, Robert W. Cosmic Spirit. In Christian Dogmatics, edited by Robert W. Jenson and
Carl Braaten, 2:16578. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1984.
Johannson, Rune E.A. The Dynamic Psychology of Early Buddhism. Scandinavian Institute
of Asian Studies Monograph Series 37. Oxford: Curzon Press, 1979.
. The Psychology of Nirvana. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1970.
Johnson, Elisabeth A. Women, Earth, and the Creator Spirit. New York and Mahwah, NJ:
Paulist Press, 1993.
Johnson, George. Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order. New York:
Knopf, 1995.
Johnson, Keith E. Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assess-
ment. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.
Johnson, Steven. Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software. New
York: Scribner, 2001.
Jones, Richard H. Science and Mysticism: A Comparative Study of Western Natural Science,
Theravada Buddhism, and Advaita Vedanta. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press,
and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1986.
Kadowaki, J.K., SJ. Zen and the Bible: A Priests Experience. Translated by Joan Rieck. Lon-
don: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1980.
Kafatos, Menas, and Robert Nadeau. The Conscious Universe: Part and Whole in Modern
Physical Theory. New York and Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1990.
Kallenberg, Brad J. All Sufffer the Afffliction of the One: Metaphysical Holism and the Pres-
ence of the Spirit. Christian Scholars Review 31, no. 2 (2001): 21734.
Kalupahana, David J. Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. Honolulu, HI: The
University of Hawaii Press, 1975.
. The Principles of Buddhist Psychology. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
1987.
Krkkinen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to the Theology of Religions: Biblical, Historical and
Contemporary Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003.
. Pneumatology: The Holy Spirit in Ecumenical, International, and Contextual Perspec-
tive. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Kass, Leon R. Evolution and the Bible: Genesis 1 Revisited. Commentary 86 (1988): 2939.
Kasulis, T.P. Zen Action Zen Person. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1981.
Kaufffman, Stuart A. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. New
York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Kaufman, Gordon. God, Mystery, Diversity: Christian Theology in a Pluralistic World. Min-
neapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
258 bibliography

Kaza, Stephanie. To Save All Beings: Buddhist Environmental Activism. In Engaged Bud-
dhism in the West, edited by Christopher S. Queen, 15983. Boston, MA: Wisdom Pub-
lications, 2000.
Kaza, Stephanie, and Kenneth Kraft, eds. Dharma Rain: Sources of Buddhist Environmental-
ism. Boston, MA, and London: Shambhala, 2000.
Keenan, John P. The Genesis of All Our Dependently Arisen Histories: The Divine Plan of
Creation. In Buddhist Studies from India to America: Essays in Honor of Charles S. Preb-
ish, edited by Damien Keown, 26069. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.
Keenan, John P. et al. Grounding Our Faith in a Pluralistic World: With a Little Help from
Ngrjuna. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.
Keiji, Nishitani. Nishida Kitaro. Translated by Yamamoto Seisaku and James W. Heisig.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991.
Keller, Catherine. Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming. New York: Routledge, 2003.
Kemp, Hendrika Vende. The Tension between Psychology and Theology: The Etymologi-
cal Roots. Journal of Pastoral Psychology and Theology 10, no. 2 (1982): 10512.
Kiblinger, Kristin Beise. Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes toward Religious Others. Burlington,
VT, and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2005.
Kim, Jaegwon. Downward Causation in Emergentism and Nonreductive Physicalism.
In Emergence or Reduction? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, edited
by Ansgar Beckermann, Hans Flohr, and Jaegwon Kim, 11938. Berlin and New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
. The Mind-Body Problem after Fifty Years. In Current Issues in Philosophy of Mind,
edited by Anthony OHear, 321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
. The Myths of Nonreductive Materialism. In The Mind-Body Problem: A Guide to the
Current Debate, edited by Richard Warner and Tadeusz Szubka, 24260. Oxford, UK,
and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994.
. The Non-Reductivists Troubles with Mental Causation. In Mental Causation, edited
by John Heil and Alfred Mele, 189210. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
. Supervenience and Mind: Selected Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1993.
King, Winston. No-Self, No-Mind, and Emptiness Revisited. In Buddhist-Christian Dia-
logue: Mutual Renewal and Transformation, edited by Paul O. Ingram and Frederick J.
Streng, 15576. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1986.
Kirk, James. Organicism as Reenchantment: Whitehead, Prigogine, and Barth. American
University Studies V, Philosophy 167. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.
Kirshner, Robert P. The Extravagant Universe: Exploding Stars, Dark Energy and the Accel-
erating Cosmos. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.
Kirthisinghe, Buddhadasa P., ed. Buddhism and Science. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984.
Kloetzli, W. Randolph. Buddhist Cosmology: Science and Theology in the Images of Motion
and Light. 1983. Reprint, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1989.
Knitter, Paul F. Introducing Theologies of Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2002.
. Jesus and the Other Names: Christian Mission and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1995.
. One Earth Many Religions: Multifaith Dialogue and Global Responsibility. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1995.
. Without Buddha I Could Not Be a Christian. Oxford: Oneworld, 2009.
Kopf, Gereon. Beyond Personal Identity: Dogen, Nishida, and a Phenomenology of No-Self.
Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2001.
Koyama, Kosuke. Observation and Revelation: A Global Dialogue with Buddhism. In God
and Globalization, Vol. 3: Christ and the Dominions of Civilization, edited by Max L. Stack-
house and Diane B. Obenchain, 23971. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.
Kraft, William F. A Psychology of Nothingness. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1974.
Lai, Pan-Chiu. Buddhist-Christian Complementarity in the Perspective of Quantum Phys-
ics. Buddhist-Christian Studies 22 (2002): 14962.
 bibliography 259

. Buddhist-Christian Studies in a Scientific Age: A Case Study of Burnett Hillman

Streeter (18741937). Studies in Interreligious Dialogue 19 (2009): 3449.
Lakofff, George, and Mark Johnson. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its
Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
Lamoureux, Denis O. Evolutionary Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution. Eugene, OR:
Wipf & Stock, 2008.
Langer, Monika M. Merleau-Pontys Phenomenology of Perception: A Guide and Commen-
tary. Tallahassee, FL: The Florida State University Press, 1989.
Lash, Nicholas. Recovering Contingency. In Consciousness and Human Identity, edited by
John Cornwell, 197211. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Laszlo, Ervin. Introduction to Systems Philosophy: Toward a New Paradigm of Contemporary
Thought. 1972. Reprint, New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1973.
. Science and the Akashic Field: An Integral Theory of Everything. 2nd ed. Rosemont,
VT: Inner Traditions, 2007.
. Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality.
Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2006.
. A Strategy for the Future: The Systems approach to World Order. New York: George
Braziller, 1974.
. The Systems View of the World: The Natural Philosophy of the New Developments in the
Sciences. New York: George Braziller, 1972.
Lee, Agnes C.J. Mahayana Teaching of No-Self and Christian Kenosis. Ching-Feng 28,
no. 23 (1985): 13051.
Lee, Archie Chi-Chung. Creation Narratives and the Movement of the Spirit. In Doing
Theology with the Spirits Movement in Asia, edited by John C. England and Alan J. Tor-
rance, 1526. ATESEA Occasional Papers 11. Singapore: ATESEA, 1991.
Lee, Bernard. God as Spirit. In Empirical Theology: A Handbook, edited by Randolph
Crump Miller, 12941. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press, 1992.
Levenson, Jon D. Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipo-
tence. New York: Harper & Row, 1987.
Levison, John H. Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009.
Lewin, Roger. Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos. New York: Macmillan Publishing Com-
pany, 1992.
Lewis, I.M. Ecstatic Religion: A Study of Shamanism and Spirit Possession. London: Rout-
ledge, 1989.
Lewontin, Richard. The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Cambridge, MA,
and London: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Lilienfeld, Robert. The Rise of Systems Theory: An Ideological Analysis. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1978.
Limouris, Gennadios. Come Holy SpiritRenew the Whole Creation: Pneumatology in
Symphony with Christology. In Come Holy SpiritRenew the Whole Creation: An Ortho-
dox approach for the Seventh Assembly of the World Council of Churches, Canberra, Aus-
tralia 621 February 1991, edited by Gennadios Limouris, 719. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross
Orthodox Press, 1990.
Lindbeck, George. The Nature of Doctrine: Religion and Theology in a Postliberal Age. Phila-
delphia, PA: Westminster, 1984.
Lindtner, Chr. Nagarjuniana: Studies in the Writings and Philosophy of Nagarjuna. Indiske
Studier IV. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1982.
Liu, Ming-Wood. Madhyamaka Thought in China. Sinica leidensia 30. Leiden, New York
and Kln: E. J. Brill, 1994.
Lochhead, David. The Dialogical Imperative: A Christian Reflection on Interfaith Encounter.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989.
Lodahl, Michael E. God of Nature and of Grace: Reading the World in a Wesleyan Way. Nash-
ville, TN: Kingswood Books, 2003.
260 bibliography

. Una Natura Divina, Tres Nescio Quid: What Sorts of Personae are Divine Personae?
Wesleyan Theological Journal 36, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 21830.
Loder, James E. The Logic of Spirit: Human Development in Theological Perspective. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Loder, James E., and W. Jim Niedhardt. Barth, Bohr and Dialectic. In Religion and Sci-
ence: History, Method, Dialogue, edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman,
27189. New York and London: Routledge, 1996.
. The Knights Move: The Relational Logic of the Spirit in Theology and Science. Colorado
Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard, 1992.
Lonergan, Bernard. Method in Theology. New York: Herder & Herder, 1972.
Lopez, Donald S. Jr. Buddhism and Science: A Guide for the Perplexed. Chicago, IL, and
London: The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Lorentz, Todd. Replanting the Bodhi Tree: New Paradigms for Buddhist Philosophy from
Quantum Physics. Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1, no. 2 (2000):
22742.
Loy, David. Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Human-
ities Press, 1997.
Macchia, Frank D. Justification and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Reflection on the Doctrine
by which the Church Stands or Falls. PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal
Studies 22 (2000): 322.
. Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God. Grand Rapids, MI,
and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
MacDonald, Paul S. History of the Concept of Mind: Speculations about Soul, Mind and Spirit
from Homer to Hume. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003.
Machuga, Ric. In Defense of the Soul: What It Means to Be Human. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos
Press, 2002.
Mackinnon, Edward. Complementarity. In Religion and Science: History, Method, Dia-
logue, edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, 25570. New York and
London: Routledge, 1996.
MacLean, Paul D. The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions. New York
and London: Plenum Press, 1990.
Macy, Joanna. Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press, 1991.
Magee, Glenn Alexander. Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cor-
nell University Press, 2001.
Magliola, Robert, and David Loy. In No Wise is Healing Holistic: A Deconstructive Alter-
native to Masao Abes Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata. In Healing Deconstruction:
Postmodern Thought in Buddhism and Christianity, edited by David Loy, 99118. AAR
Reflection and Theory in the Study of Religion 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996.
Magueijo, Joo. Faster than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation. Cam-
bridge, MA: Perseus Book Group, 2003.
Makransky, John. Buddhist Inclusivism: Reflections toward a Contemporary Buddhist
Theology of Religions. In Buddhist Attitudes to Other Religions, edited by Perry Schmidt-
Leukel, 4768. St. Ottilien, Germany: EOS Editions, 2008.
Manimala, Varghese J. Being, Person, and Community: A Study of Intersubjectivity in Existen-
tialism with Special Reference to Marcel, Sartre, and the Concept of Sangha in Buddhism.
New Delhi: Intercultural Publications, 1991.
Mansfield, Victor. Head and Heart: A Personal Exploration of Science and the Sacred.
Wheaton, IL: Quest Books, 2002.
. Madhyamika Buddhism and Quantum Mechanics: Beginning a Dialogue. Interna-
tional Philosophical Quarterly 29, no. 4 (1989): 37191.
. Synchronicity, Science, and Soul-Making: Understanding Jungian Synchronicity
through Physics, Buddhism, and Philosophy. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1995.
. Tibetan Buddhism and Modern Physics: Toward a Union of Love and Knowledge. West
Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2008.
 bibliography 261

Matsuo, Hosaku. The Logic of Unity: The Discovery of Zero and Emptiness in Prajaparamita
Thought. Translated by Kenneth K. Inada. Albany, NY: State University of New York
Press, 1987.
Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realiza-
tion of the Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 42. London, Boston, and
Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1980.
. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Translated by
J.Z. Young. Rev. ed. Boston, MA, and London: Shambhala, 1992.
Maybaum, Ignaz. Trialogue between Jew, Christian and Muslim. London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1973.
McCagney, Nancy. Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Openness. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997.
McCall, Bradford. Kenosis and Emergence: A Theological Synthesis. Zygon: Journal of Sci-
ence and Religion 45, no. 1 (2010): 14964.
McClendon, James William Jr. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1986, 1994, 2000.
McCutcheon, Russell T., ed. The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion: A Reader.
London and New York: Cassell, 1998.
McDaniel, Jay. Where is the Holy Spirit Anyway? Response to a Sceptic Environmental-
ist. Ecumenical Review 42, no. 2 (1990): 16274.
McDermott, Gerald R. Can Evangelicals Learn from World Religions? Jesus, Revelation, and
Religious Traditions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
. What If Paul Had Been From China? Reflections on the Possibility of Revelation in
Non-Christian Religions. In No Other Gods before Me? Evangelicals and the Challenge
of World Religions, edited by John G. Stackhouse Jr., 1736. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Academic, 2001.
McGrath, Alister E. The Reenchantment of Nature: The Denial of Religion and the Ecological
Crisis. New York: Doubleday, 2002.
. A Scientific Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 20012003.
McIntyre, John. The Shape of Pneumatology: Studies in the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Edin-
burgh: T & T Clark, 1997.
McLaughlin, Brian P. The Rise and Fall of British Emergentism. In Emergence or Reduc-
tion? Essays on the Prospects of Nonreductive Physicalism, edited by Ansgar Beckermann,
Hans Flohr, and Jaegwon Kim, 4993. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1992.
Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. Phenomenology of Perception. Translated by Colin Smith. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul; New York: The Humanities Press, 1962.
Meye, Robert P. Invitation to Wonder: Toward a Theology of Nature. In Tending the Gar-
den: Essays on the Gospel and the Earth, edited by Wesley Granberg-Michaelson, 3049.
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987.
Meyering, Theo C. Reduction and Explanation in the Mind/Brain Sciences. CTNS Bulletin
19, no. 1 (1999): 512.
Miles, Todd L. A God of Many Understandings?: The Gospel and Theology of Religions. Nash-
ville, TN: B & H Academic, 2010.
Mills, Ethan. Buddhism and Science: A Comparison of Methods. MA Thesis, Hamline
University, 1999.
Mitchell, Donald W. The Place of the Self in Christian Spirituality: A Response to the
Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. Japanese Religions 13, no. 3 (December 1984): 226.
. Spirituality and Emptiness: The Dynamics of Spiritual Life in Buddhism and Christian-
ity. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1991.
, ed. Masao Abe: A Zen Life of Dialogue. Boston, MA: C.E. Tuttle, 1998.
Moltmann, Jrgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Eccle-
siology. Translated by Margaret Kohl. New York: Harper & Row, 1977.
. God in Creation: A New Theology of Creation and the Spirit of God. Translated by
Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
262 bibliography

. Perichoresis: An Old Magic Word for a New Trinitarian Theology. In Trinity, Com-
munity, and Power: Mapping Trajectories in Wesleyan Theology, edited by M. Douglas
Meeks, 11125. Nashville, TN: Kingswood Books, 2000.
. Reflections on Chaos and Gods Interaction with the World from a Trinitarian
Perspective. In Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited
by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, and Arthur R. Peacocke, 20510. Vatican City
State: Vatican Observatory, and Berkeley, CA: Center for Theology and the Natural Sci-
ences, 1995.
. Science and Wisdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress,
2003.
. The Source of Life: The Holy Spirit and the Theology of Life. Translated by Margaret
Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1997.
. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Afffirmation. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 1992.
. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San
Francisco, CA: Harper & Row, 1981.
Moore, Thomas. The Re-Enchantment of Everyday Life. New York: HarperPerennial, 1997.
Moreland, J.P., and Scott B. Rae. Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Morgan, Lloyd C. Emergent Evolution: The Giffford Lectures Delivered in the University of
St. Andrews in the Year 1922. New York: Henry Holt and Company, and London: Williams
and Norgate Ltd., 1927.
. Life, Mind, and Spirit: Being the Second Course of The Giffford Lectures Delivered in the
University of St Andrews in the Year 1923 under the General Title of Emergent Evolution.
London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1926.
Morgante, Amy, ed. Buddhist Perspectives on the Earth Charter. Cambridge, MA: Boston
Research Center for the 21st Century, 1997.
Morowitz, Harold J. The Emergence of Everything: How the World Became Complex. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
. Emergence of Transcendence. In From Complexity to Life: On the Emergence of
Life and Meaning, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, 17786. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2003.
Murphy, George L. The Cosmos in the Light of the Cross. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Inter-
national, 2003.
. The Third Article in the Science-Theology Dialogue. Perspectives on Science and
Christian Faith 45, no. 3 (1993): 16269.
Murphy, Nancey. Anglo-American Postmodernity: Philosophical Perspectives on Science,
Religion, and Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
. Neuroscience and Human Nature: A Christian Perspective. In God, Life, and the
Cosmos: Christian and Islamic Perspectives, edited by Ted Peters and Muzafffar Iqbal,
35789. Burlington, VT, and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002.
. Supervenience and the Nonreducibility of Ethics to Biology. In Evolutionary and
Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Rus-
sell, William R. Stoeger, SJ, and Francisco J. Ayala, 46389. Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory Publications, and Berkeley, CA: Center for Theology and the Natural Sci-
ences, 1998.
Murphy, Nancey, and George F.R. Ellis. On the Moral Nature of the Universe: Theology, Cos-
mology, and Ethics. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1996.
Murti, T.R.V. The Central Philosophy of Buddhism: A Study of the Madhyamika System. 2nd
ed. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1960.
Muto, Kazuo. Immanent Transcendence in Religion. Japanese Religions 12, no. 1 (1981):
120.
Nagao, Gadjin. The Foundational Standpoint of Madhyamika Philosophy. Translated by
John P. Keenan. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1989.
 bibliography 263

Narlikar, Jayant V. Concept of Time in Science. In Science, Spirituality and the Future:
A Vision for the Twenty-First CenturyEssays in Honour of His Holiness The Fourteenth
Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, edited by L.L. Mehrotra, 10312. New Delhi: Mudrit, 1999.
Neill, Stephen. The Christian Faith and Other Faiths. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1984.
Nesteruk, Alexei V. Design in the Universe and the Logos of Creation: Patristic Synthesis
and Modern Cosmology. In Design and Disorder: Perspectives from Science and Theol-
ogy, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen and Ulf Grman, 171202. London and New York:
T & T Clark, 2002.
. Light from the East: Theology, Science, and the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Minneapo-
lis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.
Neville, Robert Cummings. Behind the Masks of God: An Essay toward Comparative Theol-
ogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1991.
. Eternity and Times Flow. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.
. God the Creator: On the Transcendence and Presence of God. 1968. Reprint, Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
. Recovery of the Measure: Interpretation and Nature. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 1989.
. The Tao and the Daimon: Segments of a Religious Inquiry. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 1982.
Neville, Robert Cummings, ed. The Human Condition. Comparative Religious Ideas Project.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2000.
. Religious Truth. Comparative Religious Ideas Project. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 2000.
. Ultimate Realities. Comparative Religious Ideas Project. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press, 2000.
Newberg, Andrew B., Eugene G. DAquili, and Vince Rause. Why God Wont Go Away: Brain
Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2001.
Ni, Van. Christian-Buddhist Conversation: The Relevance of the Lynn A. De Silva approach
in the Context of Myanmar. ThM thesis, Western Theological Seminary, 1999.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. The Nature and Destiny of Man. 2 vols. 19411943. Reprint, New York:
Charles Scribners Sons, 1964.
Nishida, Kitaro. Fundamental Problems of Philosophy: The World of Action and the Dialecti-
cal World. Translated by David Dilworth. Tokyo: Sophia University, 1970.
. An Inquiry into the Good. Translated by Masao Abe and Christopher Ives. New Haven,
CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1990.
. Intelligibility and the Philosophy of Nothingness: Three Philosophical Essays. Translated
by Robert Schinzinger, in collaboration with I. Koyama, and T. Kojima. 1958. Reprint,
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1973.
. Last Writings: Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. Translated by David Dil-
worth. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1987.
. The World as Identity of Absolute Contradiction. In Sourcebook for Modern Japa-
nese Philosophy: Selected Documents, edited by David A. Dilworth, Valdo H. Viglielmo
and Agustin Jacinto Zavala, 5472. Westport, CT, and London: Greenwood Press, 1998.
Nishitani, Keiji. Religion and Nothingness. Translated by Jan van Bragt. Berkeley, CA: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1983.
. Science and Zen. In The Buddha Eye: An Anthology of the Kyoto School, edited by
Frederick Franck, 11137. New York: Crossroad, 1982.
. The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism. Translated by Graham Parkes and Setsuko Aihara.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1990.
Nobuhara, Tokiyuki. Sunyata, Kenosis, and Jihi or Friendly Compassionate Love: Toward a
Buddhist-Christian Theology of Loyalty. Japanese-Religions 15, no. 4 (1989): 5066.
Numrich, Paul D., ed. The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
264 bibliography

Ochs, Peter. Genesis 12: Creation as Evolution. Living Pulpit 9, no. 2 (AprilJune 2000):
810.
Odin, Steve. Abe Masao and the Kyoto School on Christian Kenosis and Buddhist Sunyata.
Japanese Religions 15, no. 3 (1989): 118.
. A Critique of the Kenosis/Sunyata Motif in Nishida and the Kyoto School. Buddhist-
Christian Studies 9 (1989): 7186.
. Process Metaphysics and Hua-yen Buddhism: A Critical Study of Cumulative Penetra-
tion vs. Interpenetration. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1982.
. The Social Self in Zen and American Pragmatism. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1996.
Okasha, Samir. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.
Olds, Linda E. Metaphors of Interrelatedness: Toward a Systems Theory of Psychology.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Olive, Don H. Wolfhart Pannenberg: Makers of the Modern Theological Mind. Waco, TX:
Word Books, 1973.
Oliver, Harold H. Metaphysics, Theology, and Self: Relational Essays. Macon, GA: Mercer
University Press, 2006.
. Relatedness: Essays in Metaphysics and Theology. Macon, GA: Mercer University
Press, 1984.
. A Relational Metaphysic. The Hague, Boston and London: Martinus Nijhofff, 1981.
Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
1999.
OMurchu, Diarmuid, MSC. Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the New Physics.
New York: Crossroad, 1997.
Pandit, Moti Lal. Snyat: The Essence of Mahyna Spirituality. New Delhi: Munshiram
Manoharlal Publishers, 1998.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Basic Questions in Theology: Collected Essays. Translated by George
H. Kehm. Vol. II. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1971.
. God as Spiritand Natural Science. Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 36,
no. 4 (2001): 78394.
. Gods Love and the Kenosis of the Son: A Response to Masao Abe. In Divine Empti-
ness and Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe,
edited by Christopher Ives, 24450. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
. Systematic Theology. Translated by Geofffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 1994.
. Toward a Theology of Nature: Essays on Science and Faith. Edited by Ted Peters.
Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993.
Park, Jin Y. Buddhism and Postmodernity: Zen, Huayen, and the Possibility of a Buddhist
Postmodern Ethics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2008.
Park, Sung Bae. Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment. Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press, 1983.
Partovi, M. Hossein. Entropy and Quantum Mechanics. In Complexity, Entropy and the
Physics of Information: The Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Complexity, Entropy,
and the Physics of Information Held May-June, 1989, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, edited by
Wojciech H. Zurek, 35666. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity 8.
Redwood City, CA, and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990.
Payne, Richard K. Buddhism and the Sciences: Historical Background, Contemporary
Developments. In Bridging Science and Religion, edited by Ted Peters and Gaymon
Bennett, 15372. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.
Peacocke, Arthur. Chance and Law in Irreversible Thermodynamics, Theoretical Biol-
ogy, and Theology. In Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action,
edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, and Arthur Peacocke, 12343. Vatican
City State: Vatican Observatory, and Berkeley, CA: Center for Theology and the Natural
Sciences, 1995.
 bibliography 265

. God and the New Biology. San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row, 1986.
. The Incarnation of the Informing Self-Expressive Word of God. In Religion and Sci-
ence: History, Method, Dialogue, edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman,
32139. New York and London: Routledge, 1996.
. Theology for a Scientific Age: Being and BecomingNatural, Divine, and Human.
Enlarged ed. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993.
Pedersen, Olaf. The Book of Nature. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications,
1992.
Pegis, Anton Charles. St. Thomas and the Problem of the Soul in the Thirteenth Century.
Toronto: St. Michaels College, 1934.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Fixation of Belief. In The Essential Peirce: Selected Philo-
sophical Writings, 18671893, edited by Nathan Houser and Christian Kloesel, 10923.
Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press, 1992.
Penfield, Wilder. The Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human
Brain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Persinger, Michael A. Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs. New York: Praeger, 1987.
Peters, Ted. God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 1993.
. Resurrection of the Very Embodied Soul? In Neuroscience and the Person: Scientific
Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, Theo C.
Meyering, and Michael A. Arbib, 30526. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publi-
cations, and Berkeley, CA: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1999.
. The Trinity in and Beyond Time. In Quantum Cosmology and the Laws of Nature:
Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy,
and C.J. Isham, 26389. 2nd ed. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory Publications,
and Berkeley, CA: The Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1996.
, ed. Cosmos as Creation: Theology and Science in Consonance. Nashville, TN: Abingdon
Press, 1989.
Peters, Ted, and Muzafffar Iqbal, eds. God, Life, and the Cosmos: Christian and Islamic Per-
spectives. Burlington, VT, and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002.
Peterson, Gregory R. Minding God: Theology and the Cognitive Sciences. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 2003.
Pettersson, Max. Complexity and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Pinnock, Sarah Katherine. Beyond Theodicy: Jewish and Christian Continental Thinkers
Respond to the Holocaust. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2002.
Plantinga, Amy Pauw. Personhood, Divine and Human. Perspectives: A Journal of Reformed
Thought 8, no. 2 (1993): 1214.
Polkinghorne, John. Chaos Theory and Divine Action. In Religion and Science: History,
Method, Dialogue, edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman, 24352. New
York and London: Routledge, 1996.
. The Metaphysics of Divine Action. In Chaos and Complexity: Scientific Perspectives
on Divine Action, edited by Robert John Russell, Nancey Murphy, and Arthur R. Pea-
cocke, 14756. Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory, and Berkeley, CA: Center for
Theology and the Natural Sciences, 1995.
. Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter with Reality. New Haven, CT, and
London: Yale University Press, 2004.
Polkinghorne, John, ed. The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cam-
bridge, UK: Eerdmans, and London: SPCK, 2001.
Popper, Karl R., and John C. Eccles. The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism.
New York: Springer International, 1977.
Potter, Robert. Self-Transcendence: The Human Spirit and the Holy Spirit. In Beginning
with the End: God, Science, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, edited by Carol Rausch Albright
and Joel Haugen, 11646. Chicago, IL: Open Court, 1997.
Powell, Samuel M. Participating in God: Creation and Trinity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 2003.
266 bibliography

Prichard, Rebecca Button. Sensing the Spirit: The Holy Spirit in Feminist Perspective.
St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 1999.
Prigogine, Ilya. From Being to Becoming: Time and Complexity in the Physical Sciences. San
Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1980.
Prigogine, Ilya, and Isabelle Stengers. Order Out of Chaos: Mans New Dialogue with Nature.
Toronto: Bantam Books, 1984.
Puddefoot, John C. Information Theory, Biology, and Christology. In Religion and Sci-
ence: History, Method, Dialogue, edited by W. Mark Richardson and Wesley J. Wildman,
30119. New York and London: Routledge, 1996.
Pugh, Jefffrey C. Entertaining the Triune Mystery: God, Science, and the Space Between. Har-
risburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003.
Pulver, Max. The Experience of the Pneuma in Philo. In Spirit and Nature: Papers from
the Eranos Yearbooks, edited by Joseph Campbell, translated by Ralph Manheim, 10721.
Bollingen Series 30.1. 1954. Reprint, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Pyysiinen, Ilkka. How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Cogni-
tion and Culture Book Series 1. Leiden, Boston and Kln: Brill, 2001.
Race, Alan. Christians and Religious Pluralism: Patterns in the Christian Theology of Reli-
gions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1982.
Raven, Charles E. The Creator Spirit: A Survey of Christian doctrine in the Light of Biology,
Psychology and Mysticism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928.
Ravindra, Ravi, ed. Science and Spirit. New York: Paragon House, 1991.
Rayan, Samuel. The Holy Spirit: Heart of the Gospel and Christian Hope. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books, 1978.
Reichenbach, Bruce. Omniscience and Deliberation. International Journal for Philosophy
of Religion 16 (1984): 22536.
Restivo, Sal P. Parallels and Paradoxes in Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism: IA
Critical Reconnaissance. Social Studies of Science 8, no. 2 (1978): 14381.
. Parallels and Paradoxes in Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism: IIA Sociologi-
cal Perspective on Parallelism. Social Studies of Science 12, no. 1 (1982): 3781.
Reynolds, Blair. Toward a Process Pneumatology. Selinsgrove: Suaquehanna University
Press, and London and Toronto: Associated University Presses, 1990.
Rhys Davids, T.W., trans. The Questions of King Milinda. 2 vols. Sacred Books of the East
3536. 1890. Reprint, New York: Dover, 1963.
Richard, Lucien J., OMI. A Kenotic Christology: In the Humanity of Jesus The Christ, The
Compassion of Our God. Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982.
Rice, Martin J. Universal Processes as Natural Impediments to and Facilitators of Godly
Love. In Godly Love: Impediments and Possibilities, edited by Matthew T. Lee and Amos
Yong, 17194. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2012.
Richie, Tony. Speaking by the Spirit: A Pentecostal Model for Interreligious Encounter and
Dialogue. Asbury Theological Seminary Series in World Christian Revitalization Move-
ments in Pentecostal/Charismatic Studies 6. Wilmore, KY: Emeth Press, 2011.
Roberts, Bernadette. The Experience of No-Self: A Contemplative Journey. Rev. ed. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.
. The Path to No-self: Life at the Center. Rev. ed. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press, 1991.
Robinson, Andrew. God and the World of Signs: Trinity, Evolution, and the Metaphysical
Semiotics of C.S. Peirce. Philosophical Studies in Science and Religion 2. Leiden and Bos-
ton: Brill, 2010.
Robinson, Richard H. Early Madhyamika in India and China. Milwaukee, MI, Madison, MI,
and London: The University of Milwaukee Press, 1970.
Rogers, Eugene F. Jr. After the Spirit: A Constructive Pneumatology from Resources outside
the Modern West. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publish-
ing Company, 2005.
Rowlands, Mark. Supervenience and Materialism. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, VT: Ave-
bury, 1995.
 bibliography 267

Roy, Louis, OP. Mystical Consciousness: Western Perspectives in Dialogue with Japanese
Thinkers. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2003.
Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Toward an Ecological-Feminist Theology of Nature. In Read-
ings in Ecology and Feminist Theology, edited by Mary Heather MacKinnon and Moni
McIntyre, 8993. Kansas City, KS: Sheed & Ward, 1995.
Russell, Robert John. Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity,
Buddhism and the Natural Sciences. In Religion and Science, Buddhism and Environ-
mental Bioethics: Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, edited by Ryusei Takeda, 7199. Kyoto,
Japan: The Research Institute for Buddhist Culture, Ryukoku University, 2005.
Russell, Robert John, William R. Stoeger, SJ, and George V. Coyne, SJ, eds. Physics, Phi-
losophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding. Vatican City State: Vatican
Observatory Publications, 1988.
Sachs, Mendel. Comparison of the Field Concept of Matter in Relativity Physics, and the
Buddhist Idea of Nonself. Philosophy East and West 33 (1983): 39599.
. The Field Concept of Contemporary Science. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas,
1973.
Sacks, Robert. The Lion and the Ass: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Chapters
110). Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy 8, no. 23 (1980): 29101.
Sadakata, Akira. Buddhist Cosmology: Philosophy and Origins. Edited by Gaynor Sekimori.
Tokyo: Ksei Publishing Co., 1997.
Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Back-
ground. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 15. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1971.
Saron, Clifff, and Richard J. Davidson. The Brain and Emotions. In Healing Emotions: Con-
versations with the Dalai Lama on Mindfulness, Emotions, and Health, edited by Daniel
Goleman, 6879. Boston, MA, and London: Shambhala, 1997.
Scarborough, Milton. In the Beginning: Hebrew God and Zen Nothingness. Buddhist-
Christian Studies 20 (2000): 191216.
. Myth and Phenomenology. In Thinking through Myths: Philosophical Perspectives,
edited by Kevin Schilbrack, 4664. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Schmidt-Leukel, Perry. Exclusivism, Inclusivism, Pluralism: The Tripolar Typology
Clarified and Reafffirmed. In The Myth of Religious Superiority: Multifaith Explorations of
Religious Pluralism, edited by Paul F. Knitter, 1327. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2005.
. Transformation by Integration: How Inter-Faith Encounter Changes Christianity. Lon-
don: SCM Press, 2009.
. The Unbridgeable Gulf? Towards a Buddhist-Christian Theology of Creation. In
Buddhism, Christianity and the Question of Creation: Karmic or Divine?, edited by Perry
Schmidt-Leukel, 10978. Burlington, VT, and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2006.
Schrag, Calvin O. The Self after Postmodernity. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University
Press, 1997.
Seifert, J. On the Irreducibility of Life to Chaotic and Non-chaotic Physical Systems. In
The Emergence of Complexity in Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology: Proceed-
ings Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 2731 October 1992, edited by
Bernard Pullman, 33958. Pontificiae Academiae Scientiarum Scripta Varia 89. Vatican
City: Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 1996.
Sharpe, Kevin. Sleuthing the Divine: The Nexus of Science and Spirit. Minneapolis, MN: For-
tress, 2000.
Shear, Jonathan, ed. Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 1997.
Sheldrake, Rupert. The Presence of the Past. New York: Times Books, 1988.
Shimizu, Masumi. Das Selbst im Mahayana-Buddhismus in japanischer Sicht und die
Person im Christentum im Licht des Neuen Testaments. Doctoral dissertation, Rhei-
mischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitt, Bonn, 1979.
Shizuteru, Ueda. Nishidas Thought. Translated by Jan van Bragt. Eastern Buddhist 28,
no. 1 (1995): 2947.
268 bibliography

Shoto, Hase. Nihilism, Science, and Emptiness in Nishitani. Buddhist-Christian Studies 19

(1999): 13954.
Shults, F. LeRon. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Rela-
tionality. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Com-
pany, 2003.
Shults, F. LeRon, and Andrea Hollingsworth. The Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cam-
bridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Shults, F. LeRon, and Steven J. Sandage. Faces of Forgiveness, The: Searching for Wholeness
and Salvation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
. An Introduction to Buddhist Psychology. New York: Barnes and Noble Books, 1979.
. Transforming Spirituality: Integrating Theology and Psychology. Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Academic, 2006.
Simkins, Ronald A. Creator and Creation: Nature in the Worldview of Ancient Israel. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Simmons, Ernest L. The Sighs of God: Kenosis, Quantum Field Theory, and the Spirit. In
God, Evil and Sufffffering: Essays in Honor of Paul R. Sponheim, edited by Curtis L. Thompson
and Terence E. Fretheim, 18291. Word & World Supplement Series 4. St. Paul, MN:
Luther Seminary, 2000.
. Toward a Kenotic Pneumatology: Quantum Field Theory and the Theology of the
Cross. CTNS Bulletin 19, no. 2 (1999): 1116.
Siu, R.G.H. The Tao of Science: An Essay on Western Knowledge and Eastern Wisdom. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1957.
Smart, Ninian. Buddhism and Christianity: Rivals and Allies. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawaii Press, 1993.
. The Work of the Buddha and the Work of Christ. In The Saviour God: Compara-
tive Studies in the Concept of Salvation, edited by S.G.S. Brandon, 16073. 1963. Reprint,
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.
Smid, Robert W. Methodologies of Comparative Philosophy: The Pragmatist and Process Tra-
ditions. Albany, NY: State University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Smith, Mark S. The Priestly Vision of Genesis 1. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.
Smith, Steven G. The Concept of the Spiritual: An Essay in First Philosophy. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press, 1988.
Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. The Meaning and End of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1962.
Smith, Wolfgang. The Quantum Enigma: Finding the Hidden Key. Peru, IL: Sherwood Sug-
den & Company, 1995.
Smolin, Lee. The Life of the Cosmos. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Son, Aaron Sang-won. Corporate Elements in Pauline Anthropology: A Study of Selected
Terms, Idioms, and Concepts in the Light of Pauls Usage and Background. Analecta Bibli-
cal 148. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001.
Soyen, Shaku. The Law of Cause and Efffect, as Taught by Buddha. In The Dawn of Reli-
gious Pluralism: Voices from the Worlds Parliament of Religion, 1893, edited by Richard
Hughes Seager, 4069. LaSalle, IL: Open Court, 1993.
Sponberg, Alan. The Buddhist Conception of an Ecological Self. In The Sound of Liberat-
ing Truth: Buddhist-Christian Dialogues, edited by Sallie B. King and Paul O. Ingram,
10727. Richmond, VA: Curzon, 1999.
Sponheim, Paul. Faith and the Other: A Relational Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress
Press, 1993.
. Speaking of God: Relational Theology. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press, 2006.
Sprung, Mervyn. Being and the Middle Way. In The Question of Being: East-West Perspec-
tives, edited by Mervyn Sprung, 12739. University Park, PA, and London: The Pennsyl-
vania State University Press, 1978.
. The Madhyamika Doctrine of Two Realities as a Metaphysic. In The Problem of
Two Truths in Buddhism and Vedanta, edited by Mervyn Sprung, 4053. Boston, MA, and
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1973.
 bibliography 269

. The Thought of the Middle Way: Translators Introduction. In Lucid Exposition of

the Middle Way: The Essential Chapters from the Prasannapada of Candrakirti, translated
by Mervyn Sprung. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.
Stalnaker, Robert. Varieties of Supervenience. In Supervenience, edited by Jaegwon Kim,
189209. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington, VT: Dartmouth and Ashgate, 2002.
Stambaugh, Joan. The Formless Self. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999.
. Impermanence is Buddha-Nature: Dogens Understanding of Temporality. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.
Stcherbatsky, Theodore. The Central Conception of Buddhism and the Meaning of the Word
Dharma. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1970.
. The Soul Theory of the Buddhists. 2nd ed. Varanasi: Bharatiya Vidya Prakasana, 1970.
Stenger, Victor J. The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmol-
ogy. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1995.
Stenmark, Mikael. Scientism: Science, Ethics, and Religion. Aldershot, UK, and Burlington,
VT: Ashgate, 2001.
Stone, Lawson G. The Soul: Possession, Part, or Person? The Genesis of Human Nature in
Genesis 2:7. In What about the Soul? Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology, edited
by Joel B. Green, 4761. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2004.
Strauss, Leo. On the Interpretation of Genesis. LHomme 21, no. 1 (1981): 520.
Streeter, Burnett Hillman. The Buddha and the Christ: An Exploration of the Meaning of the
Universe and of the Purpose of Human Life. London: Macmillan, 1932.
Streng, Frederick J. Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press,
1967.
Suchocki, Marjorie Hewitt. Sunyata, Trinity, and Community. In Divine Emptiness and
Historical Fullness: A Buddhist-Jewish-Christian Conversation with Masao Abe, edited by
Christopher Ives, 13649. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Suzuki, Beatrice Lane. Mahayana Buddhism: A Brief Outline. 3rd ed. 1959. Reprint, New
York: Macmillan, 1969.
Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. Reason and Intuition in Buddhist Philosophy. In Essays in East-
West Philosophy: An Attempt at World Philosophical Synthesis, edited by Charles A.
Moore, 1748. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 1951.
Swanson, Paul L. Foundations of Tien-Tai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths The-
ory in Chinese Buddhism. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
Swidler, Leonard. A Jerusalem-Tokyo Bridge. In A Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue,
by Seiichi Yagi and Leonard Swidler, 172. New York and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1990.
Swinburne, Richard. The Evolution of the Soul. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
Talafous, Camillus D., OSB, ed. Readings in Science and Spirit. Englewood Clifffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1966.
Talbot, Michael. Mysticism and the New Physics. New York: Bantam Books, 1981.
Taliaferro, Charles, and Stewart Goetz. The Prospect of Christian Materialism. Christian
Scholars Review 37, no. 3 (2008): 30321.
Tallman, Matthew. Pentecostal Ecology: A Theological Paradigm for Pentecostal Environ-
mentalism. In The Spirit Renews the Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and
Theology of Creation, edited by Amos Yong, 13554. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications,
2009.
Tanabe, Hajime. Philosophy as Metanoetics. Translated by Takeuchi Yoshinori with Valdo
Viglielmo and James W. Heisig. Berkeley, CA: University Press of California, 1986.
Templeton, John M. The Humble Approach: Scientists Discover God. New rev. ed. New York:
Continuum, 1995.
Teske, John A. The Social Construction of the Human Spirit. In The Human Person in Sci-
ence and Theology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, Willem B. Drees, and Ulf Grman,
189211. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, and Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000.
Tetsuro, Watsuji. Climate and Culture: A Philosophical Study. Translated by Geofffrey Bow-
nas. 1961. Reprint, New York: Greenwood, 1988.
270 bibliography

Thurman, Robert A.F. Buddhist Views of Nature: Variations on the Theme. In On Nature,
edited by Leroy S. Rouner, 96112. Boston University Studies in Philosophy and Religion
6. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984.
Thurston, Bonnie Bowman. The Conquered Self: Emptiness and God in a Buddhist-
Christian Dialogue. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 12, no. 4 (1985): 34353.
Tilley, Terrence W. The Evils of Theodicy. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,
1991.
Timmerman, Peter. It is Dark Outside: Western Buddhism from the Enlightenment to the
Global Crisis. In Buddhism and Ecology, edited by Martine Batchelor and Kerry Brown,
6576. New York: Cassell, 1992.
Tola, Fernando, and Carmen Dragonetti. General Introduction. In Being as Consciousness:
Yogcra Philosophy of Buddhism, xixl. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 2004.
Torrance, Thomas F. Editors Introduction. In A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field, by James Clerk Maxwell. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press, 1982.
. Space, Time and Incarnation. London: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Toulmin, Stephen. The Return to Cosmology: Postmodern Science and the Theology of Nature.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1982.
Trinh, Xuan Thuan. Chaos and Harmony: Perspectives on Scientific Revolutions of the Twenti-
eth Century. Translated by Alex Reisinger. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Reprint,
Philadelphia, PA, and London: Templeton Foundation Press, 2006.
. The Secret Melody: And Man Created the Universe. Translated by Storm Dunlop.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995; Reprint, Philadelphia and London: Templeton
Foundation Press, 2005.
Trinh, Xuan Thuan, and Matthieu Ricard. The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the
Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet. Translated by Ian Monk. Reprint. New
York: Three Rivers Press, 2004.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn, and Duncan Ryuken Williams, eds. Buddhism and Ecology: The Inter-
connection of Dharma and Deeds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Turl, John. Substance Dualism or Body-Soul Duality? Science & Christian Belief 22 (2010):
5780.
Ueda, Shizuteru. Jesus in Contemporary Japanese Zen, with Special Regards to Keiji Nishi-
tani. In Buddhist Perceptions of Jesus, edited by Perry Schmidt-Leukel, Thomas Josef
Gtz, and Gerhard Kberlin, 4258. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2001.
Unno, Taitetsu. River of Fire, River of Water: An Introduction to the Pure Land Tradition of
Shin Buddhism. New York: Doubleday, 1998.
, ed. The Religious Philosophy of Nishitani Keiji: Encounter with Emptiness. Berkeley,
CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1989.
Unno, Taitetsu, and James W. Heisig, eds. The Religious Philosophy of Tanabe Hajime: The
Metanoetic Imperative. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press, 1990.
Van den Brom, Luco J. Eschatology and Time: Reversal of the Time Direction? In The
Future as Gods Gift: Exploration in Christian Eschatology, edited by David Fergusson and
Marcel Sarot, 15967. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000.
Van Til, Howard. The Fully Gifted Creation (Theistic Evolution). In Three Views on Cre-
ation and Evolution, edited by J.P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, 159218. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
Varela, Clifff. The Bodys Self. In Healing Emotions: Conversations with the Dalai Lama on
Mindfulness, Emotions, and Health, edited by Daniel Goleman, 4960. Boston, MA, and
London: Shambhala, 1997.
Varela, Francisco J. Steps to a Science of Inter-being: Unfolding the Dharma Implicit in
Modern Cognitive Science. In The Psychology of Awakening: Buddhism, Science, and Our
Day-to-day Lives, edited by Gay Watson, Stephen Batchelor, and Guy Claxton, 7189.
York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 2000.
. Upwards and Downwards Causation in the Brain: Case Studies on the Emergence and
Effficacy of Consciousness. In No Matter, Never Mind: Proceedings of Towards a Science
 bibliography 271

of ConsciousnessFundamental Approaches (Tokyo 99), edited by Kunio Yasue, et al.,

95107. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2002.
. Why a Proper Science of Mind Implies the Transcendence of Nature. In Religion in
Mind: Cognitive Perspectives on Religious Belief, Ritual, and Experience, edited by Jensine
Andresen, 20736. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Varela, Francisco J., ed. Sleeping, Dreaming, and Dying: An Exploration of Consciousness
with the Dalai Lama. Boston, MA: Wisdom, 1997.
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. The Embodied Mind: Cognitive
Science and Human Experience. London and Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991.
Vasubandhu. Abhidharmakosabhasyam. Translated into French by Louis de La Valle
Poussin. English version by Leo M. Pruden. 4 vols. Berkeley, CA: Asian Humanities Press,
19881991.
Verhoeven, Martin J. Buddhism and Science: Probing the Boundaries of Faith and Rea-
son. Religion East and West 1 (2001): 7797.
Volf, Miroslav. The Final Reconciliation: Reflections on a Social Dimension of the Escha-
tological Transition. Modern Theology 16, no. 1 (2000): 91113.
Volf, Miroslav, and Dorothy C. Bass, eds. Practicing Theology: Beliefs and Practices in Chris-
tian Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002.
von Rad, Gerhard. Genesis: A Commentary. Translated by John H. Marks. Rev. ed. Philadel-
phia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1972.
von Rospatt, Alexander. The Buddhist Doctrine of Momentariness: A Survey of the Origins
and Early Phase of This Doctrine up to Vasubandhu. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 47.
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1995.
Wagman, Morton. Cognitive Science and the Mind-Body Problem: From Philosophy to Psy-
chology to Artificial Intelligence to Imaging of the Brain. Westport, CT, and London: Prae-
ger, 1998.
Wainwright, William J. Reason and the Heart: A Prolegomenon to a Critique of Passional
Reason. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995.
Waldenfels, Hans. Absolute Nothingness: Foundations for a Christian-Buddhist Dialogue.
Translated by James W. Heisig. New York: Paulist, 1980.
Waldron, William S. Beyond Nature/Nurture: Buddhism and Biology on Interdependence.
Contemporary Buddhism: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1, no. 2 (2000): 199226.
Wallace, B. Alan. Afterward: Buddhist Reflections. In Consciousness at the Crossroads:
Conversations with the Dalai Lama on Brain Science and Buddhism, edited by Zara
Houshmand, Robert B. Livingston, and B. Alan Wallace, 15373. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion,
1999.
. Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the Mind. Ithaca, NY, and Boulder,
CO: Snow Lion Publications, 1996.
. Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Meet. New York: Columbia
University Press, 2007.
. Hidden Dimensions: The Unification of Physics and Consciousness. New York: Colum-
bia University Press, 2007.
. Mind in the Balance: Meditation in Science, Buddhism, and Christianity. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2009.
. The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
, ed. Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2003.
Wallace, Mark I. Finding God in the Singing River: Christianity, Spirit, Nature. Minneapolis,
MN: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.
. Fragments of the Spirit: Nature, Violence, and the Renewal of Creation. New York: Con-
tinuum, 1996. Reprint, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002.
. The Wounded Spirit as the Basis for Hope in an Age of Radical Ecology. In Chris-
tianity and Ecology: Seeking the Well-Bring of Earth and Humans, edited by Dieter T.
272 bibliography

Hessel and Rosemary Radford Ruether, 5172. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
2000.
Walton, John H. The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Ward, Keith. Defending the Soul. Oxford: Oneworld, 1992.
Wargo, Robert J.J. The Logic of Nothingness: A Study of Nishida Kitar. Honolulu, HI: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press, 2005.
Wassermann, Gerhard D. A Philosophy of Matter and Mind: A New Look at an Old Major
Topic in Philosophy. Aldershot, UK, and Brookfield, VT: Avebury, 1994.
Watson, Gay. The Resonance of Emptiness: A Buddhist Inspiration for a Contemporary Psy-
chotherapy. Richmond, UK: Curzon, 1998.
Watson, Gay, Stephen Batchelor, and Guy Claxton, eds. The Psychology of Awakening: Bud-
dhism, Science, and Our Day-to-day Lives. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 2000.
Wayman, Alex. Eschatology in Buddhism. In Eschatology in Christianity and Other Reli-
gions, 7194. Studia Missionalia 32. Rome: Gregorian University Press, 1983.
Webb, Stephen. The Dome of Eden. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2010.
Weerasinghe, Mahinda. The Origin of Species according to the Buddha. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
Stamford Lake Publication, 2002.
Weinberg, Steven. The Quantum Theory of Fields. 3 vols. Cambridge, UK, and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 19952000.
Welker, Michael. Creation and Reality. Edited by John F. Hofffmeyer. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1999.
. Faith in the Living God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2001.
. God the Spirit. Translated by John F. Hofffmeyer. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press,
1994.
. Gods Eternity, Gods Temporality, and Trinitarian Theology. Theology Today 55,
no. 3 (1998): 31728.
. The Holy Spirit. Theology Today 46 (1989): 520.
. What is Creation? Rereading Genesis 1 and 2. Theology Today 48 (1991): 5671.
Wells, Harry Lee. The Problem of the Phenomenal Self: A Study of the Buddhist Doctrine
of Anatta with Specific regard to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue. PhD diss., Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1988. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International,
1988.
Westermann, Claus. Genesis 111: A Commentary. Translated by John J. Scullion, SJ. Min-
neapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984.
White, Lynn. The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis. Science 155 (March 10, 1967):
12037.
Wicken, Jefffrey S. Theology and Science in the Evolving Cosmos: A Need for Dialogue.
Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 23, no. 1 (1988): 4555.
Wilber, Ken. Waves, Streams, States and Self: Further Considerations for an Integral The-
ory of Consciousness. In Cognitive Models and Spiritual Maps: Interdisciplinary Explo-
rations of Religious Experience, edited by Jensine Andresen and Robert K.C. Forman,
14576. Bowling Green, OH: Imprint Academic, 2000.
Wilber, Ken, ed. The Holographic Paradigm and Other Paradoxes: Exploring the Leading
Edge of Science. Boulder, CO, and London: Shambhala, 1982.
Wili, Walter. The History of the Spirit in Antiquity. In Spirit and Nature: Papers from the
Eranos Yearbooks, edited by Joseph Campbell, translated by Ralph Manheim, 75106.
Bollingen Series 30.1. 1954. Reprint, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Wilkinson, Robert. Nishida and Western Philosophy. Burlington, VT, and Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate, 2009.
Williams, Leslie Pearce. The Origins of Field Theory. New York: Random House, 1966.
Williams, Paul. Mahayana Buddhism: Its Doctrinal Foundations. London and New York:
Routledge, 1989.
 bibliography 273

. Some Mahayana Buddhist Perspectives on the Body. In Religion and the Body,
edited by Sarah Coakley, 20530. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Worthing, Mark William. God, Creation, and Contemporary Physics. Minneapolis, MN: For-
tress Press, 1996.
Yadav, Bibhuti S. Protest against the Theology of Anonymous Christianity. Religion and
Society 24, no. 4 (1977): 6981.
Yagi, Seiichi. A Bridge from Buddhist to Christian Thinking: The Front-Structure. In A
Bridge to Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, by Seiichi Yagi and Leonard Swidler, 73144. New
York: Paulist, 1990.
. Ego and Self in the New Testament and in Zen. In The Bible in a World Context:
An Experiment in Contextual Hermeneutics, edited by Walter Dietrich and Ulrich Luz,
3349. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 2002.
Yandell, Keith, and Harold Netland. Buddhism: A Christian Exploration and Appraisal.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Yasuo, Yuasa. The Body, Self-Cultivation, and Ki-Energy. Translated by Shigenori Nagatomo
and Monte S. Hull. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.
. The Body: Toward an Eastern Mind-Body Theory. Edited by T.P. Kasulis. Translated by
Nagatomo Shigenori and T.P. Kasulis. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press,
1987.
. A Contemporary Scientific Paradigm and the Discovery of the Inner Cosmos. In Self
as Body in Asian Theory and Practice, edited by T.P. Kasulis, Roger T. Ames, and Wimal
Dissanayake, 34762. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Yong, Amos. Academic Glossolalia? Pentecostal Scholarship, Multi-disciplinarity, and the
Science-Religion Conversation. Journal of Pentecostal Theology 14, no. 1 (2005): 6180.
. Beyond the Impasse: Toward a Pneumatological Theology of Religions. Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2003.
. The Bible, Disability, and the Church: A New Vision of the People of God. Grand Rapids,
MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.
. A Catholic Commitment to Process Cosmology: An Appreciation of Joseph Brack-
ens Latest Works. The Global Spiral: A Publication of the Metanexus Institute. [http://
www.metanexus.net/book-review/catholic-commitment-process-cosmology] (2010).
. The Demise of Foundationalism and the Retention of Truth: What Evangelicals Can
Learn from C.S. Peirce. Christian Scholars Review 29, no. 3 (Spring 2000): 56388.
. Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology
of Religions. Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series 20. Shefffield, UK: Shef-
field Academic Press, 2000.
. Discerning the Spirit(s) in the Natural World: Toward a Typology of Spirit in the
Theology and Science Conversation. Theology & Science 3, no. 3 (2005): 31529.
. Divine Knowledge and Future Contingents: Weighing the Presuppositional Issues in
the Contemporary Debate. Evangelical Review of Theology 26, no. 3 (2002): 24064.
. Divine Knowledge and Relation to Time. In Philosophy of Religion: Introductory
Essays, edited by Thomas Jay Oord, 13652. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press/Naza-
rene Publishing House, 2003.
. The Hermeneutical Trialectic: Notes toward Consensual Hermeneutic and Theo-
logical Method. Heythrop Journal 45, no. 1 (2004): 2239.
. The Holy Spirit and the World Religions: On the Christian Discernment of Spirit(s)
after Buddhism. Buddhist-Christian Studies 24 (2004): 191207.
. Hospitality and the Other: Pentecost, Christian Practices, and the Neighbor. Faith
Meets Faith series. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2008.
. How Does God Do What God Does? Pentecostal-Charismatic Perspectives on
Divine Action in Dialogue with Modern Science. In Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal
Engagement with the Sciences, edited by Amos Yong and James K.A. Smith, 5071.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2010.
274 bibliography

. Ignorance, Knowledge, and Omniscience: At and Beyond the Limits of Faith and
Reason after Shinran. Buddhist-Christian Studies 31 (2011): 20110.
. In the Days of Caesar: Pentecostalism and Political TheologyThe Cadbury Lectures
2009. Sacra Doctrina: Christian Theology for a Postmodern Age series. Grand Rapids, MI,
and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.
. Mind and Life, Religion and Science: The Dalai Lama and the Buddhist-Christian-
Science Trilogue. Buddhist-Christian Studies 28 (2008): 4363.
. Performing Global Pentecostal Theology: A Response to Wolfgang Vondey.
PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 28, no. 2 (2006): 31321.
. Pneumatology and the Buddhist-Christian Dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through the
Middle Way? Studies in Systematic Theology 11 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2012).
. A P(new)matological Paradigm for Christian Mission in a Religiously Plural World.
Missiology: An International Review 33, no. 2 (2005): 17591.
. Possibility and Actuality: The Doctrine of Creation and Its Implications for Divine
Omniscience. The Wesleyan Philosophical Society Online Journal 1, no. 1. [http://david
.snu.edu/~brint.fs/wpsjnl/v1n1.htm] (2001).
. Reading Scripture and Nature: Pentecostal Hermeneutics and Their Implications
for the Contemporary Evangelical Theology and Science Conversation. Perspectives on
Science and Christian Faith 53, no. 1 (2011): 113.
. Ruach, the Primordial Waters, and the Breath of Life: Emergence Theory and the
Creation Narratives in Pneumatological Perspective. In The Work of the Spirit: Academic
Pneumatology and Pentecostalism, edited by Michael Welker, 183204. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2006.
. The Spirit and Creation: Possibilities and Challenges for a Dialogue between Pente-
costal Theology and the Sciences. Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Asso-
ciation 25 (2005): 82110.
. The Spirit at Work in the World: A Pentecostal-Charismatic Perspective on the
Divine Action Project. Theology & Science 7, no. 2 (2009): 12340.
. The Spirit Bears Witness: Pneumatology, Truth and the Religions. Scottish Journal
of Theology 57, no. 1 (2004): 125.
. The Spirit, Christian Practices, and the Religions: Theology of Religions in Pentecos-
tal and Pneumatological Perspective. Asbury Journal 62, no. 2 (2007): 531.
. The Spirit of Creation: Modern Science and Divine Action in the Pentecostal-Charismatic
Imagination. Pentecostal Manifestos 4. Grand Rapids, MI, and Cambridge, UK: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2011.
. Spirit of Love: A Trinitarian Theology of Grace. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,
2012.
. The Spirit Poured Out on All Flesh: Pentecostalism and the Possibility of Global Theol-
ogy. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.
. Spirit-Word-Community: Theological Hermeneutics in Trinitarian Perspective. Burling-
ton, VT, and Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., and Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock,
2002.
. Theology and Down Syndrome: Reimagining Disability in Late Modernity. Waco, TX:
Baylor University Press, 2007.
. A Theology of the Third Article? Hegel and the Contemporary Enterprise in First
Philosophy and First Theology. In Semper Reformandum: Essays in Honor of Clark H.
Pinnock, edited by Stanley E. Porter and Anthony L. Cross, 20830. Carlisle, UK: Pater-
noster Press, 2003.
. Tibetan Buddhism Going Global? A Case Study of a Contemporary Buddhist
Encounter with Science. Journal of Global Buddhism 9 (2008) [http://www.global
buddhism.org/].
. The True Believers? Francis X. Clooney and Dual Religious Belonging in the Com-
parative Theological Enterprise. Dharma Deepika: A South Asian Journal of Missiological
Research (forthcoming).
 bibliography 275

. Who is the Holy Spirit? A Walk with the Apostles. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Press, 2011.
Yong, Amos, and John Sobert Sylvest. Reasons and Values of the Heart in a Pluralistic
World: Toward a Contemplative Phenomenology for Interreligious Dialogue. Studies in
Interreligious Dialogue 20, no. 2 (2010): 17093.
Yong, Amos, ed. Pentecostalism, Science, and Creation: New Voices in the Theology-Sci-
ence Conversation. Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 43, no. 4 (2008): 875989.
. The Spirit Renews the Face of the Earth: Pentecostal Forays in Science and Theology of
Creation. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2009.
Yong, Amos, and James K.A. Smith, eds. Science and the Spirit: A Pentecostal Engagement
with the Sciences. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2010.
Yoshinori, Takeuchi. The Heart of Buddhism: In Search of the Timeless Spirit of Primitive
Buddhism. Translated by James W. Heisig. New York: Crossroad, 1983.
Yuichi, Kajiyama. Prajaparamita and the Rise of Mahayana. Buddhist Spirituality: Indian,
Southeast Asian, Tibetan, Early Chinese, edited by Takeuchi Yoshinori, 13754. World
Spirituality: An Encyclopedic History of the Religious Quest 8. New York: Crossroad,
1995.
Yukawa, Hideki. Creativity and Intuition: A Physicist Looks at East and West. Tokyo: Kodan-
sha, 1973.
Yusa, Michiko. From Topos to Environment: A Conversation with Nishida Kitaro. In The
Future of Religion: Postmodern PerspectivesEssays in Honour of Ninian Smart, edited by
Christopher Lamb and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, 11227. London: Middlesex University Press,
1999.
. Zen and Philosophy: An Intellectual Biography of Nishida Kitaro. Honolulu, HI: Uni-
versity of Hawaii Press, 2002.
Zajonc, Arthur, ed. The New Physics and Cosmology: Dialogues with the Dalai Lama. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2004.
Zakai, Avihu. Jonathan Edwardss Philosophy of Nature: The Re-enchantment of the World in
an Age of Scientific Reasoning. London and New York: T & T Clark, 2010.
Zeh, H.D. Quantum Measurements and Entropy. In Complexity, Entropy and the Phys-
ics of Information: The Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Complexity, Entropy, and
the Physics of Information Held MayJune, 1989, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, edited by
Wojciech H. Zurek, 40522. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity 8.
Redwood City, CA, and Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990.
Zenger, Erich, and Karl Lning. To Begin with, God Created...: Biblical Theologies of Cre-
ation. Translated by Omar Kaste. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Books, 2000.
Zohar, Danah. The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New
Physics. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1990.
Zukav, Gary. The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. 1979. Reprint,
Toronto: Bantam Books, 1980.
 NAME INDEX

Abe, Masao103n1, 20108, 21013, 218 Habito, Ruben240

Anaxagoras of Clazomenae47 Happel, Stephen180
Anaximenes of Miletus47 Harris, Ian233
Aquinas, Thomas90n27, 181, 188 Harvey, Peter15354n4
Augustine of Hippo215 Hasker, William91
Hefner, Philip J.88n19
Barth, Karl22021, 236n31 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich39, 48,
Berkeley, George51, 140n30 186, 189
Berry, R.J.4n6 Heidegger, Martin188
Bielfeldt, Dennis92n33 Heisenberg, Werner54, 55
Bofff, Leonardo226 Heller, Michael70n37
Bohm, David165 Heraclitus of Ephesus47
Bohr, Niels54, 55, 126, 219, 220 Hick, John24n58
Bonevac, Daniel78n55 Hippocrates47
Bowers, Russell H. Jr.208n25 Hodgson, Peter C.97n47
Bracken, Josephxi, 18592 Holland, John68

Candrakrti137n20 Irenaeus of Lyons45, 215

Carter, Robert145
Chang, Garma209 James, William162
Clayton, Philip65n23, 88, 188 Johnson, Keith E.200n6
Cook, Francis139 Johnson, Steven67
Copernicus, Nicolaus51 Jung, Carl165
Corrington, Robert3n3, 40, 41
Kalupahana, David153
Dalai Lama XIV100, 11219, 160 Kant, Immanuel52, 161
Daneel, Marthinus228 Kaufffman, Stuart A.89
de Chardin, Teilhard39, 65n26 Kaufman, Gordon213n38
deCharms, R. Christopher167n44 Keenan, John P.179n3
de Laplace, Pierre Simon51 Kepler, Johannes51
Descartes, Ren85 Kim, Jaegwon79n56, 188
de Silva, Lynn192, 201, 205 King, Winston195n39
Dharmapala, Anagarika105 Knitter, Paul24n58
Dgen154, 155 Kraft, William194n35

Eckhart, Meister188, 197n45, 209 Lai, Pan-chiu219

Einstein, Albert54, 55, 76, 108, 126, 165
Euclid of Alexandria160
Fagg, Lawrence W.49n36
Faraday, Michael49, 53, 54, 55, 56
Fa-tsang13741
Fazang, see Fa-tsang
Genz, Henning124, 125n55
Gregory, Peter137n18
Gdel, Kurt160
Gregersen, Niels Henrik89
Gunton, Colin4n7
Laszlo, Ervin71, 72, 186
Lee, Bernard45n23
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm65n24, 123
Lindbeck, George8n18
Lodahl, Michael238n33
Loder, James40, 41, 220
MacLean, Paul159n22
Macy, Joanna141n34, 142n3536,
143n3738
Mansfield, Victor109, 111, 117, 135n14
Maxwell, James Clerk53, 55
McTaggart, J.M.E.76
278 name index

Meyering, Theo C.78n53 Ricard, Matthieu107109, 111, 112, 124

Miles, Todd L.200n6 Rice, Martin J.214n41
Milinda152 Richard of St. Victor238n33
Mitchell, Donald184 Royce, Josiah140n30
Moltmann, Jrgen42, 43, 44, 72, 217n47
Morgan, Lloyd65, 66, 77 Schelling, Friedrich48, 52, 140n30, 186,
Morowitz, Harold67, 68 188, 189
Mller, Max104 Shults, F. LeRon41, 94n36, 191n39
Murphy, George4547 Simmons, Ernest46, 47
Smart, Ninian219n51
Ngrjuna129, 130136, 172, 203 Smith, Mark S.60n4
Ngasena152 Soyen, Shaku105
Needham, Joseph66 Spinoza, Baruch108, 165
Neill, Stephen17 Streeter, Burnett Hillman18n42
Nesteruk, Alexei V.45, 63n17 Swidler, Leonard195n38
Neville, Robert Cummings7, 12, 190,
212n36 Tanabe, Hajime145n45, 170, 171n52, 236
Newton, Isaac51, 52, 160 Thurman, Robert160
Nishida, Kitaro14450, 15556, 170, 172, Trinh, Xuan Thuan107109, 111, 124
17879, 184, 18889, 196, 209, 210, 230, Tsung-mi154n8
236
Nishitani, Keiji120124, 144, 14950, 172, Vasubandhu153n5, 153n7
17879, 18788, 196, 207n23, 213, 214n40, Von Rad, Gerhard60
218
Wallace, B. Alan15967
Oersted, Hans Christian52 Wallace, Mark I.227, 228
Walton, John H.59n2
Pannenberg, Wolfhart48, 5051, 5557, Ward, Keith97n45
60n6, 7072, 9293, 9798, 17879, 187, Weerasinghe, Mahinda106n9
217n47, 219 Weinberg, Steven54n46
Peacocke, Arthur66 Westermann, Claus84
Peirce, Charles Sanders6, 7, 140n30 White, Lynn225n3
Peters, Ted76 Whitehead, Alfred North186, 187
Pettersson, Max66 Wili, Walter48n30
Philo of Alexandria61n11 Wilkinson, Robert144n41
Plato47, 145
Posidonius of Apameia47 Xenocrates of Chalcedon47
Potter, Robert97, 98n48
Ptolemy, Claudius160 Yagi, Seiichi206, 207n23
Yasuo, Yuasa155, 156
Rahner, Karl15
Raven, Charles69 Zajonc, Arthur160
Reynolds, Blair45 Zukav, Gary125n56
 SUBJECT INDEX

Abhidharma Buddhism131, 133, 152, 183 Christology, Chalcedonian220n54

absolute nothingness, see nothingness, see also Jesus Christ, and Spirit
absolute Christology
action110, 14748, 169 Church95, 96n40
Adam214 circuminsessional interpenetration123,
First215 124
Second215 coherentism26
agnosticism, methodological198n1 communalism194
Amida Buddha236 comparative theology29, 31, 17885
analogy, principle of219 comparative categories177n2
anatman (non-self)151, 19297, 201 compassion109, 111, 129n2, 141, 143, 150,
anattasee anatman 172, 195, 213, 232, 237
angels, fall of61n10 complementarity54, 126, 219n51, 220
animism42 complexity theory68
anonymous Christianity15 concordism59
Anthropic Principle75, 76 consciousness81, 91, 108, 112, 113, 158, 182
anthropology, science of15967
apologetics12, 31, 118 contemplation15967
Buddhist105, 16772 See also science, contemplative
cultural42 contingency50, 178, 180, 181
physicalist82n3 conversion17
pneumatological20608 Copenhagen Interpretation55, 125
relational82n3 cosmology181, 18591, 208
theological8184, 9298, 200208, 207 Buddhist116
Association of African Earthkeeping contemporary14450
Churches22829 modern117
atman (self)152 creation
atom124 creatio continua64
awareness14647 creatio ex nihilo62, 181, 190, 193
Christian doctrine of181
basho14450, 156, 172, 178, 184, 221 narrative of6064
Big Bang115, 214n41 out of chaos62n12, 62n13
Big Crunch76 theology of7
bodhisattvas141, 143, 196, 213 creator Spiritus225
Brahmanism152, 153
brain science95n37 death201
Buddha Mind102, 140, 143, 154, 179, 182, deconstruction132
183, 185, 192, 197, 200, 203, 210, 230 Down syndrome87
Buddha Nature154, 167, 192, 230, 234, dipolar monism86
235 dualism43, 86, 109, 148, 205
Buddhist-Christian encounter1020 Cartesian84, 162
Kantian165
Cambridge Platonism51 of past and future time148
causality131, 135, 143 Platonist84, 85
backward causation211n32 temporal148
top-down causation85, 89
Chan meditation154 ecology169, 227, 228
chaos theory69, 75n48 ecotheology225
280 subject index
Eightfold Path134, 214
e = mc2126
emergence theory179, 180, 191
emptiness12028
and form13643
see also self-emptying
entropy72, 74, 75, 76n59, 110, 142, 211
environment
Buddhist philosophy of22934
ethics of23441
theology of22529
epistemic pluralism2022
epistemology6, 12, 20, 132, 133, 184, 221
participatory20
eschatology, realized216
eternalism132, 135
eternity212n36
ethics208
Buddhist ethics233
pneumatological23441, 236n31
evolution110, 170
exclusivism11, 12, 14
fact-value dichotomy118
fallen world214, 235
fallibility24
feminist theology225
field theory4950, 5157, 70n36, 72, 178
see also quantum field theory
Four Noble Truths9, 131
Gaia theology3n3, 225
Gnosticism39
God-of-the-gaps34, 79
Heart Sutra138n21
holism141, 233
Huayen Buddhism123, 13643, 14850,
168, 182, 210, 211
human being192197
becoming19297
idealism41, 140, 143
German189
imagination, pneumatologicalxii, 184
impersonalism185, 208
inclusivism11, 12, 14, 15
indigenous worldview228
individuation, principle of146
instrumentalism160, 161, 219
interdisciplinarity244
interfaith dialogue1020, 242
interrelationality23, 151, 180, 230, 232
intersubjectivity27, 28, 94, 168, 188, 191,
222, 238
introspection162, 165
irreversibility, temporal211
Jesus Christ95, 96, 196, 197, 200, 205
as healer and earthkeeper228
Jewel Net of Indra123, 139, 171, 211, 232
justification215
Kalachakra Buddhism116
kenosis196, 201, 202, 204, 205
Kyoto School100, 120128, 144, 150, 172,
178, 179, 180, 195, 201n9, 202, 203, 217
language
religious8
theological7
liberation theology225
Logos196
Madhyamaka Buddhism13036, 149, 150,
179, 195, 203
materialism86, 87, 143
mechanics, classical69, 71, 78, 142
quantum see quantum mechanics
metaphysics133, 165
Mind and Life Dialogues11219
mind-body relationship8592, 93, 158, 162
multiverse116
mysticism225
Buddhist mysticism106
natural selection89
natural theology4
naturalism85, 95n37
religious40
nature
Buddhist philosophy of9
nature-ethics118
philosophy of3, 5, 1719, 30, 18591
pneumatological theology of34
theology of35, 710, 1719, 29, 30, 239
neurosciences8592, 95n38, 15259
New Age3n3
nihilism121, 122, 132
nirvana123, 129n2, 131, 134, 148, 168, 169,
194, 235
Noble Eightfold Path15
noncontradiction208
nondualism/nonduality124, 179, 183, 207,
230, 233
non-self15259, 193, 201
 subject index 281

non-theism14 recapitulation215
nothingness, absolute120, 122, 123, 144, redemption96n44, 214, 216
145, 149, 159, 171, 178, 180, 195n35 reductionistism19, 78, 85, 86
reenchantment of the world3
objectivism160, 221 reincarnation208
occult39 relationality41, 93, 94n36, 194
omniscience209 relational theology191n39
ontology133 relativity theory76
trinitarian94n36 General Theory54, 165, 166
origination Special Theory54
dependent135 relativism26, 165
interdependent29, 30, 116, 124, 13334, religion, methodological study of21723
136, 147, 154, 161, 16667, 17879, 185, resurrection195, 201, 208
19192, 195, 212, 230, 232 Romanticism48

panexperientialism87 Samantha practice164

pantheism108 sanctification195
Parliament of Religions105 science
passion140, 157, 201 contemplative114
Pentecost, Day of20, 21, 22, 27, 95, 206, philosophy of6, 150
237 science-and-religion
perennial philosophy164n34 methodological issues210
Perfection of Wisdom, see Prajnaparamita scientific method6, 21723
personalism185 scientism122, 218
perspectivalism19 self-emptying46, 111, 118, 12426, 155, 167,
phenomenology91n29 170, 171, 174, 196, 213, 230, 238
philosophy of mind107 self-ordering systems89
physicalism87 self-organization93
physics114 self-transcendence95
pluralism11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 24n52 shamanism42
pneuma, Stoic notion of55 shunyata103n1, 111n25, 118, 129n2
political theology225 sinful world235
polytheism163 social brain9192
postliberalism8n18 soteriology215
Prajnaparamita131, 134, 140, 230 soul97n45
pratityasamutpada126, 167, 171, 18591, speed of light54, 115, 126n58, 127, 165
188, 233, 235k Spirit
praxis23, 24 Christology196, 206
pre-Socratics47 ecclesiology206
problem of evil234, 235 and emergence6570
process philosophy130n3 ontology of34
psychology41 spiritualism39
punctuated equilibrium65 spirituality39
Pure Land Buddhism145n43, 170, 236, 237 apophatic197
subjectivism221
quantum cosmology116 supervenience65n24, 7779, 87, 89, 90,
quantum field theory46, 126, 127 149 93, 191
quantum indeterminacy149 syncretism16, 240
quantum mechanics115, 119, 125, 135, 150, systems theory7079, 141, 142, 143, 179,
160, 211n32, 219 182, 186, 191
quantum nonlocality109, 110 systems, self-organizing processes
of71n39
rationalism122
realism160 theodicy, see problem of evil
critical6 theological method199, 21723
282 subject index
theology, philosophical31
Theosophical Society104
Theravada Buddhismxi, 100, 103n2, 129,
133, 134, 152, 163, 19299
thermodynamics, second law of7375,
215
Tibetan Buddhism11219
Tien Tai Buddhism133n9
Timaeus47, 145
time, and temporality21017
tohuwabhohu61, 62, 70, 73
tradition23
trialogue2n2
Trinity184, 185, 190, 191, 203, 208
true-self15259, 16772, 205, 231
truth2528
correspondence theory of27
dialogical approach to27
two truths theory133, 179n3
Uncertainty Principle54
unity of opposites148, 178
Vairocana Buddha231
Vajrayyana sources164
Vedantic eternalism193
Vedantic nihilism193
vitalism80n1, 90n27
wave function54, 75, 110, 125, 149
Williams Syndrome87
Word and Spirit45, 190
Yogacara Buddhism140, 153, 179, 183
Zen Buddhism144, 151, 157, 170, 202, 205,
231, 240
Rinzai School155
Soto sect154, 155