Emptiness as a Paradigm for Understanding World Religions

Frederick Streng's understanding of emptiness in Mahayana tradition as category that can be profitably used in study of all world religions is one of his great accomplishments. Work is left to be done, however. A rationale for taking central tenet of one religious tradition and using it to analyze others must be clearly articulated. Further, articulation must be done in language that will make sense to Western (and other) thinkers not familiar with Mahayana argumentation. Frederick Streng was pioneer, for his Emptiness: A Study in Religious Meaning,1 published in 1967, was first English-language book on Mahayana emptiness readily accessible to Western readers. He then proceeded to study and write about world religions in light of understanding of emptiness developed therein. Later, in his 1973 Ways of Being Religious, his 1986 Buddhist-Christian Dialogue, and especially in his 1969 Understanding Religious Life, widely used introduction to study of religion,2 Streng presents phenomenological typology of world religions that is based on his earlier study of emptiness. In discussing import of his work, I attempt first an evaluation of his accomplishment and then turn to recommendation for its furtherance. STRENG'S ACCOMPLISHMENT In his Understanding Religious Life, perhaps his most widely read book, Streng looks at religion as a means to ultimate transformation. He explains that the definition of religion [in his book] focuses on role of various processes of change through which people bring into their lives what they consider life's highest values (p. 2). The approach is to see traditions in their effective power to enable person to experience most authentic or deepest reality. This echoes Streng's theme in Emptiness, where he explains that, in Indian Madhyamika, knowledge was considered to be valuable insofar as it transformed life (p. 103). This Madhyamika understanding of religion subsequently becomes Streng's leitmotiv. Buddhist-Christian Studies 16 (1996). ? by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.120 on Wed, 14 Sep 2016 05:53:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Emptiness · Environmental ethics · Epistemology · Sociology · Indian and Buddhist Studies · Philosophy · Psychology · Religion and Society Interactions · Religion, Ecology, and Ethics