This is the first book to explore Pope John Paul II’s work in interreligious dialogue, with a focus on Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. There is a helpful foreword by Cardinal Edward I. Cassidy on the Catholic Church’s contemporary “path of dialogue.” In their preface, the editors praise John Paul II for his vision of this path of interfaith dialogue as a way of “furthering the causes of peace, understanding, and human dignity” (p. xv). They also state the intention of this book: to evaluate John Paul II’s teachings about this journey of dialogue, especially in regard to Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism.

In his introduction, Kasimow presents John Paul II’s theology of religions and his writings on dialogue in general and on the three religions in question. The body of the text is divided into five parts. First are selections from John Paul II’s writings on interfaith dialogue, Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism. Parts two, three, and four contain responses by Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim scholars. Part five is a Catholic reflection by Michael L. Fitzgerald, Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (PCID).

In what follows here, I will only review the material on Buddhism, since that is one religion with which MID is formally in dialogue. However, I want to note that the sections on Islam and Judaism will provide readers with a good understanding about just how far the Catholic Church has come in its journey of dialogue with these two religions under the inspiration of John Paul II. On the other hand, this is not the case with the section on Buddhism.

Besides certain difficulties found in some of the essays, there are two editorial problems related to the Buddhism material. First, the editors did not include John Paul II’s Sri Lankan addresses among the selections of his writings on Buddhism. Those addresses were given during the worldwide debate precipitated by the publication of Crossing the Threshold of Hope (CTH). While, Kasimow quotes from one of the addresses in his introduction, the selections include only the controversial material on Buddhism from CTH and two short and unhelpful talks from over ten years earlier.

In CTH, John Paul II characterized Buddhism in ways that were not accepted by Buddhists. He said that Nirvana is “a state of perfect indifference” and that Buddhist soteriology is “negative.” But later, in one of his addresses in Sri Lanka, John Paul II expresses appreciation for the Brahma-viharas (loving kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity), which are the positive relational virtues of both Nirvana and Buddhist soteriology. This change in the Pope’s depiction of Buddhism is highly significant.

Second, the editors did not mention the “Taiwan Statement.” The Taiwan Statement was written in 1995 by Catholic and Buddhist scholars during a high-level dialogue organized by the PCID precisely to address the issues raised by CTH. The Vatican has clearly stated that this Taiwan Statement, which correctly presents Buddhism’s positions on the topics raised in CTH, would be the touchstone for the Catholic Church’s future dialogue with Buddhism.

By not including the Sri Lankan addresses, and by not mentioning the Taiwan Statement, this book gives the false impression that neither John Paul II nor the Catholic Church officially addressed the problems raised by CTH, and that the Buddhist-Catholic dialogue is still mired in those problems. In fact, building on the results of the Taiwan Encounter,
there has been another important and fruitful international Buddhist-Catholic dialogue sponsored by the PCID, this time in Bangalore in 1998.

Turning now to the essays by Buddhists, the first contribution is an interview of His Holiness the Dalai Lama by Wayne Teasdale. While His Holiness expresses his good impressions of John Paul II at the beginning of the conversation, he also expresses his displeasure with John Paul II’s depiction of Buddhist teachings as found in CTH. This tone is reinforced when Teasdale asks His Holiness about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s comments about Buddhism to the French press in 1997. Teasdale says that Ratzinger referred to Buddhism as a form of “mental autoeroticism.” In fact, Ratzinger was not speaking about Buddhism as such, but about how Buddhism “appears” to those Europeans who are using it to obtain some type of self-satisfying spiritual experience. One wonders why this part of the interview was included in a book on John Paul II. Fortunately, His Holiness uses this occasion to give an excellent description of Buddhist practice and its goals, and Teasdale then makes some helpful remarks about Christian mysticism.

At the end of the interview, Teasdale raises the question of the Tibetan cause. His Holiness mentions the support this cause has received from MID—indeed, His Holiness has only positive words for MID, and for the Gethsemani Encounter. As for John Paul II’s support, His Holiness says that while the Pope has been personally sympathetic, he had hoped for more public support. Michael Fitzgerald points out in his response that the Pope and political leaders do not issue joint statements of a political nature. This is done at the level of the Secretary of State. Also, the chitchat at the end of the interview, about how to get certain cardinals to gain more support from the Pope, seems quite inappropriate for publication.

In his essay, Robert Aitken explains why he finds John Paul II’s views of Buddhism in CTH to be misinformed. But Aitken also finds “more than a trace of truth in his [John Paul II’s] generalizations” (p. 97), because Aitken feels that Buddhism needs to become more socially engaged. Of special interest to MID is Aitken’s fascinating picture of the interfaith dynamic between Buddhist and Christian members of Sanbo Kyodan. This is the lineage that emerged from the Harada-Yasutani-Yamada line of Zen practice that has produced a number of Catholic Zen teachers.

An essay by Masao Abe focuses on John Paul II’s use of the term “detachment” in discussing Buddhist soteriology in CTH. Abe says that the Pope is correct to say that freedom from attachments is “sine qua non for Buddhist salvation” (p. 108). However, Abe says, John Paul II does not understand Buddhist detachment deep enough. There must be a “detachment from detachment,” a freedom from any attachment to Nirvana. In this negation of negation, one finds a Grand Affirmation of the world so that one can live unselfishly and compassionately for the benefit of others.

In his essay, Jose Cabezon argues that while the early writings of John Paul II about Buddhism are “irenic in tone,” his more recent writings represent a trend toward a more worrisome view of Buddhism. Cabezon bases this judgment on CTH, and on other recent statements by the Pope where he expresses concern for Christians who take up the practice of Buddhist meditation. Again, John Paul II’s Sri Lankan addresses and the Taiwan Statement, which the Pope certainly approved, would have shown that CTH is not an indication of a trend away from past teachings about the value of dialogue or about the many positive aspects of Buddhism. Also, John Paul II did not say Christians should not practice Buddhist meditation, but just that one should be prudent and cautious concerning the effect of that practice on his or her Christian identity. Those of us involved in the spiritual dialogue certainly understand the importance of discernment in interfaith practice.

On the other hand, Cabezon is correct in saying that “if there is interest in the spiritual path of Buddhism in the West, it is largely because Westerners have not seen their own religious traditions as sources of such nourishment” (p. 119). In fact, the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences and the PCID recently called a meeting in Rome to discuss the presence of Buddhism in Europe. Its official document states that many European Christians are searching for spiritual enlightenment due to what they experience as, among other things, an inadequate “initiation into personal prayer, meditation and the experience of integral salvation” (The Domus Aurea Paper about the Presence of Buddhism in Europe, 6). Again, we see the need today for bringing contemplative spirituality out of the monastery to lay people who so desire growth in prayer and meditation.

In his response, Michael Fitzgerald gives an overview of John Paul II’s actions and initiatives in dialogue with other religions, and then summarizes the doctrinal bases of John Paul II’s understanding of, and engagement in, interreligious dialogue. While this is helpful in addressing a general concern about the relationship between mission and dialogue that is expressed by a number of writers, I expected Fitzgerald to address the problems with the Buddhism section. On the other hand, even with its shortcomings in regard to the Buddhist-Catholic dialogue, this book gives the reader many reasons to appreciate John Paul II’s contributions to our journey of dialogue.