The controversial term ‘fundamentalism,’ which is often characterized negatively, is used here in a positive sense as ‘religious basics’ essential for the realization of particular religious goals prescribed by respective religious traditions. This usage does not have the intention of excluding or denying the validity and significance of any person, ideology or a doctrine. As basics in a religious tradition, fundamentals are efficacious in enabling one to realize the religious goals prescribed by the particular tradition. As soteriological fundamentals, such doctrines aim to elevate humanity rather than downgrade human beings. Strictly speaking, soteriological fundamentals are doctrines which deal with religious salvation.

While identifying two authentic scriptures which are fundamental to Christian and Buddhist traditions, this paper examines the issue of genuine inter-religious dialogue and its place within these two traditions. It will be an investigation of social and political role of religious scriptures in the development of a sense of religious unity within religious communities. It does not propose that religious soteriologies are inherently bad. Rather it demonstrates that the way they are used by religious communities could produce negative results. Furthermore, it recognizes that people with negative agendas could quote sections of scriptures out of their original contexts in order to justify and achieve negative ends. Distorting the original meaning and the very purpose of scriptures, such persons could harm the religion itself. Recognizing this tendency, this paper asserts the importance of paying attention to the original socio-historical contexts of scriptures. Thereby one can avoid the misuse of scriptures and can create a healthy and a positive environment in understanding and the interpretation of religious message. Recognizing the importance of scriptures for religious inspiration, it highlights the way two traditions approach religious diversity and the way they attempt to accomplish particular religious goals.

Obstacles for Christians to Engage in Inter-religious Dialogue
Certain Christian scriptures seem to have prevented some Christians from engaging in genuine inter-religious dialogue. Some scriptures which can be interpreted in exclusive terms as soteriological fundamentalism can prevent genuine inter-religious dialogue. For example, the Christian assertion of Jesus Christ as the ‘only’ way to God stands out as an obstacle: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Certain conservative Christians can use this exclusive Biblical pericope taken out of its original socio-historical and religious contexts to prevent people in engaging in genuine dialogue with people of non-Christian faiths. Most moderate Christians agree that John 14:6 and its exclusive interpretation have been traditionally used in Christian communities, in particular, in pluralistic societies, to prevent dialogue with other faiths. Reflecting on Hindu and Christian contexts in South India, Dr. Thomas Thangaraj has pointed out that Christians have used John 14:6 for exclusive purposes; according to him, it is really a stumbling block for Christians to engage in genuine religious dialogue with their Hindu neighbors in India. As a clergyman of a Protestant denomination in his ministerial works in Indian churches, Thangaraj himself had faced the problematic situation of proposing a genuine dialogue with Hindu neighbors. The opposition to dialogue arises from a strict and literal interpretation of John 14:6 with emphasis on its soteriological content. The soteriological assertion of the centrality of Jesus for salvation can raise doubts in the minds of Christians with regard to the validity and efficacy of religious paths proposed by non-Christian faiths. In the context of soteriological fundamentalism, thus, the burning question for a Christian who is interested in inter-religious dialogue is how one genuinely appreciate one’s neighbors’ faiths and their diverse religious practices.

With respect to authoritative scriptures, reinterpretation is equally important in recognizing their soteriological dimensions. With specific reference to Christian exclusive claims, Thangaraj attempts to explain their contexts in a theological setting employing a typology of eight dimensions.¹ A close examination of the above mentioned pericope in the Gospel of John suggests that it is a historical assertion made within a particular context. Christian communities were struggling to define their identity in the historical development of Christian scriptures and soteriology in the religiously competitive Judeo-Christian world, proposing contested theories with regard to divinity and salvation. In modern pluralistic context, however, most religious people find it difficult to maintain such exclusive claims when many world faiths with good reasons propose alternative paths to religious salvation. Christians living in pluralistic religious contexts often find it extremely difficult to maintain exclusive assertions of the role of Christ as a means of salvation. Since there are contesting claims with regard to the nature of divinity, most tend to regard that various portrayals of divinity as a subjective process which produces a particular vision of divinity; such constructions say more about ourselves than the qualities of divinity; they represent our visions and understandings of the ultimate and less so on the reality itself. Going beyond religious absolutes, one has to understand the imaginative, constructive and historical aspects of religious assertions.

‘This is the Single Way’: An Early Buddhist Claim
The Satipatthana Sutta, an early Buddhist scripture in the Pali canon of Theravada Buddhists, maintains that the path that it proposes is ‘the single way to the liberation of sentient beings’ (ekayano ayam maggo satthanaµ visuddhiya). Some can take this assertion on a ‘single’ path as an exclusive view and tendency embedded in the Buddhist tradition. If one adheres to it steadfastly, it may hinder the positive encounter of diverse faiths and genuine religious dialogue among various faith traditions.

Though Buddhists have not used the Satipatthana Sutta for exclusive claims and to obstruct genuine inter-religious dialogue, I would like to discuss its position in relation to two questions: what is this single path? what implications does it have on our religiously plural world?

First of all, a few words are due about the nature of this text. In modern Theravada countries of South and Southeast Asia, Buddhists widely use this text for meditation. In most religious contexts, its functional role is a meditation manual for serious meditators. In addition, sometimes, it serves as a ritual text. For instance, in some parts of Sri Lanka, just before performing formal funeral rituals, Buddhists recite this text several times over-night, while the relatives are mourning over the death of a dear one. In addition, rather than giving a sermon to a person who is about to die, Buddhist monks recite the Satipatthana Sutta by the bed-side of the dying person; the intention of this recitation is to make a person’s last thought wholesome. In general, this discourse is highly venerated within the Sri Lankan tradition and "is regularly recited not only in Buddhist monasteries, but also in Buddhist homes with members of the family sitting round and listening with deep devotion."² If the death is that of a lay person, usually lay people recite this text. If the death is that of a monk, monks perform the recitation. The recitation is carried out before the burial, when the dead body is at home. Perhaps, one religious reason for this recitation is that the text itself includes a section devoted to the meditation on the body. It is a meditation on impurities of the human body. Since the text focuses on the development of the mindfulness in-breath and out-breath, it has acquired reputation as a useful text for practicing meditation. While the text is one of the most popular Pali texts in Theravada countries, it has also been translated into several languages because of its importance for Buddhist practice.

The Satipatthana Sutta is divided into four main sections: the meditation on (i) the human body (kayanupassana), (ii) feelings and sensations (vedananupassana), (iii) mind (cittanupassana), and (iv) various moral and intellectual subjects (dhammanupassana).

In relation to religious soteriologies and inter-religious dialogue, the most relevant portion for our discussion consists of only one single line of the Satipatthana Sutta. Various translators have rendered this sentence differently. Bhikkhu Bodhi translated it: "Bhikkhus, this is the direct path for the purification of beings."³ He further maintained that "virtually all translators" understood this as a statement, which upheld the path recommended in the Satipatthana Sutta as an exclusive path. For example, Soma Thero wrote: "This is the only way, O bhikkhus" and Nyanaponika Thero rendered it as: "This is the sole way, monks." According to Nyanaponika Thero, the ‘ekayana magga’ proposed in the Satipatthana Sutta has the "unambiguous contextual meaning of a path that goes in one way only." Bhikkhu Bodhi justified his use of ‘direct path’ as "an attempt to preserve this meaning in a more streamlined phrasing."⁴ It is also worth noting commentarial position. The commentary to the Satipatthana Sutta had presented ‘ekayana magga’ as a ‘single path’ rather than a ‘divided path.’ It is a path that one should walk alone and a path that leads to one goal, nibbana. Thus, this usage is highly soteriological. However, Bhikkhu Bodhi maintained that there was "neither canonical nor commentarial basis" for that view; he explained the reasons for calling Satipatthana the ekayana magga. According to him, it was an attempt to distinguish the path recommended in the Satipatthana Sutta from other meditative paths, which lead to blissful states such as the attainment of jhanas. In Theravada Buddhist traditions, the attainment of jhanas is always seen as a sidetrack rather than becoming a direct path to the realization of nibbana, which is conceived as superior to all other religious experiences attained through spiritual exercises. Thus, the emphasis on ‘the single’ path in the Satipatthana Sutta should be seen in the context of Theravada Buddhist soteriology. Strictly speaking, the aim of full-time followers (monks and nuns) was nothing but the attainment of nibbana. Perhaps, because of this soteriological orientation, the Satipatthana Sutta presented its religious path as the single path.

Concluding Thoughts
This paper has examined two religious scriptures representing two world religions. The purpose has been to see the way two fundamental scriptures facilitate or obstruct the dialogue among living faiths. It is acknowledged here that for any religion, following a certain path of active religious life, is essential for the realization of religious goals. However, the emphasis on a basic soteriological regimen can be misinterpreted in exclusive terms to limit and hinder the genuine interaction among living faiths. In various Christian contexts, though some have used specific scriptures such as John 14:6 to discourage inter-religious cooperation, certain exclusive tendencies embedded in the Satipatthana Sutta have not been used by Buddhists for exclusive ends. In fact, most Theravada Buddhists are not even aware of the existence of an exclusivistic claim in their scriptures. In the inter-faith conference sponsored by World Council of Churches held at Serra Retreat Center, Malibu, California (November 4-9, 2000), all Protestant Christian participants agreed that John 14:6 is an obstacle for genuine dialogue and ecumenical endeavor within Christian churches. They maintained that whenever there is a progressive initiative within Christian denominations (in particular in India) with regard to inter-religious dialogue with living faiths, someone who opposes such a genuine effort will quote the Bible to prevent genuine discussion. In the complex and problematic inter-religious dialogue context, what this paper has attempted to demonstrate is that though religious traditions may include exclusive claims as religious soteriologies for achieving respective religious goals, most negative uses of them can be avoided with careful thinking and critical attitude. Thus, the future task of inter-religious dialogue is the generation of a renewed awareness of the use of scriptures for religious harmony. It is believed here that through genuine dialogue, misuses of scriptures can be avoided. In that respect, the role of hermeneutics becomes very crucial.

NOTES

1. See M. Thomas Thangaraj’s paper in this volume entitled: "Jesus the Christ: The Only Way to God and to Human Flourishing."
2. Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught (New York: Grove Press, 1974), p. 69.
3. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: A New Translation of the Majjhima Nikaya, transl. Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1995), p. 145.
4. Ibid., p. 1188.