The Concept of Focal Point in Models for Inter-Religious Understanding

  • Frank J. Hoffman
Part of the Library of Philosophy and Religion Series book series

Abstract

The idea of a ‘focal point’ has been used in various ways. In this paper I propose to work toward the goal of articulating a technical meaning for the concept. Briefly, focal points are the objects of aspiration in religions. By ‘object’ here is not meant ‘empirical object’. Religious artifacts may symbolically represent focal points, but the focal point is not identical with an empirical object (except in idolatry). Typically religious systems hold interest for philosophers of religion by virtue of the fact that each religious system has at least one focal point enmeshed in a conceptual web which is capable of sustaining critical philosophical attention and which may evoke imaginative sympathy.

Keywords

Mold Clarification Hate 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    I. T. Ramsey says that the basis of a model’s usefulness is the ‘possibility of articulation’ that it opens up: ‘The great virtue of a model is that it enables us to be articulate when before we were tongue-tied.’ Ian T. Ramsey, Models and Mystery (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964) pp. 12–13. What he says of models here also happens to be true of a component part of models, the focal point, i.e., that it is to be pragmatically justified.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frank J. Hoffman, ‘Remarks on Blasphemy’ in The Scottish Journal of Religious Studies, vol. 4 (1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hendrik M. Vroom, Religions and the Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) p. 382.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Frank J. Hoffman, ‘Towards a Philosophy of Buddhist Religion’, in Asian Philosophy (Abingdon: University of Nottingham and Carfax Press) vol. 1 (1990).Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    Gordon Kaufman, An Essay on Theological Method (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) p. x. AAR Studies in Religion 11, originally published 1975.Google Scholar
  6. 25.
    Paul Tillich, Ultimate Concern (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) p. 7. Edited by D. MacKenzie Brown.Google Scholar
  7. 26.
    Richard Gombrich, ‘Reflections of an Indologist’, Religious Pluralism and Unbelief, ed. Ian Hamnett (London and New York: Routledge, 1990) p. 261.Google Scholar
  8. 31.
    (Ninian Smart, ‘Buddhism, Christianity, and the Critique of Ideology’, Religious Pluralism, ed. Leroy S. Rouner (Notre Dame: Notre Dame Press, 1984)Google Scholar
  9. 37.
    B. K. Matilal, Logical and Ethical Issues of Religious Belief (Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1982) p. xii. Stephanos Nirmalendu Ghosh Lectures on Comparative Religion.Google Scholar
  10. 39.
    Luiś O. Gomez, ‘Contributions to Methodological Clarification of Interfaith Dialogue Among Buddhists and Christians’, The Cross and the Lotus, ed. G. W. Houston (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1985) p. 130.Google Scholar
  11. 42.
    Richard Gombrich, Precept and Practice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971) pp. 267–8.Google Scholar
  12. 43.
    (Richard F. Gombrich, Precept and Practice, Oxford University Press, 1971) pp. 267–8.Google Scholar
  13. 45.
    Gombrich says ‘in so far as hope is desire it is the supreme Buddhist vice!’ (p. 268) Could it be that ‘in so far as hope is desire’ is a vitiating proviso, and that the ‘hope’ of nirvāṇa is indeed a very different sort of thing than ‘desire’ or thirst (taṇha) in Buddhism? Winston King’s In the Hope of Nibbana (La Salle, Illinois: Open Court, 1964) p. vi, pointed out before Gombrich’s 1971 work appeared a connection between hope and Buddhist ethics.Google Scholar
  14. 49.
    George Sansom, A History of Japan vol. 2 (Tokyo: Tuttle, 1963) p. 348 has it that Hideyoshi’s edict expelling Christian missionaries expresses concern over the ‘wholesale conversions’ of the peasantry precipitated by lords (daimyo) who themselves had converted to Christianity or by the great Christian landholders.Google Scholar
  15. 51.
    Jon Carter Covell, ‘Christian-Buddhist Relations Revealed in Art’, Buddhist-Christian Studies vol. 4 (1984) pp. 119–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 52.
    For brief general accounts of ‘Maria-Kannon’ in Japanese see Yakichi Kataoka, Kakure Kirishitan (Tokyo: Shibundo, 1959) pp. 242–3Google Scholar
  17. in reference works, Yoshio Kobayashi, ed., Kirisutokokyō Hyakka-jiten (Christian Encyclopedia), Tokyo, 1972Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Claremont Graduate School 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank J. Hoffman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations