Popular Culture Review Vol. 11, No. 1, February 2000 | Page 156

148

Popular Culture Review

of common ground that many Christians and many Buddhists can be comfortable
with. Spirit is a non-verbal, non-discursive bridge uniting Christians and Buddhists.
In a very revealing sentence, Thay says: “It is safer to approach God through the
Holy Spirit than through theology.” This is another important rhetorical adaptation
to keep the interfaith dialogue focused away from doctrine and toward something
even more “substantial,” the living, animating spirit of God. This allows for a
certain pragmatic flexibility in a dialogue in which spirit and spirituality animate
the conversation, and there is less room for arguing over fine points of doctrine
and practice.
This is not to say that all Christians or religious peoples will embrace the
terms spirit/spirituality as rhetorical bridges between East and West. In an imperfect
world of divisiveness and religious suspicion, the synthetic impulse needs to be
supported and nurtured because rapprochement and agreements are better than
divisiveness and violence.
As with “spirit,” direct action is a “tangible” bridge that avoids debates about
doctrine and definitional terminology. Some forms o f non-verbal action are
themselves powerful forms of symbolic action, often expressed in the language of
rite, ritual, and ceremony. Action is often seen as effective because as a
communication form, it at least appears to express the commonplace values of
simplicity, directness, and openness, and may be perceived as less susceptible to
rhetorical subterfuge and distortion. For example, there is a directness and credibility
when Thay recalls his actions for peace: “I have been engaged in peace work for
more than thirty years.going to sea to help rescue boat people, evacuating the
wounded from combat zones, resettling refugees; helping hungry children and
orphans; opposing wars; producing and disseminating peace literature; training
peace and social workers; and rebuilding villages destroyed by bombs” (p. 80).
In addition to direct action there is symbolic action in which the symbolic act
substitutes for the direct action that it symbolizes. For example, there is the symbolic
action of the Vietnamese monk Thich Quang Due, who burned himself alive in
1963. Thay emphasizes that the monk “meditated for several weeks and then wrote
very loving letters to his government, his church, and his fellow monks and nuns,
explaining why he had reached that decision.” Thay says: When you are motivated
by love and the willingness to help others attain understanding, even self-immolation
can be a compassionate act. When Jesus allowed himself to be crucified, He was
acting in the same way, motivated by the desire to wake people up, to restore
understanding and compassion and to save people (p. 81). The symbolic act of
self-immolation “spoke” of the virtues of self-sacrifice and love. Because it was a
dramatic and violent act, it drew attention to itself and the futility of war and hatred.
Another simple yet powerful symbolic act is found on the altar of Thay’s hermitage