Buddhism in Australia Traditions in Change

78 GordonWain

with

Flagstaff

Hill

acting

asthebackand MountsKeiraandKembla

forming

the arms.

Mythological

associations with theterrain further determinedthe

temple‘salignment.

The

primary

centralaxisofthe

complex

mnsnorthtosouth

fromthe

summitof

Flagstatl‘

Hill

through

thecentreofthe

temple.

then.

exactly

bisects

the

angle

formedbetween the

temple

and thetwo

prominent

northern

mountains

Thinking

aboutthe

temple

as

separate

fromthe

deity

thatcreatedthe

mountainsts

impossible

inthese

ways.Aspect

and

topography

were

important.

not

only

fromthe

psychologicalperspective

of

generating

feelings

of

familiarity.

but

also for

fulfilling metaphysical

functions.

By

coincidence.

Wollongong‘s

topographyreputedly

remindedGrandMaster

Hsing

Yuriofa

place

inwhicha

highlyrespected

Chinesescholarnamed

Wollong

oncelived.

Despite

overtures

including

offersoffreelandfromotherlocal

governments

to

develop

the

temple

in

Sydney

or

Brisbane.

GrandMaster

[-15ng

Yundecidedthat

Wollongong's

elevated

Berkeley

location

wasmost

suitable,

given

its

fengshui,

The

spatial

organization

andstructureofthesitewerethen

designed

asa

repre-

sentationof

heavenly

space.followingprinciplesgoverning

allChineseBuddhist

temples.

Asamodel

ofheaven.the

templeperformed

four

metaphysical

functions:

a

centre.

a

meetingpoint.

a

microcosmofthe

heavenly

realmandanimmanent

transient

presence(Turner

1979:

1843).

Asa

centre.

the

temple

linked

heaven

andearth.

regarded

metaphy'sically

as

the

channel

through

which

passes

therzrix

mundi:allmanifestations

(theMany)

flowdownfromthe

Unity

(theOne).

and

the

soulsofthe

enlightened(theMany)

flowbacktosalvation

(theOne).

Inthis

connection.

apart

from

being

thecentral

path

of

cosmogenesis

(the

Onetothe

Many).

the

temple

asa

supra-mundaneparadigm

also

portrayed

amicrocosm.

or

instrument.

by

whichthemanifested

Many

relracedthe

path

of

cosmogenesis

backto

the

Origin

(the

Many

Returntothe

One)(Wilson 1986),

The

temple

asthemicrocosm

represented

not

only

thecosmic

process.

butalsoastructure

thatmirroredtheordered

universe.

themacrocosm.

Thus.

building

a

temple

isa

miniatureofthewhole

architectural

process

of

making

auniverse.

A

fengshui

worldview

may

explainwhy

theBuddhistsectfavoured

Wollongong.

Asafavourable

location.

Flagstaff

Hill

provided

a

siteonwhich

to

plan

a

repre-

sentationof

heavenlyspace.

a

progenitive

centre

ofthe

world,

linking

heavenand

earth.InAustralia.

however.

principles

of

fengshui

donot

underpin

town

planning

decision

processes.

Instead.

all

developmentapplication

mustreceive

approval

from

municipal

councils

afiera

processinvolvingnotifyingadjacent

landowners

andconsiderationof
publicobjections.

InthecaseofaBuddhist

temple.proposed

fora

predominantly

whiteAustralian

residentialsuburb.this

planningprocess

is

in

part

informed

by

an

alternative.

European

bounded

setof

meanings

and

values.

whichisorientalism.

Multiculturalism.
Christianity,

thestateandNanTien

Temple

Australia's
imagined

multicultural

national

identity inspired

leaders of the

Wollongong

Christianministriestoextendaninclusive

welcome

to

theBuddhists.

The
temple

wasvalued ‘in

place‘

asamaterial

expression

ofa

multicultural

Locating

aBuddhist

temple

in

Wollongong

79

Australian

identity.

However.

theirwelcome

was

qualified.

since

the

implicit

curocentric

assumption

ofaChristiannation

remained.For

example.

following

the

opening

ofthe

temple

theReverend

RegPiper.

then

Bishop

of

Wollongong.

was

quoted

as

saying:

‘[A]s

anAustralianIwelcome

it

[thetemple]

butas

aChristian

I

challenge

it‘.adding

thatBuddhism‘is

going

tobluntthe

uniqueness

ofChrist‘.

and.

‘[I]t[thetemple]

willblurtherevelations

ofChrist'

(SydneyMorning

Herald

1995:

25).

infurther

press

interviewshestated:

‘GodisGodofall

people.

owner

ofalltheworld

atthesametimeweaffirm

thatJesus

Christ.

the

manwho

wasraisedfromthe

dead.

isthe

onlyway

toGod'

(IllawurraMercury

1995:3).

Similarly.

Canon Ian

Cox

expressed

thesame

dilemma:

‘[W]e[theAnglican

Church]

valuethese

people

[Buddhists]

as

people

butwehaveadifferent

view

oftheir

religious

faith.

andwewouldwantto

try

and

help

themtocometo

under-

standtheChristianfaith‘

(personal

communication

May1999).

In

short.

behind

themulticulturalfacade

inter-religiousrivalry

is

clearly

apparent.Theologically

basedthreats

provoked

strongnegative

reactionsfrom

someChristianministries.

panicularly

the

Anglican

clergy.

SomeChristian

leaders

spokeopenly

of

how

theexistenceofthe

temple

would

highlighttheological

disagreements.

Among

someChristiandenominations

thatbelieveGodloves

theln

alone.

difference

isto

be

challenged

anddenied.

not

championed

under

a

policy

ofmulticulturalism‘s

equivalence

offaith.

Asdiscussed

by

Houston

(1986)

andAta

(1988).although

theofficialrhetoric

positioned

the Australian

nation

firmly

within

multicultural

discourses.

the

theological

debate

over‘truth‘continued

among

some

Christiandenominations.

However.

among

theChristian

ministriesin

Wollongong

thescalesof

judgement

were

weighted

in favour

of

Christianity.

The

implied

threattotheAustralian

nationand

cityimagined

asChristiancomesfromthe

altemativeworldviewof

theBuddhistfaith.

Many

Christian

ministrieswereambivalent

aboutthe

temple.

Simultaneously,

the

temple

was

‘in

place'

asamaterial

object

representing

cultural

diversity

and‘outof

place'metaphysically

or

spiritually.

Sucha

qualified

welcome

acknowledged

the

temple

as

asacred

space.through

which the sitebecomes vested

with

group

and

self-identity.

This acknowl-

edgement

oftenevokes

strongnegative

reactionsfromthose

who

perceive

harm

totheirown

group

interestsor

threatsto their‘honour’or

‘truths'.

Strongest

reactionsareevokedfrom

persons

withinthe

group

whohave

the

deepestplace.

basedidentificationoreven

feelings

of

fusion.

ratherthan

among

thosewho

only

havenominalafiiliations.

Thisisillustratedinthewordsof

the

Anglican

minister

the

ReverendJohn

Thew:

‘[W]e[Anglicans]stronglydisagree

withtheBuddhist

analysis

oflife'.

adding

that‘someChristiansfelt

threatened

by

the

temple

which

will

bring

thousands

ofdevoteesinto

Wollongongevery

year'([llawarra

Mercury

l989a:

3).

The

challenges

offaith

presentedby

Buddhismto

Christianity

are

not

new

andhavebeen

debatedeversinceBuddhism

was‘discovered‘

byEuropeans

during

the first

halfofthe nineteenth

century

(Almond 1988).

Buddhism’s

principal

theological

threatto

Christianity

arisesbecause

ithasno

deity

in

the

Christian

sense,teaching

thateach

person

canbecome

abuddhaor

‘enlightened

onc’iKing

1962).