This study discusses in depth the intrinsic connections between the Dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber and the teachings of Chan Master Sheng Yen. I argue that the Dialogical philosophy of Martin Buber is a creative confluence between aspects of western spiritual Humanism and some forms of Humanistic Zen Buddhism, especially the Pure Land in the human realm doctrine as espoused by Chan Master Sheng Yen. Master Sheng Yen’s Pure Land of the Buddha in the human realm and the Dialogical- Humanist-Socialism of Martin Buber share similar principles and, most importantly, similar existential manifestations. It is in this context that I hold the teachings of Master Sheng Yen to be of seminal importance for the recovery of a compassion-based spirituality in both the east and the west. In the spirit of Upaya, this study argues that a successful pedagogical method to teach and learn the Buddhist teachings of Chan Master Sheng Yen is to address their commonality with similarly understood and similarly practiced formulations of Metta and Karuna, such as those espoused in the Dialogical Philosophy of Martin Buber. Dialogical philosophy argues that God, as the summon bonum of the spiritual quest, is not above in a realm of transcendent heavens, but rather, God is the between of an I and a Thou. As is the case with Master Sheng Yen’s teachings of Pure Land, I and Thou dialogue is a social practice applicable to the conditions and circumstances of the here and the now. That is to say, the Dialogical practices of I and Thou are translated in the social realm in the form of a Dialogical society, which in its general contours is much akin to the Pure Land on earth. In this sense I argue that Buber’s emphasis on the relationship between I and Thou as the primordial spiritual practice, constitutes, with some obvious cultural reservations, a view of the spiritual life that resembles in many respects the Pure Land teachings of Master Sheng Yen. By “primordial” it is meant to indicate that a particular practice precedes all others, and those other practices in turn derive their legitimacy from the extent to which they either coincide with or drift apart from it. What we seek to elucidate are the points of existential confluence between Dialogue and Pure Land, not necessarily principles of philosophical similarities. That is to say, I argue that the enactment of I-Thou Dialogue between people and with nature shares the same basic social practices as those of Pure Land Buddhism. Or in other words, the social practices of Zen can only be enacted within the framework of a Dialogical society. From a dialogical perspective, all life is relati
