Abstract
Takizawa has asserted that both Christianity and Buddhism are based on the same soteriological ground called “Original Reality of Immanuel”. This paper, examines its validity as Christianity by making clear the differences between K. Barth’s theology and that of Takizawa.
Though it is widely recognized that Takizawa’s theology is somewhat different from the ordinary Christian faith, no specific commentary has yet been published. In this connection, I make out the following points.: first Barth’s “the Name of Christ” doesn’t connote any dualism such as visible Christ and invisible one. Second, so there is no “Immanuel” without “in Christ” in Barth’s theology. Third, Takizawa’s “Immanuel” lacks the Cross and the Resurrection which constitute the core of Christianity.
Further, I raise several problems concerning the philosophical study of comparative religion.
