Harmony Of Religions: A Buddhist Perspective

The world is heading to enter the 21st century, but is still trapped in more serious problems than ever before. The 20th century has been a century of challenge and development – we take pride in our achievements, especially the wonderous discoveries in science and technology. But at the same time, the power of destruction has also been increasing, creating and imbalance – disproportionate to the growth of the so-called “civilisation”, “modernity” and “post- modernity” etc. The basic maladies of humanity such as anger, hatred, greed and desire remain unchanged, rather have become more acute. The conflicts, wars and destructions are still continuing. In primitive human society people used to fight each other with bows and arrows; and with the passage of time they used guns and machines for fighting. Today atomic, nuclear and chemical weapons can destroy millions of people within a minute at only the push of a button. Human conflict has only attained an ever increasing power of destruction, which is leading humanity to a point of no return – where the very survival of mankind is in question. The world is now facing enormous problems without any solution even through scientific wisdom or technological knowhow. Out of these enormous problems, I would like to discuss here the problem of religious disharmony.

Whenever people have faced difficulties or challenges, their tendencies have been to take shelter under religion and spirituality, to seek solutions and remedies. Unfortunately, the most dangerous threat to the world is that religion itself is becoming a most powerful means for division and conflict within the human society. The phenomena of religious intolerance, fundamentalism and fanaticism have made society almost immune to any remedy, secular or religious. The medicine itself is becoming poisonous. It is, therefore, imperative to discuss the issue with all serious in the context of what harmony between religious can contribute.

In fact, the history of religious traditions is replete with an unholy record of crime and war. What is the logic behind these historical antecedents? And how should we view those who commit violence and crime in the name of religion? Can they be called religious persons? Should we honour those who spent their lives for fighting and perpetrating atrocities for the dissemination of their professed religion, or must we think of them to be sinners and not genuine religious persons, deserving open condemnation for committing acts opposed to the basic principles of their, or for that matter any, religions?

I do not know of a religious canon or creed that preaches violence, recommends hatred and attempt to cause disharmony among people. Yet we find that in the past, many acts committed in the name of religion, culminating in mass conversion, elimination of rival faiths by dogmatic assertion, tall claims of the truth of one religions in order to establish the superior of one religions in order to establish the superiority of one religion over the other, and deprecation of the beliefs and teaching of other religions.

In order to understand the harmony and disharmony of between religions we have to understand the real meaning of religions in the first place. Prof. R. Panikkar describes the meaning of religions as: “Religions. This word encompasses, in my opinion, a threefold aspect: Religiousness or the human dimension concerning ultimacy, wherever we may believe this ultimacy to lie in; Religiosity or the social institution (not necessarily an organisation) in which the religious dimension of human life embodies; Religionism or the more or less closed system of ultimate beliefs appertaining to one particular collectivity.

The three aspects should be distinguished but they are not separable. For our purpose I shall use the word mainly as connoting an “organised relinking with sacred”. But without forgetting the religion is transcendental to any of its expression.” I am quite in agreement that this definition of religion is broadly acceptable to most of the religious traditions as they exist today, although, it may not be an accurate definition of dharma as understood by the Buddhist. In any case a religion must be instrumental in spiritualising the individual into boundless and holistic nature. This view is further strengthened by Leonard Swidler. He said: “At the heart of each culture is what is traditionally called a religion, that is: An explanation of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly. Normally all religions contain the four C’s: Creed, Code, Cult, and Community structure, and are based on the notion of the transcendent.” Creed refers to the cognitive aspect of a religion; it is everything that goes into the “explanation” of the ultimate meaning of life.

Code of behaviour or ethics includes all the rules and customs of action that somehow follow from one aspect or another of the creed. Cult means all the ritual activities that relate the followers to one aspect or other of the transcendent, either directly or indirectly, prayer being an example of the former and certain formal behaviour toward representatives of the transcendent, like priests, of the latter. Community structure refers to the relationships among the followers; this can vary widely, from a vary egalitarian relationship, as among Quakers, through a “republican” structure like Presbyterians have, to a monarchical one, as with some Hasidic Jews vis-a-vis their “rabbi”. The transcendent, as the root of the word indicates, means “that which goes beyond” the everyday, the surface experience of reality. It can refer to spirits, god, a personal god, an impersonal god, emptiness, etc.

Especially, in modern times there have developed “explanations of the ultimate meaning of life, and how to live accordingly” which are not based on a notion of the transcendent, e.g. secular humanism, Marxism etc. Although in every respect these “explanations” function as religions traditionally have in human life, because the idea of the transcendent, however it is understood, plays such a central role in religion, but not in these “explanations”, for the sake of accuracy, it is best to give these “explanations” not based on notion of the transcendent, a separate name; the often used is ideology. Much, though not all, of the following will, mutatis mutandis, also apply to ideology even when the term is not used”.

The above two views on religion are the most recent ones, which have been expressed by competent modern scholars. I think these should be acceptable to all religious traditions. It is quite clear to us that there cannot be any disharmony in religiousness or in the creed or code. But it does appear in cult or community. In order words, disharmony and conflict grow in the minds of people who are unmindful of the essence of creed and code, and instead are carried away by intense community feelings attachment. Such persons guided by self and by vested interests, create conflict among themselves and use the name of religion for gaining political strength, or for other ulterior motives.

A false sense of insecurity of the religious traditions is being created by the fundamentalists in order to exploit the religious sentiments of innocent believers. This is one of the prime causes of the majority of religious conflicts today. Everyone should know that a “religious tradition” can only be so, when it can co-exist in harmony and amity with all other religious traditions without any conflict. The religious tradition is one that eliminates external destructive forces and promotes real religiousness in the mind of its adherents and attracts more followers who embrace that tradition. Not only relationship among the religious traditions, but the relationship between the state and religious traditions themselves. It is not necessary that a state must be secular in order for there to be a harmonious relationship between the state or church or among the various churches.

It is possible that a state is non-secular, but at the same time tolerate all religions. The situation in Tibet before Chinese occupation was such an example. Since the seventh century, Buddhism was the state religion of Tibet. The successive rulers of Tibet- from the religious kings to the lineage of the dalai lama- however, laid down such policies which not only led to the promotion of Buddhism, but, at the same time, encouraged the followers of other faith to continue their tradition. The sizable number of Tibetans who followed the traditional Bon religion and a few Tibetan Muslims and Christians did not in any way feel threatened by the Buddhist majority.

Therefore, a great deal depends on the attitude of the people in power. Problems arise when the rulers have a narrow view of religion. They then fail to understand the basic elements of their respective religion. Instead, by taking advantage of the religious sensitivity of their community, they adopt certain polices which become fanatical in character. These, then, deter the development of their country in the long run. For, in this age of interdependence, it is imperative that the right of all sections of the community as well as of other nations be appreciated and respected.

Those who act otherwise are losing sight of the essence of religion. Being a Buddhist myself, if I take the case of Buddhism, I can say with certainty that a true Buddhist cannot be disharmonious. The very nature of the Buddhist doctrine does not permit such an attitude. It is an inbuilt characteristic of Buddhism to respect the rights of individuals as well as to respect other faiths. Buddhism states that all sentient beings, not just human beings, are equal.

The term”religious harmony” itself in a sense self- contradictory, because no religion can lead to disharmony. If any tradition of thought leads to disharmony, then it cannot be spiritual or religious. It is only by misusing the name of religion that disharmony is perpetrated. Any “ism” which leads to unethical or immoral action cannot be an outcome of spirituality, for a true believer can never be anti-harmony or fundamentalist.

Some contemporary thinkers are of the views that there are many areas in which the non- religious and the religious persons are identical. More often than not the anti-religious are less unethical than the religious persons. But this view does not prove the religious traditions did not contribute anything to the culture of harmony. We have to distinguish between the real religious teaching and the mixed concepts of religious teachings, between the real religious mind and irrational dogmas and between the real religious faith and the religious fundamentalism. Only in that way we establish the face that violence and crime committed in the name of religion are not indeed, religious acts and persons who commit them are not religious persons.

Keeping in view the above mentioned facts I would suggest the following course of action to bring harmony among the followers of various religious traditions:

1. In accordance with the teaching of Buddha, each of the individual sentient being are unique- each one is different from all others. Each one differs from the other in capacity, likes and dislikes, taste and temperament etc. Hence, any one single religious doctrine will not be suitable for every individual. Therefore, Buddha himself taught a number of different teachings within Buddhism itself. We have three yanas (vehicles) and four philosophical schools; and each of these have several sub-divisions. All these apparently have a number of differences and contradictory concepts. It is believed that the Buddha have taught 84,000 aggregates of doctrines to suit different disciples. But, in spite of their apparent difference and opposing views, all the doctrines lead to liberation and enlightenment. Each one of the teachings is equally holy and spiritual. None is superior or inferior to the other. Similarly, the Buddha believed the each one of the other noble traditions are also important and holy for their own followers. One type of food or one medicine is not suitable for everyone and there is the necessity of variety. But, it does not mean that any of these varieties necessarily are either superior or inferior in their value. This simple fact should be understood by all religious followers who have genuine respect for each religion. The basic tendency of thinking about one’s own religion as superior to the other religion must be eradicated. This will be possible only when one genuinely practises one’s own religion sincerely and has the determination to protect the doctrine in its purest form. For example, the essence of the teaching of Buddha is to eradicate the mental defilements such as hate, anger and attachment and cultivate virtues such as love, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and generosity. If any Buddhist practitioner encounters a criticism to Buddha or Buddhism and the person reacts with hate and anger because his religion or religious sentiments are hurt- then it proves that such a person is indeed not a sincere practitioner of Buddhism. He has only a physical attachment to the name of Buddhism. In fact, the doctrine of Buddha can never be damaged by the critic, but it can be damaged by oneself through anger and hate. I think this principle is applicable to other religious traditions too. Therefore, it is extremely important to protect the real practice of the doctrine in one’s life once it is attacked by opponents. Reacting to opponents with hate and anger is acceptance of defeat and destruction of one’s own religion. But reacting with love and compassion is victory and protection of one’s own religion. I think this is a very simple principle, easily understandable by everyone.

2. In the process of establishing harmony amongst the various religions, instead of for searching similarity amongst the various religious traditions, we should search for the dissimilarity among them and then learn to respect these dissimilarities. Otherwise, the tendency of searching similarities many a times lead to imposing one’s own religious interpretations upon the other religion in the process of making things similar and thereby including various traditions into one tradition, which does not suit any of the basic principles of religious traditions.

3. Whenever we find disharmony or threat to harmony among the various religious communities, every genuine religious practitioners should have the courage and willingness to condemn such happenings and particularly one’s own co-religionists found indulging in the act of disharmony should be condemned effectively instead of blaming the other community and trying to justify one’s own co-religionists.

4. Genuine religious leaders of various traditions should meet each other as often as possible and develop a personal relationship to eradicate misunderstanding, cultivate genuine understanding and set good examples for their followers.

5. Interfaith-dialogues, inter-religious prayers, pilgrimage to various religious shrines and holy places by each other should be encouraged.

6. And, above all, there should be solidarity among all genuine religious practitioners to safeguard their faith and conviction. They should forcefully oppose any misuse or exploitation in the name of religion by politicians for the sake of “divided and rule”, creating groups or vote banks by exploiting the innocent people’s religious sentiments.
In case it is not possible to bring in harmony in humanity through the religions, I personally feel that it would be better if all the religions disappear from the face of the earth to minimise divisions among men; and thus at least the power-mongers and wealth maniacs will not find religion so handy to exploit in gaining their selfish ends.