Impulses from a Buddhist Perspective on Religion and Dialogue in Modern Societies
Dear esteemed friends and colleagues, I am so honored to be given this opportunity to be with you and share our experiences on a very important topic of the 21st century.
I was asked to give you some impulse from a Buddhist perspective for your research project “Religion and Dialogue in Modern Societies”. I must tell you in the beginning that my mindset is that of the 7th century civilization in Tibet. So there is a huge gap of civilizational approach. You all live in postmodern civilization, and I still live in the 7th century civilization. You might be aware of Chief Seattle’s letter to the chief of Washington [President Pierce, 1855] in which he repeatedly says “I am a savage, therefore I do not understand”. So this is very much applicable to me. At many times I don’t understand the logic of modernity and modern civilization. My mind is so conditioned with that of the 7th century civilization that it might make our communication difficult. Particularly for me, it makes many things difficult to understand. So please bear with me.
Meaningful dialogue as a way to promote intimacy
Interreligious dialogue is extremely important for religious people as well as secular people or non-believers. They should participate and they should be encouraged to have interreligious dialogue, because dialogue is a channel or an instrument to promote intimacy between individual. Without dialogue there would not be a sense of intimacy, and without sense of intimacy we cannot have harmony among people, particularly among the religious groups or entire religious traditions. So this is the only way. Even within religious traditions there needs to be continues dialogue. Continues dialogue is the most effective instrument to enter into the tradition through an experiential channel, not an academic understanding. We look back to all the great teachers of the past, particularly to the Buddha. During his teachings, in his lifetime, he always encouraged dialogue amongst his disciplines. The Buddhist people were aware of that. In Buddha’s teaching, the sutras [i.e. discourses], there are very few words uttered by the Buddha himself. The major part of the sutras consists of the words of his disciples and points of discussion and dialogue among themselves. In the Prajnaparamita sutra, for example, there are more than eight participants who are talking among themselves, and very seldom the Buddha intervenes or gives some small comments. So that makes the Buddha’s intention or between the Buddha’s concepts easier to reach the variety of his disciples, having so many different backgrounds and capacities. Dialogue within one tradition or between several traditions, plural traditions and between different fields is a very good way to promote understanding between the diverse faiths.
In present times, this is a new invention. Of course in the ancient time, there used to be continuity of dialogue, but after some time dialogue between and within traditions mostly disappeared. Particularly in India, the tradition of [philosophical] debate and dialogue has, the 12th century, almost disappeared. It was reestablished in the late 20th century. In the 1960s, when I attended the world Buddhist conferences, the different sects or traditions of Buddhism, the Theravadins, the Mahayanins and the Vajrayanins and different local traditions of Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians and Tibetans turned out to have a great distance among themselves, and not to understand each other. This is also because most of the conservative people think that their tradition is the pure Buddhist teaching, and the rest are deluded, not the real Buddhist teaching but then with the progression of time, we now have a chance to discuss these matters. By coming closer and having dialogue, the distance has completely disappeared. Now the entire Buddhist community all over the globe is willing to understand each other, and they are happy to be in dialogue with each other. They have promoted dialogue a great deal, in order to remove the misunderstandings. Remove the distance, and to come closer, and create a sense of intimacy. And that’s good for the promotion of Buddha’s teaching and also for the development of Buddhism in the individual’s mind, and it’s a great help.
I also have quite a bit of experience for dialoguing with the inter-religious community, Buddhist and Christians, Buddhist and Hindus, Buddhist and Islamic traditions. And these dialogues are beneficial, according to my own experience. Dialogue enhances the sense of respect and intimacy towards every religion. But there a number of obstacles to establish real meaningful dialogue; it is quite difficult to achieve. We shall have to understand the obstacles. Unless and until we understand the real meaning of interreligious dialogue, we might misconstrue it in a way that people belonging to different traditions of religion are sitting together and making monologues together, not having any dialogue. This does happen at many times.
So therefore, first of all, we must understand: what is dialogue and how do we establish it? My late friend Jiddu Krishnamurti [d.1986] repeatedly used to say: “Can you listen to me, in order to establish a dialogue between us?” So everybody says, “Yes, I am listening to you.” He says: “No, no, no, you are not listening to me, you are listening to yourself.” And we’ll say: “No, no, we are listening to you.” And he says “No, when I utter words, you immediately interpret with your own pre concepts and what I wanted to communicate to you. You never accept it. I utter a word, and ten people of different backgrounds will have ten different understanding-or misunderstandings. So therefore, unless and until you listen to me, we will not be able to establish genuine dialogue. Then we used to ask him; “How should we listen to you? What do you want us to do?” He said: “Just empty your mind. Just unlearn whatever you have learned, completely open your mind. Don’t interpret my words through your own preconcepts; understand it in the way I meant it. That is difficult of course, but if we make an effort, this is possible.”
Misconceptions about tolerance
In this contemporary world there are a number of misconceptions-or maybe they are not misconceptions, but I am talking about how I see it: I consider a number of words misleading; a number of words may give rise to misconceptions, at least with people like me. The first is a word which is very commonly used in a number of different contexts; that word is “religious intolerance.” In my view, there cannot be any religious intolerance as such. Anyone who is religious minded, he or she can never be intolerant. If a person is intolerant about anything that means the person is not religious –minded. He or she does not have the touch of religion; the person’s mind is not influenced or not evolved into religiousness. So this misnomer, “religious intolerance,” we have taken it for granted. We think there is an intolerance which is created by religion. I do not think any religion encourages intolerance. Intolerance is the biggest mental defilement, and every religion tries to remove this defilement. So we must understand that whenever there is intolerance, this comes from an irreligious mind. It is not created by religion, and it is not in the mind of the religious person.
Similarly, when we say “religious intolerance,” this is also a very disrespectful way of expression. If I tolerate a religion other than my own, that means I do not have any respect, I just tolerate. Because intolerance is not good, so I tolerate it. It is just to be tolerated, not to be accepted, not to be respected. So this word is also very much a misconception. So unless and until we have a genuine respect toward every religion, thinking that all religion are equally sacred, equally holy, that there is no superior religion, no inferior religion, we cannot have dialogue. All the religious traditions which are commonly accepted as religious traditions, should be considered as equally sacred and worthy of respect. That is why Mahatma Gandhi has coined a new word: sarva dharma sambhava. In Gujurati-Hindi, sarva dharma means “all religions,” sambhava refers to an equal harmonies feeling towards all the different religious traditions.
Different religions suit different people
Then there is the reality that one religion is not sufficient for everyone. Humanity, each human being, is individual. Individual means “unique.” There are many common things, but each individual has uniqueness in it. You can observe it very easily. Among the seven billion people living on planet earth, we can never find two identical faces. Even twin brothers or twin sisters have a different identity, a clear differentiation; they may be very similar, but there is uniqueness. This shows that humanity exists in diversity, not in uniformity. Considering the diversity of humanity, how could one religion serve everyone? So that is why, naturally, on this earth, very fortunately, we have such diversity of religious traditions. All of these religious traditions are equally important and equally beneficial for their followers. Then coming to the individuals: in spite of every religion being equal, the suitability to an individual is definitely different. Buddhism may be more suitable to me and Christianity might be more suitable to my other friend; and Islam may be more suitable to the third friend. It does not mean that these religions are qualitatively different. But due to the background, the mental disposition, the conditioning of the mind, the cultural influence from many constitutions, one religion will be more suitable than the other religion for an individual. And if Buddhism is more suitable for me, it does not make Buddhism more superior to the other religions. There are many people whom Buddhism cannot help; they need other different traditions of religion. So understanding this ground reality is, I think, a precondition for establishing a genuine dialogue between the different religions.
Preconditions for a genuine dialogue
If we are having a hiding mindset, if we think “In reality, my religion is the most superior religion, the best religion, but for the sake of harmony in our society, I must be polite to the other religions as well,” then this is just tolerance; this is not real respect. And with this kind of mindset, we cannot establish a genuine dialogue.
Whoever tries to prove that his or her religion is the best and only tolerates other religious traditions cannot undertake genuine dialogue. To understand this point of suitability and to equally respect each other is an important precondition for genuine dialogue between the different faiths. Yes, for me, my religion is more suitable. And at the same time, if I find that some other religion is more suitable to me; I do have the courage and also the freedom to change. But without understanding the matter of suitability, there is no need to change one’s religion or to make efforts to convert others. Both of these things are very much a hindrance to establishing a genuine dialogue.
In order to have genuine dialogue between the different faiths, we must have equal respect for all the religions and understand and practice our own religion very sincerely. Unless and until you are well-grounded in your own religion, then perhaps you may not be able to also respect the other religions. At the same time, you may not be able to establish a genuine dialogue with the other religion, because you are not representing your own religion adequately to enable a dialogue with other religious traditions. So the prerequisites for dialogue are: sincerity and general practice; being well grounded in one’s own religion; having equal respect for all the other religious traditions; an open mind and a genuine desire to bring all religious followers into a harmonious community or in a very intimate friendship and brotherhood with each other. My experience is that, to have equal respect for all religions and an open mind to understand the other religious traditions and the desire to have a genuine intimacy between all religious followers, these are the prerequisite things for establishing a genuine dialogue.
The way and purpose of actual dialogue
So coming to actual dialogue, how do we begin to communicate with each other and what is the purpose of communicating with each other? In the early 20th century, there were certain moments or certain initiatives in India to bring all the religious traditions closer to become more intimate. In that effort a number of things were initiated: first, a comparative study of all religious traditions was undertaken, second, to search for similarities or common grounds among the religions, and third, to find out what is the essential unity among the religions.
I do respect all these initiatives and efforts in India that I am aware of. But with due respect, I also have a number of reservations concerning these efforts. I consider religious traditions to be incomparable. Comparative study can be done in the physical sciences or modern subjects or empirical things. The path to enlightenment or the path to the Absolute Truth, which is what the religious traditions represent, for the requirement of humanity, and why the different traditions came into beings. So there is no comparison among them. Only a completely awakened or enlightened person might be able to see these different traditions in comparison. But an ordinary, unenlightened person like me cannot compare the religions with each other. Comparison means you are trying to find out similarities and dissimilarities. But what will be the end result of this effort? These are used for a value judgment of the different religious traditions: which one is more superior, which is less superior? What will be the use of finding this out? If you are going to purchase some commodity, like a shoe or garment, then of course you need to compare which is cheaper and which is best. Then after comparison you can choose the best. But will you choose a religion for yourself by just comparing the religious traditions on your own? Will you make a judgment: this religion is more superior and that religion is less superior? Incomparable things of a divine nature by an empirical mind, is an attempt to do an impossible task.
So in India, when I am evaluating the curriculums of the universities, I always object and argue that we should not have a curriculum in comparative religious studies. There can be curriculum called multi-religious studies or multi traditional studies, multi-faith studies, of course, one can study all the religious traditions but it should be studied in their own way, not in a comparative way, not in a value-judging way. This is my way of looking at it.
The need to restore real religiousness
The real problem of the present day is the nonexistence of the true religious traditions. This is a human tragedy. Most of the religious traditions have completely disappeared from the surface of the earth. Only the name and institutions which own the name of the religion are left. No one is practicing their own religions in its original sense any more. So this is the root cause of the disharmony and communal divisions we are facing today. The people who claim to be Buddhists; they do not really practice Buddhism. Those who claim to be Christian, they do not really practice Christianity. Those who claim to be Hindus, they do not really practice it. And another tragedy is that today most of the people belong to their religion only by birth, not by faith. If someone is born to Christian parents, automatically the child is called Christian. If someone is born in Buddhist family, their child may not know Buddha, What is Dharma teaching and what is Sangha community? It is a prerequisite that a person must take refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Whoever does not do this or who does not know what these three terms means, cannot be a Buddhist. So all these people are in reality kind of non-believers. But they identify themselves with the name of some religion. Then that identification becomes a cause of division, of violence and intolerance. And this kind of conflict among the individuals among the individuals appears as religious conflicts. This is most unfortunate. In recent times you might be aware of the incidents in Myanmar. There are two ethnically different communities, so there is an ethnic conflict. The ethnic Burmese were traditionally residing in their totally, and new ethnic came in from outside in recent times, now also residing there. There are conflicts, also about economic and social interest. A lot of violence and killing took place. Buddhism is not the cause of this violence. The people who claim to be Buddhists do not follow the Buddha’s teaching. They become violent, and they lose their own religious tradition. But from the perspective of the international community, or even from the local one, it appears as a religious conflict. As a matter of fact, religion has nothing to doing in this violence and this conflict.
My late friend Raimon Panikkar used to say, the problem is that today, we have mixed up religiousness, religiosity and religionism. In his paper “Religions and the Culturer of Peace” presented at the UNESCO conference at Barcelona in 1994 Panikkar said on religion:,, 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 organization) 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 the sacred’. But without forgetting the religion is transcendental to any of its expression.”
Following this line, in my view, religiousness does not exist anymore, religiosity is still there, and religionism becomes most powerful, but it is a kind of mindset or irreligion. And that overpowered the individuals, and then that is being colored as a religious conflict, religious intolerance or religious violence. So to encounter this conflict and violence in the name of religion shall, firstly, have to understand whether religion was really a cause of this conflict or of this violence. Secondly, in order to reduce this kind of conflict, we must make all effort to restore the religious mind of the people: to make Hindus good Hindus, to make Muslims good, practicing Muslims, to make Christians practicing Christians.
Gandhi has said a very beautiful sentence: “I am a sincere, good Hindu. Therefore, I am a good Muslim and I am a good Christian.” So he was right. If one is practicing one’s own religion very faithfully and sincerely, automatically he or she will respect all religious equally, and there will not be any conflict amongst them. Once the religiousness has disappeared, then we shall have to dismantle the religionism and the religiosity. So this is a very difficult task. Around 200 years ago, in Europe, there was separation between the church and the state. But that separation could not make a real separation between the religiousness and the purely temporal things – and perhaps it is impossible anyway. For humanity, to become a believer is difficult; but to become a real non believer is even more difficult. In India I know many friends who are declared non believers-Marxist, communist, leaders of communist political parties- but quietly they go to the temple! Mostly in the nights, hiding from everyone. They even ask the pandits [religious scholars] to come to their home and perform pujas [worships]. Because in the mindset, there is a conflict. To remain a non believer feels a uncomfortable. There is a tension established by claiming not to have religious mind. But being drawn nevertheless to want to participate in some form of ritual, or feeling the perceived comfort of some kind of belief in a super power or simply blind faith. This kind of tension makes religious harmony more difficult. The human psyche is very tricky and a big problem. People forget who they are; they always remain with an identity which is not the real self. It is just a projected self which does not exist, but they identify with this projected self appearance. This divides the human community.
Culture and tradition in interreligious dialogue
Now, let me get back to interreligious dialogue: the preconditions is- as I mentioned before- to have a genuine respect for each religion and, with a sense of creating intimacy, to listen to each other and understand each other. In this process, the conventional way of approach is not useful. I don’t know about the conventional approach here, but in India, there are three different approaches: the exclusive approach, the inclusive approach and the pluralist approach. Both the exclusive and the inclusive are not based on equal respect for all religions. Pluralism might be a little better, but the way of approaching pluralism is also sometimes trapped in different differentiation or comparison. The comparative approach, even though it accepts religious diversity, does not lead to sarva dharma sambhava-that is, equal respect to every religion. Still, on many occasions, the pluralist approach gives a sense of comparison, and hence value – judgment. Plurality is a ground reality which we cannot avoid. We are not creating any religious traditions; we are just looking at those that already exist. So there are the few things that I think are important if we wish to enter genuine dialogue between the religious traditions.
And finally, I would say, there is a mixing up or confusion about aspects of religion: tradition, religion, culture, habits and conditioning-five different things-sometimes they are interrelated with each other. But basically, these are completely different things. Particularly when we refer to a tradition and a culture, there is a very different understanding between the East and the West. In the modernity, in the western way of thinking, culture is taken as a habit or a kind of long term perpetuated custom or system. And when we talk about the religion, as I mentioned, it is a mix of religiousness, religiosity and religionism. Whatever is considered to be perpetuated habits becomes religion. So that is one of the hindrances to understanding the diversity of religions, and how to enable a genuine dialogue between them.
In India, or in Asia countries, we understand culture always as a good thing. Culture is referred to as sankriti. That means well composed. We speak about prakrti [creative energy], samskrti [formation] and vikrti [change]. These three are a way of moving all phenomena. But in the west, “culture” also has a negative connotation, for example when speaking of a “culture of war” or a “culture of violence.” In this way, “culture” can be both positive and negative.
We Asians understand traditions as a very divine thing. All the long term perpetuated systems do not make a tradition. All traditions must have three requisites’: They must 1. Originate from a divine or authentic source, 2. Be transmitted through an unbroken lineage and 3. They must be presently verifiable through common sense and reasoning. Only if these three things come together, it is considered to be tradition. The Buddhist tradition means: which has been taught by Buddha himself, coming directly from the Buddha, the enlightened, authentic person, and coming down to use through the unbroken lineage of Nagarjuna, Asanga and all the other masters up to my own teacher and to me. And on the top of that, what has been transmitted must be verifiable by logic and reasoning: by common sense. If something is in the category of mystery or beyond reasoning and logic, it would not be considered as “tradition.” So “culture,” as a positive thing, tradition which has its own definition, and “religion,” in the sense of religiousness (defined in 1-3 above) needs to be preserved and continued and respected. Regarding the rest of the habits or systems, they can be good or bad; we have differentiated which is to be maintained and which is to be destroyed or discarded.
So when we sit for inter-traditional or interreligious dialogue, the religion should be put into the category of tradition. It has its own culture and cultural expression which is respectable by everyone. But its suitability can be varied, and there are things or grounds which can be shared with everyone. By sharing this, the religious traditions get even closer, there can be harmony. Through the establishment of harmony among the religious traditions, the followers can also achieve a harmonious living; and this is also what the religious dialogue is aiming for. Religious dialogue must not aim for comparison or value judging of the religions.
For that purpose, His Holiness the 14th Dalia Lama has come up with a new expression; he says: In the Buddhist literature, or Buddhist canon, there are three parts: Buddhist science, Buddhist philosophy and Buddhist Dharma. Buddhist science and Buddhist philosophy may be what Buddhism has in common with all religious traditions, even the non believers. The philosophy and science are dealing with material facts; they can be used by anyone. But the Buddhist Dharma, that is the path, the method or how to achieve the Buddha nature, or salvation, is only for the Buddhist practitioners, Buddhist followers, who are finding the ultimate truth through Buddhism. For them, the Dharma is to be studied, learned and practiced. Therefore, I think such a kind of classification can be done with all religious traditions. There are many common things which can be practiced and shared by everyone; and then there are many things which are meant only for the practitioners of that religious tradition alone.
I apologize for taking a lot of time because of the unorganized thoughts. So I will stop here and open for your comments. Whatever is not acceptable to you, you can tell me very frankly. Thank you very much.
Discussion
Carola Roloff: Coming back to what you said about His Holiness the Dalai Lama, about the distinction he makes between science, philosophy and Dharma: If I understood it right, science and philosophy is something we can share with the secular world and with other religions. But when it comes to Dharma, when it comes to the question of “ultimate truth” and how to achieve salvation, every religion has its own perception and truth claims, things get more difficult. The Dalai Lama- in a conversation with Stephane Hessel, who was an observer of the drawing up process of the Human Rights Charter-said that for him “secularism” having respect for all religions. And this is in the sense of Indian Charter, which means not leaving aside the religions. The Dalia lama further said: “If we speak about different religions, then we also have to respect that there are different truths?” I raised this issue with a Buddhologist friend and he said: Well, if this referred to ultimate truth, then His Holiness would leave Buddhist ground; this would be Jainist point of view. From a philosophy point of view, there can only be one ultimate truth –this is why you call it ultimate truth! Can we distinguish between common ultimate truth and personal ultimate truth. Is this possible from a Buddhist perspective?
Samdhong Rinpoche: It is very difficult to verbalize truth, be it relative or ultimate truth. Our mind is so conditioned into analyzing the fragmentation of the different paths. For our mind, it is very difficult to comprehend the indivisible, what is beyond words and thoughts. Words and thoughts are always alternatives. So regarding the question whether the ultimate truth is one or many, I can say: The one one-or-many-question can only be applicable if there is an alternative, when there are several paths. The wholeness cannot be termed as one or two or many. “One, two, many” always come into our thought in the realm of paths and fragmentation. So the pervasive whole, how can we term it “one” ? One is the alternative of many. If I say that the ultimate truth is one, that means there are other things compared to which this can be termed as one. If there is no two, you can’t say, this is one or two or three. One, two, three always comes into the comparative world. Beyond the realm of word and thought, the question of “one or two “is not answerable. We may say: these questions do not apply to the ultimate truth.-What His Holiness was talking about is “pluralism in truth.” That means, he is directly referring to the relative truths. Only in the relative truth, in the conventional truth, can we talk about “one or many” and “secular or plural.” I infer that when he talks about several forms of truth, he necessarily refers to conventional truth. I don’t think he is referring to the anekantavada of Jainism. In any case, anekantavada does not claim that the truth can be in a plural form; they rather mean that truth can be seen from many [aneka] angles, and this leads to many different interpretations which one can verbalize. But on the experiential level, even the Jains do not accept that truth is plural. There are so many ways of looking at it. Seen from one angle, the object appears different than from another angle. Similarly the ultimate truth you are approaching from different angles or directions may appear differently. This is meant by anekantavada.
Carola Roloff: So, if you experience ultimate truth in the different religions, is this a common experience or a different experience?
Samdhong Rinpoche: Again I would say: it will be neither common not individual. It is beyond this level. We can only experience it, but we cannot talk at that level.
By courtesy of Academy of World Religions, University of Hamburg
Source: Samdhong Rinpoche (2015) Impulses from a Buddhist Perspective on Religion and Dialogue in Modern Societies. In: C. Roloff & W. Weiße, eds. Dialogue and Ethics in Buddhism and Hinduism. Public Presentations of The 14th Dalai Lama, Sallie B. King, Anantanand Rambachan and Samdhong Rinpoche. Münster: Waxmann, pp. 53-64.