"BUDDHISM"
AND TOLERANCE FOR DIVERSITY OF RELIGION AND BELIEF
Sulak Sivaraksa
At the risk of oversimplification, I would
like to propose that each of the world's great religions consists of two main aspects,
namely that of universal love, which is altruistic and selfless on the one hand, and a
tribal, institutionalized, or egocentric factor on the other. If we are not careful, our
religion can become very fundamentalistic and intolerant, and we will find ourselves
believing that we are the only ones on the true and righteous path to salvation, while all
others are merely misguided souls. It is a great temptation to compete with other
religions and rationalize that ours is better rather than to work towards peaceful
co-existence and cooperation.
Unfortunately, some religions are still
hunting for converts using crass and destructive ideologies. I'd like to quote a passage
from Overseas Missionary Fellowship (August-September, 1987). The article is called
"Finding True Freedom in Thailand":
For ninety-nine percent of the Thais,
bondage to demons brings the greatest fear. . . . This is true for animistic tribesmen,
prosperous merchants, enlightened graduates or stolid farmers. . . revealed in
conversation, TV soap operas, adornments to people's person or property. . . . Nothing and
no one has been able to remove permanently the inner anxiety that man, in manipulating the
spiritual forces, can also become their victim.
The conclusion you are led to, if you read
the article, is that the Thais must be saved by Christian missionaries, or that as a
tribe, they must be saved by US aid! I feel that people who stick with religions or
ideologies such as these either are or become unable to respect other people, especially
the poor, who may be proud of their religions and are no less advanced spiritually than
these would-be evangelists.
Indeed tribalism in itself should not be a
derogatory term, but when a world religion or superpower becomes tribal, it can easily
degenerate into hypocrisy and arrogance and can even lead to racism, as one can see
clearly in South Africa and elsewhere.
However, if we concentrate on the
religious aspects of universal love, we shall all become more humble, tolerant and truly
respectful of other beings--not only human, but animal, and all natural phenomena as well.
From this, our social and economic development will be nonviolent. We will not be cruel to
fellow human beings or to mother earth. Nor will we plunder our natural resources in the
name of progress. Forests will be saved, rivers will be free of pollution. And we will
realize that development can only occur at a pace at which humans and other beings matter.
In order to get rid of tribalism in
religious institutions, nationalism, and even consumerism and capitalism, the faithful
have to practice their religion with universal love. While we act individually and
locally, we must think globally, so that selfishness can slowly become selflessness. Only
then can one respect other religions and ideologies wholeheartedly. Although you may not
agree entirely with those of different views and beliefs, you can certainly respect them.
Even if they are your oppressors you need not hate them because that hatred is also
harmful to you. Instead of hating an oppressor one should try to understand the oppressive
system and try one's best to change it with the help of good friends who want to help one
to overcome suffering and obstacles in the way of cultural and spiritual development--as
well as social and economic development. If these four aspects of development; the
cultural, spiritual, social and economic, could be integrated, then there could be real
human development.
Unfortunately, over the past two
centuries, universal love in world religions has declined so much that merely
institutional religions seem to be, on the whole, the norm. Most churches tolerate or
support the political status quo no matter how oppressive the present regimes may be.
(There are of course exceptions). And since the rise of capitalism, Protestantism,
Catholicism, Buddhism and Hinduism seem to cater to the rich, while religious leaders pay
lip service to the poor. At best, they offer some social welfare to the needy, but there
have not been enough prophetic voices to transform the social and economic order to be
more just and peaceful for all humankind. The rate of child malnutrition is on the rise,
as is prostitution and sex tourism as well as militarism, materialism and consumerism.
Some religious leaders have tried to work with secular leaders to made the world a more
meaningful and peaceful place but so far we have been unable to establish widespread basic
changes which would ensure basic human rights for all and protect people from political
and religious exploitation. Tibet, Burma and Bangladesh may be extreme cases, but such
suffering, to lesser degrees, exists everywhere. And as well, the lack of food, shelter,
clothing and medicine for the majority of people in many countries is appalling--not to
mention the suffering caused by polluted air and water.
Indeed the rise of the secular
intellectual has been a key factor in shaping the modern world. Seen through the long
perspective of history it is in many ways a new phenomenon. It is true that in their
earlier incarnations as priests, scribes and soothsayers, intellectuals have guided
society from the very beginning; however, their moral and ideological innovations were
limited by the cannons of external authority and by the inheritance of tradition. They
were not, and could not be, free spirits, or adventurers of the mind.
With the decline of priestly power since
the eighteenth century, a new kind of mentor emerged to fill the vacuum and capture the
ear of society. The secular intellectual might be a deist, a skeptic or an atheist. But
they have been just as ready as any pontiff or presbyter to tell humankind how to conduct
its affairs. They have proclaimed, from the start, a special devotion to the interests of
humanity and an evangelical duty to advance them by their teaching. And they have brought
to their self-appointed task a far more radical approach than their clerical predecessors
as they have felt themselves bound by no corpus of revealed religion. The collective
wisdom of the past, the legacy of tradition, and the prescriptive codes of ancestral
experience existed to be selectively followed or wholly rejected as his own good sense
might decide.
For the first time in human history, and
with growing confidence and audacity, people have arisen and claimed that they could
diagnose the ills of society and cure them with their own intellects: moreover, that they
could devise formulae that, if followed, would not only change the structure of society,
but the fundamental habits of human beings for the better. Unlike their sacerdotal
predecessors, they were not servants and interpreters of the gods but substitutes. Their
hero was Prometheus who stole the celestial fire and brought it to earth.
One of the most marked characteristics of
the new secular intellectuals has been the relish with which they have scrutinized
religion and its protagonists.
The intellectuals have examined how far
these great systems of faith have aided or harmed humanity and to what extent these
secular popes and pastors have lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, and
of charity and benevolence. The verdicts they have pronounced on both churches and clergy
have been harsh.
Over the last two centuries, the influence
of religion has continued to decline and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing
role in shaping our attitudes and institutions. Yet when examining the records of these
great intellectuals who have shaped the world since the French and Russian revolution
right through to the cultural revolution in China and the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, I
have come to the sad conclusion that the secular high priests, too, have all failed
us--whether he be a Rousseau, Karl Marx, Tolstoy, Brecht, Bertrand Russell or Mao
Tse-Tung.
In particular, if we focus on their moral
and judgemental credentials as intellectuals fit to tell humankind how to conduct itself,
the way these secular intellectuals ran their own lives, and their relationships with
family, friends and associates were, on the whole, appalling--not to mention their sexual
and financial dealings.
One must also ask whether they told us the
truth, and how their systems stood up to the test of time and praxis. Indeed it seems that
they all contributed so much to the suffering of humankind, although it is also true that
they may have helped to create some beautiful literature and sharpened our way of thinking
somewhat.
In my opinion, the secular gods failed
because they too became intolerant and arrogant. In many cases, ideas and the direction of
humanity became more important to them than the individual men and women they encountered.
They too lacked the commitment of personal transformation, although Tolstoy tried but
failed. Yet he had a direct positive influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
As a Thai, I regard my national hero, Phya
Anuman Rajadhon, whose centenary was recognized by UNESCO last year, as more important
than the world's leading intellectuals, even though he was not as well-known, nor a great
genius. He was so humble and so selfless that he regarded himself as an ordinary man who
had time to respect everyone, and encouraged others to be better than he. Yet, he could
live in, explore and preserve his national culture, as well as integrate it meaningfully
with those of our neighbours. I feel that if we know our limits and respect others we will
usually not go wrong. We should develop individually and socially by understanding and
appreciating our cultures--including our spiritual traditions and then economic
development will not result in such a wide gap between the rich and the poor, with neither
the rich nor the poor being happy.
Although Buddhism with a capital
"B" can be tribal in a very negative sense and can legitimize dictatorial
regimes or immoral multinational corporations, if we were to direct our efforts towards
universal love, we could spell it with a small "b". Thus we should try to follow
the Buddha, as our Christian friends try to follow Christ and our Muslim friends submit
their egos entirely to God.
The first law of buddhism with a small
"b" should read like this, "Do not be idolatrous about, or bound to, any
doctrine, theory or ideology, even Buddhist ones. All systems of thought are guiding
means; they are not absolute truths" (The First Tiep Hien Precept).
This would certainly be in sharp contrast
to the dogmatic teachings of quite a number of secular intellectuals who contributed to
revolutions, upheavals and human sufferings in the past.
Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Buddhist
monk, writes: "If you have a gun, you can shoot one, two, three, five people, but if
you have an ideology and stick to it, thinking it is the absolute truth, you can kill
millions... Peace can only be achieved when we are not attached to a view, when we are
free from fanaticism." The more you understand this and try to practice it, the more
you will appreciate the importance of a diversity of religions and beliefs.
If we are truly of good will, then to
unite those of different views we must not avoid contact with suffering, but find ways to
be with those who suffer. We must also avoid accumulating wealth while millions are
hungry. These may not be high ideals but if we practice them it may result in a
consciousness of and a precedent for social justice and peace work. However, in order to
do so with awareness, we should, in the words of Thich Nhat Hanh, "not lose ourselves
in dispersion and in our surroundings." We should "learn to practice breathing
in order to regain composure of the body and mind, to practice mindfulness, and to develop
concentration and understanding." This approach to development is nondualistic, in
that one must be peace to make peace in the world.
We should stress the continuity of
"inner" and "outer," calling the world our "large self" so
that we become it actively and care for it.
I hope this concept will help guide us in
our work on social justice and peace issues and will challenge each person to examine his
or her behavior in relation to the needs of the larger community while freeing him or her
from limiting patterns. I believe this concept is relevant to the growth of mind, spirit
and body--the whole of human development.
To me, in order to build understanding and
respect between people of diverse religions or beliefs, one needs an alternative to living
by ideology. Socially engaged spirituality must be free from the bondage of ideology. As
one person put it: "The greatest religious problem today is how to be both a mystic
and a militant; in other words, how to combine the search for an expansion of inner
awareness with effective social action, and how to find one's true identity in
both."./.
Source: Buddhism and Global Nonviolent
Problem Solving - Ulan Bator Explorations (August 1989), Edited by Glenn D. Paige and
Sarah Gilliatt, University of Hawaii (1991) , http://www.hawaii.edu/uhip/buddhism.html
-ooOoo-
Thanks to Dr. Binh Anson for providing us with this
eclectronic article.
(Thich Nguyen Tang, 01-12-2000)