Gabriel Lafitte: 'How does Buddhism deal with the plurality of the religious world?' When I first heard this topic it reminded me of a comment by the Dalai Lama, that Buddhism is known for its tolerance. He then commented that the Jewish tradition has managed to maintain a sense of original clarity and purity over thousands of years and that, maybe, Buddhists have something to learn from the Jews in this regard. Then he said, 'Maybe we Buddhists have actually been too tolerant.' If I may invite Professor Kalupahana, the Venerable Tejadhammo, the Venerable Kaye Miner and then the Venerable Traleg Rinpoche to make some brief remarks on the subject.

Professor Kalupahana: This is a question that I have been struggling to work with for almost twenty-five years. After reading the western philosophical tradition and the eastern philosophical tradition and then reading the Sutta Nipata ('collection of suttas') in Pali - I could not believe how exclusive many people have tended to be in their interpretations of Buddhism. In the Paramatthaka sutta, from this collection, there is a warning not to take up a view and make it the ultimate truth, the ultimate reality, the absolute truth. The word paramattha occurs in the early discourses. It was translated by some of my teachers at the university in Sri Lanka as 'ultimate reality' or 'absolute truth.' The later tradition understands paramattha this way, but this is not how it was understood in the early discourses. Here it refers to an ultimate goal; the goal of nirvana, which is the ultimate fruit.

If you say nirvana is the ultimate fruit, not the ultimate reality, you are allowing room for others to have their fruits too. In fact, the same sutta says that the problems in the world arise because people regard the notions that they have put together as the 'ultimate' view and disparage all other views as inferior. Everyone has a theory that has been put together by themselves and they call it 'the ultimate truth.' The moment we do that we are going to come into conflict with other people.

The Buddha himself said that dependent arising was something that he used, to explain his own experiences; he never called it 'the ultimate truth.' I have never found the notion of dependent arising referred to as 'the ultimate truth.' The Buddha said, 'When each person makes his own truth 'the ultimate,' then everybody's truth is going to be false in terms of somebody else's.' One person criticises another person's view as false, saying that his is the only truth and that other person does the same thing. That is why we have all the conflict in the world. To be pluralistic, we have to stop condemning other people's theories as being inferior to our own, while asserting that our theory is the only truth in the world. If we were to eliminate the word 'ultimate truth' from our vocabulary, the problem would be solved. After all, the Buddha taught Four Truths, not one ultimate truth.

Venerable Tejadhammo: Before we talk about religious pluralism, we need to look at religious pluralism within the Buddhist tradition. I suggest that we begin by getting our own act together. What I mean by that is that we begin to appreciate each other a bit more, we begin to have a bit more respect for the different traditions within Buddhism. It is all very well to talk about other religious traditions and Buddhism. However, Buddh-ism does not exist. I have never seen Buddhism in a supermarket pushing a trolley, but I have seen Buddhists in supermarkets. We should think about our own attitude towards fellow followers of the Buddha's way and apply what Professor Kalupahana was saying to our own thinking.

I am not interested in discussing the kinds of exclusivity that exist amongst Buddhists, just that we need to develop a greater understanding and a greater respect for each other and then to apply the fruit of that to those who adhere to other religious traditions. You will not see Greek Orthodoxy shopping at the supermarket. You will not see Catholicism or Islam in the car-park. You will meet a Muslim in the supermarket but you will not meet Islam. If we cannot break the habitual pattern, our way of thinking about other human beings, of categorising them and dumping all sorts of things onto them, we will never be able to talk to them, because we will be talking to a whole system of ideas that we have imposed upon them, not to an individual person.

For me, this question of dialogue is about how I relate to other human beings, not about how I relate to other religious traditions. Then, I can appreciate other human beings and I can appreciate their religious tradition as part of who they are. I can respect their traditions because I begin by respecting them. The primary thing that we need to have with regard to each other as followers of the Buddha's path, is maitri or 'friendliness.' If we begin with that, we can be sure that we are not meeting others at an ideological level.

Venerable Kaye Miner: To expand a little on what has just been said, it is all well and good to start developing friendliness towards others and, based upon that, friendliness towards fellow practitioners of Buddhism and other religions, but many westerners are not very friendly towards themselves as individuals. When we are starting on a path, it is very important to develop balance in our spiritual practice and balance in our spiritual views. It is very easy, when we first get involved with a spiritual philosophy, to become dogmatic, to become blinded by that spiritual philosophy and overlay that on our existing nature. I feel that we really have to start with ourselves as individuals and develop a kind heart towards ourselves. Many westerners tend to have low self-esteem and to identify with their problems. We think that we are failures, we think that we are incapable. So, I think we have to start first by recognising our qualities and developing a spiritual maturity. With that spiritual maturity it becomes possible to see oneself as a valid human being. Not part of the crowd, but as someone who has this incredible potential and ability to transform situations and to have a more realistic view of oneself. If you have that, it becomes much easier to have a realistic view of others, to become less dogmatic and more tolerant and understanding of others. Being able to maintain our own spiritual beliefs whilst having the tolerance and the acceptance of other people's spiritual beliefs really has to come from our own strength and ability.

Venerable Traleg Rinpoche: The phenomenon of pluralism - cultural pluralism, religious pluralism - is something that we have to come to terms with, we cannot escape it. We cannot deny that we are living in a pluralistic society; not just in the west, but in the east as well, because I do not believe a dominant culture or religion exists any more. Buddhism has come to the west and Christianity has gone to the east. Simply by the fact that Christianity has taken root in certain countries in Asia has had, and continues to have, an impact on those cultures. We can no longer say, 'This is western culture and that is eastern culture,' because to do so would basically be to avoid or resist looking at how different cultures operate and how they have evolved. No culture is static and cultures cannot exist in isolation. Neither can religions.

How then should we deal with this reality of pluralism? In my belief, I think the Mahayana notion of the six paramitas is very relevant, because we talk about generosity, moral precepts, patience, exertion or effort, concentration and wisdom. How do I think these are relevant? The first paramita of generosity means we have to be able to provide space for others, we have to extend ourselves, in other words. We can interpret moral precepts to mean that we do not disparage other religious traditions, other religious practitioners, as Tejadhammo said. Not causing harm to other religious practitioners is the second paramita.

However, that is not enough. We need to engage in dialogue, we need to learn to understand each other. Simply tolerating others, simply providing space for others to exist in, is not enough, we have to go a bit further than that. When we engage in dialogue, we need to have patience, because understanding others who may be very different from ourselves can take a long time. We do not need to think that this understanding has to occur in a short period of time. The dialogue has to be an ongoing process. There may not be an end to it but the dialogue must occur if we are to understand each other. For dialogue to occur, we need to add the paramita of patience to the paramitas of generosity and moral precepts, so that we are not overly enthusiastic or thinking that everyone must agree at some point or other and we are not sure where that point is. The dialogue has to occur in terms of understanding differences as much as similarities. For this to occur, there has to be patience.
Then there has to be effort, which is the next paramita. 'Effort' means that not only should we try to relate to others with a sense of patience, we need to apply ourselves to that relationship continuously. We have to continuously engage ourselves in a process of dialogue with others and this engagement should occur in such a way that we are able to re-engage with the process; there is a sense of interest in perpetuating dialogue.

Then there is the aspect or paramita of concentration. It is so easy to get side-tracked when we are relating to others so there has to be a sense of being fully present and fully engaged in how we communicate with others.

Finally, there is wisdom. As Professor Kalupahana has pointed out, there is no such thing as the truth, according to Buddhism. Truth is not something that exists independently of our use of language and our concepts. As Buddhists, we have to think of Buddhism as being quite unique but, on the other hand, we do not have to think that Buddhism possesses truth. No one possesses truth. If I may be so bold as to say that there is no such thing as truth at all, according to Buddhist teachings. There is no such thing as the truth. This notion that there is no truth, is called emptiness or nothingness in Buddhism. However, that does not mean we cannot subscribe to certain forms of truth.

Professor Kalupahana mentioned the Four Noble Truths. It is far more profitable to speak about truth in that context, or in that manner. What is true in relation to what sort of things will liberate us, is more important than whether there is some kind of metaphysical truth or not. When it comes to metaphysics, there will always be disagreement. Venerable Tejadhammo was also speaking about this when he said that we should relate to people rather than to conceptual categories.

There is no objective, ultimate, independent truth. Yet at the same time, as Buddhists, we have to have our own system of belief. That requires subscribing to certain sets of truths, but these are relative truths (samvrtisatya). The Buddha said, 'You use the Dharma (which is Buddhism), as a boat to cross the river of samsara (which is the worldly condition that we are involved in now), but once you have arrived at the other shore, you do not carry the boat with you, you leave it on the bank.' A true Buddhist eventually has to leave even the Dharma, or Buddhism itself, behind. This is the wisdom aspect.

In this way, the six paramitas can be used in order to conduct dialogue with other religious traditions and with the people who belong to these traditions, in a very meaningful way. This does not have to occur in terms of a series of agreements. We do not have to agree to understand each other. We should be aiming towards understanding, not agreement, because, as Venerable Tejadhammo has pointed out, even within Buddhism we find many different kinds of Buddhism. One would have to be a very idealistic person and, if I may say so, a very misguided individual, to think that all Buddhists must agree on everything. In reality, that does not occur and there is no reason why that should occur.

However, it is very important to have the kind of understanding that comes from intra-religious dialogue between Buddhists. Then there should be inter-religious dialogue. The Christians must do this also - the Protestants and Catholics must meet and within the Catholic tradition itself there are so many denominations - it could only do good if they met and discussed things. Understanding is what is needed, we should not aim for agreement. It is only the dogmatic people who think everybody must agree. I think we can apply the six paramitas as Buddhists to help promote religious dialogue and assist people in living in a pluralistic society.

Question: We know there are many Buddhist sects and sub-sects, but how do we know which ones lead to enlightenment and which ones are a waste of time?

Professor Kalupahana: One of the first acknowledgments of the Buddha after enlightenment was that no two human beings are born equal. This idea of equality has become a very popular idea in the west, but it is not the case. If there are differences among individuals and if you impose the same path on everybody, you are becoming a dictator. Depending on the interests of the person, depending on the capacities of the individual, depending upon the power of the individual, a different path may suit one person more than another. The Buddha did not want to isolate a small group of people and say, 'These are the only ones who can follow the path that I am recommending.' People thought that the Buddha had a magical power of conversion, because when he spoke to an audience, he said things in such a manner that everyone felt that he or she was being personally addressed. In the same way, he presented different paths. What was common in all of these paths is that they, eventually, somehow, lead to freedom.

I think we misunderstood and misinterpreted the advice that was given by the Buddha to the first sixty Arhats. When they attained enlightenment, the Buddha asked them to walk the surface of the earth, 'for the benefit of the many.' He never said 'for the benefit of all.' He was not an idealist, he was a pragmatist. He said, 'Walk for the benefit of the many through compassion for everyone.' It is one thing to be compassionate towards everyone; it is another thing to insist upon everyone following 'the way.' We have forgotten the meaning of that phrase. That is one of the reasons why we have so many sects in Buddhism. I do not see any of these schools as superior or inferior - as hina or maha - these schools emerged because of the individual and social needs of individuals and because of the climatic conditions in which they were living. There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration and the Buddha was a very pragmatic teacher in that sense. After all, there is a very popular saying which says, 'Variety is the spice of life.'

Venerable Traleg Rinpoche: I think it is important to realise that diversity is actually a good thing. We tend to think that if there are diverse approaches to religion and different kinds of religion, then somehow, we have to work out which one is the true one. According to the Buddhist approach, the important thing is to see that religions are actually created by human beings. Religions have a function in the lives of human beings, because religions provide some kind of meaning in life. We should be concerned about which religion we find most useful and which one provides the kind of answers that we are looking for. We should not get bogged down trying to find out which one is the true one. It is much more profitable to follow a particular religion, in terms of meaningfulness, than it is to follow some kind of notion of immutable truth, whatever that might mean. 'Do I find this religion that I'm following satisfactory?' 'Does it meet my needs?' Those are the issues that we should be addressing, not whether 'my' religion is superior to the others or whether 'my' religion is the true one and all the others are false.

Venerable Kaye Miner: It can be quite confusing, in the beginning, when you are trying to find which path is most suitable for you. It is sometimes like going to a buffet lunch or something; there are so many different dishes. You have to try the different ones to find which one really suits you, which one appeals to you in taste, nourishes you and sustains you.

Venerable Tejadhammo: I would add that sometimes the best thing is not to choose. I do not mean sit on the fence, but if it becomes like a shopping expedition, there is something wrong. Sometimes, it is better to hold off choosing, and ask yourself also, 'What does this religion tell me about my relationships with others and what does it do to those relationships?'

Comment from the audience: I am a Catholic monk, but I'm feeling very at home here today hearing this discussion. I hear it among Christians as well. I was interested in the idea of religious pluralism, because I think that people on a spiritual path have a contribution to make to one another. It is about creating a just world, about supporting one another and supporting goodness where we find it. Where we find that people are being oppressed or put down in some way - whether personally or as a group - we do our best to make some contribution there. So I think that Christians and Buddhists have a lot to offer one another, particularly on that level of support.

Question: The countries in which religions reside also have political ideologies that interfere with the work of the religion, because the political ideologies have different aims to the religions. To what extent do the panel members believe it is important to voice the beliefs of religion in order to bring about an understanding of peace and compassion?

Venerable Tejadhammo: We do live in a political world, but politics is not an ultimate reality. As a monastic, I believe that we must be very careful of becoming too embroiled in political issues. That is not an abrogation of responsibility but rather a recognition that it may not be appropriate for a monk or nun to become engaged in political issues. Political issues are rarely clear and our involvement in them is equally cloudy. Generally speaking, people do not think clearly and concisely. I am not saying that is a bad thing, simply that most of us do not.

Venerable Traleg Rinpoche: To turn everything into politics is not very conducive. Not everything that happens in life is political. There are many other issues that we should be addressing. On the other hand, political ideologies are part of our life and we have to address that as well. You used the term 'ideology,' but we normally refer to an idea as 'ideological' when we wish to dismiss it. To refer to something as ideological is basically a derogatory attitude towards it, whether it be political or otherwise. Ideology is part of life - we cannot deny that. However, even with ideology, whatever ideal one adheres to has only relative validity. It has no absolute validity.

Professor Kalupahana: The Buddha always made a distinction between the moral life and the political life. His description of a universal monarch represents the political ideal. The Buddha himself represents the moral ideal. When the Buddha, as a moral being, recommended moral ideas to someone, he would say: abstain from taking life, abstain from stealing, abstain from lying. All right, that is recommending abstention, but it is not trying to force anyone to do anything. In political life, there is a big difference. We have laws in political life. We do not have laws in moral life. A universal monarch would not say: refrain from taking life. He would say: do not take life, do not kill, do not lie. When a monarch uses that order, he should be much more careful than the moral leader in imposing it, because there is the sense of legality in politics. The problem is that most of our politicians are interested only in themselves.