Yes and No to the Dalai Lama

“Don’t go there!” A burst of laughter usually accompanies this playful outburst of warning against engaging a hot conversational topic. The warning popped into my mind, and I smiled, when I read this week’s “On Faith” question:

“The Dalai Lama says ‘All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: That is love, compassion and forgiveness.’ Do you agree?”

Why the warning? Why is it dangerous to deal at all critically with the Dalai Lama’s saying, self, and society (Tibetan monastic Buddhism)? Well, in plain language, because he’s such a nice guy. Harmless, in a world in which religion since 9/11 is increasingly viewed as dangerous. Breezily jocular and smiling in a worried world. Exotically free in a world trammeled by ever more complex and seemingly irresolvable perplexities. A persistent world-stage witness to gentleness in this ungentle world. A Nobel Peace laureate now granted the U.S. Congress’ highest civilian honor. A religious eminence addressed by his followers as “Your Holiness.” A monk with monasticism’s common characteristics whatever the religion of his monastery.

All this adds up to a wraparound untouchability that is itself problematic. Such a sentimental-romantic picture is seductive, and needs the corrective of some realistic observations addressed to this Buddhist missionary to the West. But the multicultural dogma of the equality of religions is so pervasive in America that (as a standard text on the world’s religions concludes) to criticize another’s religion “is declared to show prejudice and the inferiority of the protester’s religion.”

1.....“Love, compassion and forgiveness” is the Dalai Lama’s sermon, and by it he is unobtrusively presenting himself as representing the heart of “all major religious traditions.” (Nothings new here: by definition, any missionary self-presents as representative of the best religion.) But this idealistic moralism is not the central characteristic of the world’s religions. I looked up the three words in the extensive index of that standard text on the world’s religions and found no references to “love” or “compassion” or “forgiveness." I would find them in a book on ethics, but not necessarily in a book on religion.

2.....The religious/ethical distinction, however, hardly exists for basic Buddhism, a protestant form of Hinduism, reducing that polytheistic religion to a deity-less ethic inspired by meditation-full “enlightenment” ("buddha"-hood). Between that and religions of revelation, the contrast is stark. The meditational monk talks like the Dalai Lama, without the necessity of prayer to any deity: the revelational monk prays like St.Francis of Assisi: “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace....” As a Christian, I pray with St.Francis.

3.....The “major religious traditions” are so different, each so distinctive, that the notion of their carrying “the same message” is fatuous. Worse, it’s propaganda: hold still, and whoever makes this false claim will lay on you his/her distinctive message. But it sounds plausible to the wide public who believe that “we’re all going to the same place though by different routes.”

4.....Indeed, human life on this planet is so complex that even to speak of “religious traditions” is questionable. “Human traditions,” yes. But in most human traditions, religion is inseparable from life: our American “separation of church and state” is an unthinkable notion, as is the West’s distinction between sacred and secular spheres. (Unthinkable also is the nonsensical idea—now broadcast by aggressive atheists—that the world would be better off without "religion.")

5.....Every human tradition has its virtues and deficiencies, and no tradition’s virtues are easily transferable to other traditions. (An instance the world understands: American democracy is not easily transportable.) The virtues the Dalai Lama preaches from his monastic Buddhism are not as universal as he makes them seem. With their connotations, they abide in and derive from monastic withdrawal from the world—as Gautama, the original Buddhist, abandoned his family and communal obligations to run off on his own in personal spiritual pursuit, radically revising his Hindu religion in the process.

6.....While the Dalai Lama walks the free world as a free man, we should ask what social constructs, beyond the monasteries, are integral to what he means by “love, compassion and forgiveness.” When in 1949 the Chinese military suppressed a Tibetan uprising (and the Dalai Lama fled into exile in India), the Chinese government claimed that China was liberating the Tibetans from a totalitarian-feudal regime. Now in diaspora, this ethnic Buddhism is more influential than ever before, while the land of Tibet has increasingly become Chinese in population and culture.

It’s a paradox. The more we human beings are willing to hear one another’s differences, the more hope there is that we can cooperate toward truly human ends. The more we accept our divergences, the greater the hope for convergence. For we cannot arrive at the truth of love without working through our various versions of the love of truth. This was the project which the American monk Thomas Merton was about when he died, in 1968, while on a visit to a Buddhist monastery in Thailand. As a Christian, he believed in Jesus Christ as God come among us human beings to suffer with us and to die and rise again for us. But he respected and learned from the Buddhist “enlightenment” way of confronting suffering. And he was eager to join hands with all vicarious fellow-sufferers, all who are deeply concerned—in thought and action—about the downside of the human condition.

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
http://www.blinklist.com/cheap_viagra_online_from_ca/ > cheap viagra
Thank you!

Posted by: cheap viagra | February 2, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Christianity,Buddhism, Brahmanism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism,Zen, Zoroastrianism, Voodooism, we all have one God and God came in a different form to make the world a happy place to live in and the loved he has to show compassion. It is not a religon who criticize one another, but it's us, we are the people who are distroying the faith of God. I prayed, the world can hear it loud so we may live in peace Amen,Om ma nai pa mae om, Ram Ram Haray Chrisna, Kuda a fus.

Posted by: Nagaland | November 30, 2007 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Nagaland | November 30, 2007 1:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Considering it not religion, but the pleasure of sex having sustained humanity, thus secured our survival,that obvious to all but (few) that one religious or non religious. The body should take centre in worship. Glory of the erect penis, as the naked female form.Such given their rightful place at family as group gatherings, of worship. Such enabling that children grow into adulthood, with an healthy appetite for the flesh. Love as desire.As partake in the many,sexual pleasures. Giving praise,unto the Almighty as Allah.xxx X

Posted by: Lucifer | October 23, 2007 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You purport to analyse Tibetan Buddhism, but unfortunately appear to know very little about it (it is about far more than simply ethics, and it is certainly NOT about withdrawing from the world, unless one enters into monastic life).

Similarly, you interpret His Holiness the Dalai Lama at an extremely simplistic level, evidently without having read or heard his actual teachings and ostensibly relying purely on the consistently dumbed down image of him purveyed by popular media. 'Breezily jocular and smiling'? He is indeed the embodiment of compassion, but raise the issue of the Tibetan people's plight with him and see how jocular he is. Read his autobiography and see how breezy his attitude towards the tyranny of the Chinese government. Read his teachings and you'll see exactly what he has in mind in terms of social constructs.

If you want to comment on Buddhism again in the future, please at least do some appropriate research.

Posted by: Diane | October 23, 2007 3:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BGONE:

Of course religion is dangerous! Life is dangerous! People are dangerous! You are under the illusion that the danger would disappear if religion were to be eliminated. It's been tried, & people were found to be even MORE dangerous WITHOUT religion.

I must mention another illusion of yours. You say to me, "As you already know, the Bible is a proved hoax." As evidence, you suggest the link http://www.hoax-buster.org. That site is by a semi-literal who repeatedly misspells Bible-words and has notions so literal that most Sunday school teachers would laugh at. You, sir, have been hoaxed!

"You could check it out," as a well-known baseballer often said. The Bible is an archive of stories gathered around the campfire of the Story of God. Give it a try! Say, ten minutes a day until you find yourself making sense of the sense it makes. (Use a modern translation: no point in struggling with antique wording.)

CHIGUAGA:

By "Jesus ran TOWARD," I meant toward his societal responsibilities as he understood them (in contrast to Buddha, who ran AWAY from his societal responsibilities, abandoning his family & his job).

The two Bible quotations you mention confirm this reading of Jesus' action. Pay what you own the government (that is, meet your political responsibilities to "Caesar"), but your primary responsibility is to do--in society--the job you believe God wants you to do. In Jesus' case, it was to confront the religious & political authorities with their resistance to what Jesus believed the people most needed, namely,openness to God. He believed that his witness was to be by persuasion, not coercion: he was specifically non-violent in his mission.

Please re-read the Bible quotations you thought were evidence that Jesus was running away from rather than toward his responsibilities. The situation of the first quotation is Jesus' confronting RELIGIOUS authority. The second quotation is from his confronting Governor Pilate, the POLITICAL authority. Two instances of running toward--indeed, at the cost of his life.

LHASA TSO:

I'm sympathetic with your language difficulty, & congratulate you for struggling with English. I hope I can correct some of you misimpressions from reading what I said on the Dalai Lama.

1.....Of course the D.L. does not explicitly, openly, represent himself as "the heart of all major religious traditions." But he did present himself as speaking for all major religions, asserting an agreement among them which happens to be untrue.

2.....Dressed as a Buddhist monk, he preaches central Buddhist virtues as "secular values" of universal applicability. Who can fail to see through this as making a universal claim for his take on religion?

3.....I agree with your saying that "There are fundamental differences between 'lord, make me an instrument of your peace' or 'becoming an awakened one'." Buddha rejected the gods of his native Hinduism; he was, literally, a-theist. St.Francis was a Christian, & we Christians pray to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. We believe that true enlightenment for ourselves & the world is a gift of God--not the result of self-manipulation.

123:

I took your suggestion & read, slowly, thoughtfully, the "four truths" expounded in
http://www.kusala.org/udharma2/fourtruths/html.

As a Christian, I understand the human "person" in Bible light--as created in God's likeness, & so loved by God that he came as Jesus to teach us & even die for us, that we may come to share in the life of God.

Contrast this high vision of human dignity with what "four truths" says: "Where is the person to be found? There isn't any." We human beings are "merely the elements of earth, water, wind and fire."

What an easy choice!

Posted by: Willis E. Elliott | October 23, 2007 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Being an optimist I figure this century has to be religion's last.
We have access to information in this modern era,that our ancestors could only dream of.
Just a hundred years ago newspapers were just beginning,not everybody could read,electricity was in few homes,automobiles were happening,and a whole new world was just taking off,leaving the darker ages behind for ever.
Now we have it all;computers,the net,TV and radio,CDs,DVDs,newspapers,magazines,books,and a greater knowledge of the world,and a greater mastery of science and technology than the most optimistic could never have predicted.
We are becoming too literate and too knowledgeable to take religious thinking seriously,for too much longer. More and more people are having second thoughts about the irrationality of it all,and,since 9/11 we see how terribly dangerous it is too.
As more and more people get more education than ever before,and literacy levels rise,and computer and internet access increases worldwide,religious superstition would seem to be a commodity increasingly unreal,and irrelevant; a relic of our weird and superstitious past.

Posted by: Jon D. | October 22, 2007 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Forgive me PAGANPLACE that last comment was directed to Mr. Willis E. Elliott

Posted by: 123 | October 22, 2007 10:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Umm PAGANPLACE...

You said,
"Buddha ran from suffering to "enlightenment" (buddha-hood)"

Please read this before making such laughable
comments that only show ignorance.

http://www.kusala.org/udharma2/fourtruths.html

Posted by: 123 | October 22, 2007 9:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Umm PAGANPLACE...

You said,
"Buddha ran from suffering to "enlightenment" (buddha-hood)"

Please read this before making such laughable
comments that only show ignorance.

http://www.kusala.org/udharma2/fourtruths.html

Posted by: 123 | October 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Umm PAGANPLACE...

You said,
"Buddha ran from suffering to "enlightenment" (buddha-hood)"

Please read this before making such laughable
comments that only show ignorance.

http://www.kusala.org/udharma2/fourtruths.html

Posted by: 123 | October 22, 2007 9:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Jacob Jozebz this quote is for you amd people alike.

"A blind man knows he cannot see, and is glad to be led, though it be by a dog; but he that is blind in his understanding, which is the worst blindness of all, believes he sees as the best, and scorns a guide”.

"Evil is like water, it abounds, is cheap, soon fouls, but runs itself clear of taint.”- Samuel Butler

Posted by: Compassionate by Nature. | October 22, 2007 9:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Dr. Willis E. Elliott

(1) I think you have misinterpreted the main points of the Dalai Lama. I have met and read many of works of the Dalai Lama, but I have never seen any works or speech that states the Dalai Lama representing himself as the heart of all major religion traditions.. In contrary, he always says , compassion and love are secular values, whether you believe in a religion or not , there is no one who does not appreciate love and compassion. He defines compassion and love this way. “When you have pity or compassion for a very poor person, you are showing sympathy because he or she is poor; your compassion is based on altruistic considerations.”
Now you tell the world that all major religions don’t preach sympathy and compassions for poor or in need?
(2) You have assumed that there are no almost distinction religions/ ethics in basic Buddhism. Are you saying that Buddhists don’t distinguish between “”shall not kill “ and “let’s meditate”? Also, “enlightenment” means “Sanskrit: Awakened” not Buddha’hood. There are fundamental differences between “lord, make me an instrument of your peace” or “becoming awakened one”
(3) .....Again , all majors religious traditions don’t carry basic values of human society? tell us which major does not carry the messages of caring for those in need and sympathy for poor? This is basic Dalai Lama’s message. Of course, the Dalai Lama knows that all major religious have distinctive ways to approach to their conceived truth. Also, I think the middle class American do aware that they are not “going to the same place through by different routes” Many of them know, there are no places to go , but awakened individual mind.
(5) Every human tradition has its virtues and deficiencies, and no tradition’s virtues are easily transferable to other traditions. (An instance the world understands: American democracy is not easily transportable.) The virtues the Dalai Lama preaches from his monastic Buddhism are not as universal as he makes them seem. With their connotations, they abide in and derive from monastic withdrawal from the world—as Gautama, the original Buddhist, abandoned his family and communal obligations to run off on his own in personal spiritual pursuit, radically revising his Hindu religion in the process.
Agree, every tradition has virtues and deficiencies , these virtures are not easily transfer to other traditions. However, there are universal virtues and truth which cross constructed social norms such as compassions and loves. Again, you misinterpret his points, he has never claims that his monastic Buddhism as universal. To you connotations, they not abide in and derive from monastic withdrawal from the world, rather they construct the world by aware things around them . This maybe a different, or distinct from your tradition which is the world is condemned or punished by its creator.
(6) If everything is socially constructed , the world self is construct by society. what are points of have traditions or “”As a Christian, I (you?) pray with St.Francis” ? Perhaps, you are suggesting moral relativism?

Posted by: Lhasa Tso | October 22, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Firstly, for people like "Justice for all" and "Anonymoys" are the product of Chinese brain washed pigs. I simply feel sorry for such mindless individuals. Or was be paid by the Chinese govt to post at every opportunity to degrade His Holiness the Dalai Lama? Either way he better be paid. The whole world except the communist China loves and respectes the Dalai Lama for his message of non violence, compassion, and religious tolerence. Every nation is honouring him by their highest regards. Every universities feels honoured by his visit. Everyone flocks by thousands to hear his message of peace and non violence. When do you ever hear Chinese leaders go to the West and greeted with flowers by thousands?

As for Mr. Willis. Who claims he knows Buddhism well. I pity him. He still lack the fundamental knowledge of Buddhism.

Finally, "If you want to be happy practice compassion, if you want others to be happy practice compassion" by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet.

Posted by: Compassionate heart. | October 22, 2007 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear. Mr. Willis

I think you do not know anything about the Buddha. If he a selfish prince just stayed in his kingdom and enjoyed his life until the sickness and old age and death claim his body. Do you think that 4 milions people still worship him now. When you have time please read the Buddha teaching and you will find your inner peacce. Thank you

Posted by: tina hoang | October 22, 2007 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear. Mr. Willis

Posted by: tina hoang | October 22, 2007 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear. Mr. Willis

Posted by: tina hoang | October 22, 2007 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Chiguaga:

Well, you've manage to explain why calling on God for help always yields disappointment, leads to expressions like, "God helps those who help themselves."

Devil is a different story altogether, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Even as far "down and out" Moses found himself Devil came to his rescue.

It's a matter of comprehension. Simply list the distinguishing characteristics of God and do the same for Devil. Example: God can make tall buildings disappear by simply willing it while Devil needs and gets help from people. Even then Devil leaves a heap of rubble.

Posted by: BGone | October 22, 2007 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"This is the basic difference between my religion & Buddhism. Instead of running AWAY, Jesus ran TOWARD."

HOW ABOUT THIS?:

"..give Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar and give God what belongs to Him. ..."

"..."My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting (...)My kingdom is not of this realm..."

Posted by: Chiguaga | October 22, 2007 1:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bullseye Willis! "Harmless, in a world in which religion since 9/11 is increasingly viewed as dangerous."

At least you are at the beginning of recognizing the fact that we were attacked by a religion. That has prompted many to wonder if the mental ailment called faith is limited to Islam.

It's not. All religions are terrorist organizations. When that is said there is a rush to point out UUs and other social clubs that take advantage of the "thou shalt not tax religion" laws.

A religion without a hell isn't a religion. It's a social club that only preaches, "love, compassion and forgiveness." All real religions preach hate, cruelty and damnation, for all but those with the wisdom to accept their version of what the Bible or other sacred scripture say.

As you already know the Bible is a proved hoax. From it comes religion, terrorism and of course "hate, cruelty and damnation."

In case there are those that don't already know, http://www.hoax-buster.org has the original material used to construct the literary hoax, collection of literary hoaxes known as the Bible. That's how literary hoaxes are proved hoaxes. Those "holy men" plagiarized known liars.

Posted by: BGone | October 22, 2007 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

So why does this Dalai Lama guy deserve so much attention as being a purported "peacenik". What has he done to deserve other than a lot of talk but actions to the contrary. He won't dare criticize violent organizations like Al Qaeda. He cavorts with convicted terrorists such as the Tokyo subway killer, Shoko Asahara. Promotes the books of convicted mass murderer Dr. Bruno Beger and Nazi death squad leader, Heinrich Harrer. When the Lama was in power, he ran the country like a brutal medieval state.Please tell me just why anyone should listen to this guy?

Posted by: Justice For All | October 22, 2007 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | October 22, 2007 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dr. Elliot,

You rock!

Posted by: homesower | October 20, 2007 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

PAGANPLACE:

Yes, "It's probably best to start with meeting the people." The Buddhists you've met seem to have given you a narrow picture of that religion. And your response to me in your last sentence (about buying a book) evidences that you have a narrow picture of me.

I've met all sorts of Buddhists & am in continuous conversation with a leader in the Buddhist world. I taught Buddhism to Buddhist students of every sect, & they taught me their various takes on their religion.

And you certainly have a narrow picture of MY religion! The Bible, you say, seems to be about "anything but" compassion. Christian children learn to sing "Jesus love me, this I know / for THE BIBLE tells me so." (Albert Schweitzer often quoted that to his hospital patients in Africa when they asked him, a Christian missionary of world fame in music & biblical scholarship, why he cared about what happened to them.)

"BUDDHA love me, this I know / for THE SUTRAS tell me so." That is the first hymn in the hymnal I picked up one day in a Buddhist temple.
I have no problem with that: Buddhists piggybacking on Christian compassion to teach compassion to their children.

But notice that this on-the-ground Buddhism is not (as you describe Buddhism) non-theistic. God (as Amida Buddha) loves "all the little children of the world" (to use a phrase about Jesus, in another hymn for Christian children).

You are correct, however, in saying that basic Buddhism teaches "non-attachment" to what causes suffering--suffering being Buddhism's central analysis of what's wrong with the world. (In the biblical religions, Judaism & Christianity,"sin"
--violation of the human relationship with God--has the place "suffering" has in Buddhism.) And the basic story supporting this doctrine of NON-attachment is the story of (Buddhism's founder) Gautama's DEtachment, running away from all his societal obligations, including his family.

This is the basic difference between my religion & Buddhism. Instead of running AWAY, Jesus ran TOWARD. Buddha ran from suffering to "enlightenment" (buddha-hood): Jesus ran through suffering to resurrection, newness of life. Buddha ran from relationship: Jesus, in relationship with God, ran toward relating the whole world to God.

But I do thank you, PAGANPLACE, for your genuine concern with the depths of human life.

Posted by: Willis E. Elliott | October 19, 2007 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I think you may make the mistake of trying to reduce Buddhist texts in a certain way, Reverend, which I frankly find doesn't apply to Buddhist life any more than a lot of the 'loving, compassionate' ideas some Christians manage to take from a Bible and doctrines that seem to be about anything but these things.

Westerners, at least those from book religions, tend to look at the various forms of Buddhism and try and figure out where the 'creed' is.

It's a different *kind* of religion, in a different context, one which even a lot of Western devotees can miss: it's not so much *about* 'believing' in a God or many Gods or no Gods... with associated stories and authorities and the like.

...it's a way of approaching life, which I find both earthy and grounded and spiritual and... has much to do with compassion, (much more than judging and forgiving,... much of Buddhist practice involves *non-attachment in the first place* to things which others might believe require divine judgement, justice, then supernatural intervention to *forgive,*

....it's not about external control in a lot of ways, which I find *result* in these good qualities which we all at least *hope* are part of the 'central messages' of our religions.

Happens I know a number of practicing Tibetan Buddhists, and have met some monks in my times, (in odd places. :) )

One shouldn't oversimplify or over-abstract what may indeed be a different view of the world, not just a different bunch of books or beliefs. They mean different things, just as objects, ... Concepts and the like.

It's probably best to start with meeting the people, cause you can't just buy a book and think you know.

Posted by: Paganplace | October 18, 2007 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

Willis E. Elliott

Posts By Category

Posts By Date

Yes and No to the Dalai Lama

Comments