|
|
|
DAILY NEWS, Colombo, .published
27th December 1994. |
| The news about the Pope stirring a hornet's nest, by commenting on Buddhism,
is rather farcical. Buddhism need not be disturbed and play hornets in this
situation. After all, this only proves that the Pope too is fallible like
any other human being. |
| Buddhists should not be disturbed for another reason. The Buddha advised
his disciples not to be angry if someone criticized the Buddha or his teachings.
Because, if they did so, they would only pollute their own minds in the
process, they would also not be able to determine whether the criticism
was fair or not. |
| In fairness to the Pope as well as to all Buddhists, let us examine this
criticism. |
| One important criticism of the Pope, which is worthy of consideration,
is his assertion that Buddhism is "unilateral". Put in simpler language,
unilateral means "one-sided". Buddhists have a name for it ekansa vada.
It is to take a one-sided stand, and to maintain that one's own point of
view alone is the truth, while all else or the opposite view is false. The
Buddha illustrated the futility and absurdity of unilateral thinking by
means of a story. Once upon a time, there was a king who, wishing to amuse
himself, ordered the royal elephant to be brought before him. He ordered
some blind men, blind from birth, to be brought near the elephant. He then
asked these blind men to touch the elephant and describe what the elephant
was like. The man who touched the tail said that the elephant was like a
broom. The one who touched a leg said that it was like tree. The one who
touched the body said it was like a wall. The one who touched the ear said
the elephant was like a winnowing fan. Thus each described the elephant
differently, but each was sure that his own version was the true description
of the elephant. They did not realize that each one touched only a part
of the elephant. Each blind person had only a one-sided or unilateral view
of the elephant. Not knowing the whole truth, they started arguing with
each other, each sticking to his own point of view. The argument ended up
in quarreling and fighting. The king and his ministers rolled in laughter
as the blind men continued to quarrel with each other. |
| The Buddha pointed out that philosophers dispute and quarrel with each
other because similarly they see only one side of the truth and they dogmatically
cling to their views maintaining that they alone had a monopoly of the truth.
All Buddhas, considering and seeing all sides of the truth, only laugh at
them. This proves that genuine Buddhism can in no way be called unilateral.
According to this Buddhist way of thinking, experience is multifaceted and
the Buddhist view is therefore multilateral. If truth is multifaceted, it
cannot be stated in a unilateral way. |
| That is why the Buddha said: "I do not dispute with the world, although
the world disputes with me. No one who is aware of the whole truth can dispute
with the world". When a person asked the Buddha what view he held, he replied
that his view was that he did not stand opposed to anyone in the world,
whether human, divine or diabolical. If this is the Buddhist position, how
can Buddhists come in conflict with the Pope or anyone in the world. |
| When a religion becomes dogmatic, it ceases to be religion, because dogmatism
defeats the very purpose of religion, which is to overcome evil and make
people good. Dogmatism separates people and creates conflict and even war.
The crusades of old times as well as the religious conflicts that exist
in the world up-to-date, would vouch for this fact. Religion teaches love,
compassion and tolerance. If so, how can dogmatism prevail in the name of
religion? If religious dogmatism ceased entirely, would there be a multiplicity
of religions in the world? Is the multiplicity we see today really a multiplicity
of religions, or is it only a multiplicity of cultures? |
| We are living today in a multicultural world actually, not in a multireligious
world. Each culture colours and clothes religion in its own peculiar way.
The differences in religion that we notice in the world are only the difference
garbs in which religion is clothed by the different cultures. There is only
one universal practice called religion, just as there is only one universal
practice called music, which different cultures play differently. |
| Unless practitioners of any religion begin to view their religion as something
universal and cease to be unilaterally dogmatic, they are not truly catholic;
because, the term catholic by definition means "universal". Therefore if
the Pope takes a unilateral position, the question arises as to whether
Roman Catholicism is truly catholic. If the Pope takes up a Theistic stand
point, he is opposed to Atheism. If he takes up a Monotheistic position,
he is opposed to Polytheism. If he takes up the position that Jesus was
the only true teacher of religion, he is opposed to all other religions.
Are these not unilateral position that can lead to conflict, and the undermining
of love and goodness, which are the very values that religion in general
stand for? |
| If Buddhism is non-dogmatic, can Buddhism be seen as the only truly catholic
religion? Why cannot Roman Catholicism be catholic too? The answer is in
the hands of the Pope. The modern world, because of its technological developments,
which facilitates international and intercultural communication and dialogue,
it can easily provide the setting for the development of a universal religious
consciousness. |
| If this were to occur, there would be no religious conflicts. There would
be only one universal religion which is the cultivation of goodness. Then
all religions would be catholic, not only Buddhism. One might ask at this
point whether Buddhism is not atheistic, and if it was, whether it is taking
a unilateral position. The answer to this question is simple and obvious.
Although some writers have branded Buddhism as atheistic, it is clearly
not. Buddhist do have the concept of "deva". |
| The Buddhist recognize three kinds of devas: |
|
1 |
Sammuthi Deva, god by convention,
like the deification of natural phenomena and even of human beings. |
|
2 |
Uppatti Deva, god by birth,
are those celestial beings who are born non-biologically in the celestial
spheres called devaloka. |
|
3 |
Visuddhi Deva, god by purity
of mind, are those evolved beings human or divine whose minds are
pure, free from evil intentions. Arahats or Buddhas are examples of
Visuddhi Devas. |
|
| As to the question, whether Buddhists have a concept of Creator, it must
be said that the Buddha pointed out that the world, the beginning of the
world, the end of the world, and the way to the end of the world are in
this fathom-long body itself with its perceptions and conceptions. To put
it in simpler terms, each individual creates its own "world" and "self"
in his own mind. |
| This creation is that of a mental image of a "self in the world". It is
also the origin of all anxieties, worries and the whole host of suffering
in the world. The cause of the suffering is the attachment to this mental
construct and the effort to preserve this delusion through self-centered
living. The end of suffering is the end of self-centeredness. The way to
the end of suffering is to realize that there is no "self" to be centered
on, to suffer, or to be satisfied, other than the mental construct of a
"self in the world". Enlightenment in Buddhism is to fully realize that
the experience of the "self in the world" is an impersonal process of psychophysical
activity, dependent on the presence of the necessary conditions. Buddhism
is therefore not an escape from the real, temporal, material world into
an illusory, dream world of wish-fulfillment, where there is life of eternal
happiness. It is a freedom from the delusion that creates all unhappiness.
It is not a hopeless, pessimistic, melancholy religion or philosophy. It
is a religion that carries a message of true hope and salvation to mankind.
This is why it has survived for more than twenty five centuries in the world,
and has guided millions of followers throughout the world, and the numbers
are fast increasing in the modern intelligent world. |
| This brings us to the next misconception of the Pope. He seems to think
that Buddhism is pessimistic and world abnegating. He also sees this as
a unilateral stand point. Many writers of Buddhism have seen it this way,
due to an inadequate understanding of the Buddhist way of thinking. Pessimism
is to focus on the dark side of life and to ignore the bright side. Optimism
is its opposite. Both Pessimism and Optimism are unilateral views. It is
interesting to see how the Buddha views life. His position has been clearly
stated by him as follows: "Because there is satisfaction in the world, beings
are attached to the world. Because there is dissatisfaction in the world,
beings are disappointed with the world. Those who see both the satisfaction
and the dissatisfaction in the world gain liberation from the world". |
| The Buddha points out further: |
| "All those pleasures of the senses enjoyed through the eye, ear, nose,
tongue and the body, which entice and enthrall the mind is the satisfaction
in the world. Their change, separation and destruction is the dissatisfaction
of the world. Giving up attachment to these pleasures is the liberation
from the world". |
| This is not a one-sided or unilateral view of life. It is seeing life
from all angles. Seeing the way of liberation from suffering is not pessimism
at all. It is the greatest hope for mankind. |
| Death is not the opposite of life but a part of life. It reminds us that
existence in heaven too is temporary, that one who enters heaven is free
from death. According to the Buddha, giving up of attachment to all existence
is the only way to freedom from death. It is not only earthly existence
that is a mental construct. Even heavenly existence is. It is this giving
up of all attachments without remainder that the Pope cannot accept. But
we are only giving up attachment to a mental construct. Was it not Christ
who said: "He who sacrifices his self for my sake shall find it?" |
| If so one might wonder what that meant. |
| This Buddhist position cannot be understood if one is attached to preconceived
notions. This is why the Buddha opened his mission with the words: |
| "Open is the door to deathlessness. May those who
have ears, give up blind faith". |
| This idea is illustrated in a Zen story: |
| Once a professor went to meet a Zen Master. He asked him to explained
what Zen was. The Master quietly poured a cup of tea. The cup got filled
but he continued to pour. The professor could not stand this any longer,
so he questioned the Master impatiently. "Why do you keep on pouring when
the cup is already full?" "I want to point out to you", said the Master,
"that you are similarly attempting to understand Zen when your mind is full.
First empty your mind of preconceptions, before you attempt to understand
Zen." Jesus Christ made a similar statement when he started his mission:
"Repent ye for the Kingdom of God is at hand." What could "repent" mean
other than to give up your old mistaken ways of thinking and living? What
could the Kingdom of God mean than immortality itself? If so, the messages
of the two teachers are the same. Then why quarrel? |
| Jesus also said, "I talk to you now in parables and metaphors because
having eyes you do not see; having ears you do not hear; having minds you
do not comprehend. But when I come in my full glory, I shall speak to you
in plain words." What can "coming in full glory" mean? Kenneth Walker suggests,
it is when he comes as a full enlightened Buddha, as Buddha Metteyya or
maihree. |
| This is giving the highest respect a Buddha could give to Jesus Christ.
Buddhist believe that a Buddha is higher than all gods (Devati Deva). He
is also called the Omniscent One (Sabbanmu). He is seen as the Saviour of
the world (Loka Natha). |
| Buddhist do not see the Buddha as a human being, though some writers on
Buddhism say so. When Prince Siddhatta became a Buddha, he transcended both
human and divine levels of existence. This is why he is called the Transcendent
One (Tathagata). |
| This Universal or Truly Catholic outlook on religion that sees the unity
of all religions is the truly religious outlook, because it preserves true
religiosity in promoting love and goodness and in avoiding religious conflict.
A serious and intelligent student of Buddhism will find in Buddhism a truly
Catholic, universal religion that can save the world from disaster and bring
peace and happiness to all mankind. |
| The sixth Assembly of the World Conference on Religion and Peace (WCRP),
held this year, carried as its guiding theme, "Healing the World: Religions
for Peace." It is interesting to note the very significant twist to it,
given by the WCRP of Germany by a change of punctuation, by shifting the
colon as, "Healing the World Religions: for Peace." What needs healing is
religion itself, more than the world. When religion is cured of narrow minded
dogmatism or unilateral thinking, and when it has become universal or truly
Catholic, the symptom of religious intolerance, conflict and war will automatically
disappear, because there will be only one religion in the world true Catholicism
or Universal Religion, but there will be no Roman Catholicism or any other
'ism' any more. Then everyone will begin to think multilaterally, and if
this were to happen, there will be peace and happiness in the world through
true religiosity. |
| It is reported that His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, himself has said:
"Do not use religion as an excuse to wage war." This means that there is
hope in our Pope. Could that mean "crossing the threshold of hope?" |
|
Let us,
then in prayer with Voltaire's prayer for tolerence: |
| |
O! Thou God of all beings,
of all worlds, and of all times, |
|
| |
We pray, |
|
| |
that the little differences
in our clothes, |
|
| |
in our inadequate languages,
|
|
| |
in our ridiculous customs,
|
|
| |
in our imperfect laws, |
|
| |
in our illogical opinions,
|
|
| |
in our ranks and conditions
which |
|
| |
are so disproportionately
important to us |
|
| |
and so meaningless to you,
|
|
| |
that these small variations
|
|
| |
that distinguish those atoms
that we call men, |
|
| |
one from another, |
|
| |
may not be signals of hatred
and persecution! |
|
|
