The Dalai Lama’s Strong Misreading of the World’s Religions

Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, is a strong reader of the world’s major faiths. In an op-ed for the New York Times today, he begins with his self-understanding as a Buddhist, and the transformative impact his encounter with Christians like Thomas Merton has had on the way he thinks. “Merton told me he could be perfectly faithful to Christianity, yet learn in depth from other religions like Buddhism. The same is true for me as an ardent Buddhist learning from the world’s other great religions.”

That has also been my experience, and that of a growing number of Jewish and Christian believers in the last two or three generations. Nonetheless, it does not follow, despite the Dali Lama’s fond hopes, that finding common ground among faiths will serve to help humanity “bridge needless divides at a time when unified action is more crucial than ever.” That is a bridge too far. It is useless to pretend otherwise.

First of all, the “needless divides” of which the Dalai Lama speaks run right through the world’s major faiths. There is no evidence to suggest that common ground exists within the particular faiths of the world such that particular faiths might individually speak with one voice on “global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster.” There is even less evidence to suggest that common ground exists across the particular faiths of the world such that together they might address with one voice “global issues like pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster.”

The Dalai Lama’s recent statement that he is Marxist rather than a capitalist illustrates the problem. The irony in that statement is deep and wide. The world thanks to capitalism continues to be convulsed by economic crises. Nonetheless, it does not follow, despite the Dalai Lama, that Marxism is the solution. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the only thing going for capitalism has been and always will be that all the alternatives are even worse. The problem we face is that of giving capitalism a human face. The attempt to give Marxism a human face ended a long time ago, or, to put it otherwise, continues to reveal its misanthropic essence in countries like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela.

From his encounters with Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus, the Buddhist Dalai Lama concludes that a common denominator unites the world’s major faiths: selfless compassion, a commitment to relieve suffering.

That is true, but does not change the fact that context is all-important. Most Muslims, for example, would not self-identify with the essence of Islam according to the Dalai Lama. According to most Muslims, the task of a Muslim is to engage in a struggle resourced by a reading of the Quran in the context of a communal life whose epicenter is the mosque. To be sure, the Muslim struggle or jihad normally takes the same form it does among adherents of all the world’s major faiths. It is a struggle to be a better person in thought and action. But it is also and first and foremost a struggle to be a better Muslim. The Muslim’s first duty is not to humanity but to concentric circles within her polity of reference, beginning with the family unit; the neighborhood mosque; a culturally specific version of Islam accommodated to a particular time and place; last and least, to humanity as a whole.

Selfless compassion is a trait of Islam. But it is resourced in a different way than it is in Buddhism, in which said compassion is exemplified and “templated” in the relationship of a spiritual guide with his disciples. The traditional givers and receivers of selfless compassion are networked in different ways. Christianity is different again, though this faith has led the way, for better and for worse, in fostering the kind of internationalism which the Dalai Lamai in effect promotes. I’m referring of course to the Wilsonian approach to geopolitics and international cooperation, an application of a secularized version of the Protestant missionary mindset to world affairs, as Walter Russell Mead has shown in his blockbuster work, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World.

There is no obvious parallel to the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) in the other major faiths. It does not follow that non-Christians cannot come to think of themselves as Good Samaritans whose task it is to demonstrate selfless compassion precisely to those outside the bounds of their own polity of reference. But it also does not follow that the world’s religions, other than Christianity, place a premium on encouraging that very thing.

But is internationalism, the commitment to “development,” strengthened or weakened by an appeal to the essential unity of all religions? My thesis: it is weakened, except in the minds of those who do not ardently believe in anything at all.

The majority of people in the world who think of selfless compassion as the proper gift to give to everyone irrespective of the recipient's religious faith / polity of reference do so because they are deeply committed to a specific faith-and-practice framework; If not that, to a secularized version thereof. The prime motor of this kind of altruism, perhaps also at one or two generations removed, will always lie in particular religious and metaphysical convictions. Though one might very well wish otherwise, there is no evidence to suggest that Dalai Lamaism can do much more than give a lot of Westerners a warm feeling in their gut. The world is a nasty place so that’s better than nothing. But, without wishing to be churlish, I still think that Dalai Lamaism is to the world’s religious faiths what Muzak is to music. 

For a more positive take on the op-ed, check out Jared Calaway's post. I love the cite he offers from Max Müller about the study of religion, "whoever knows one, knows none."

Comments

[Jared Calaway]

Interesting statement. I don't think Tenzin Gyatso was saying that the compassion in each tradition was the same, but that it provides a platform for conversation. The title of "one truth," however, does fall into that "essential unity" that you, I think rightly, state is a chimera.

I thought his point about developing personal relationships with people of other faiths was quite right as a way to improve this dialogue of increasing mutual understanding without sacrificing one's own religious identity, so that one can see what common ground there is, but also how that common ground is framed differently across traditions.

I find your statement that people within traditions can't agree, so much more so across traditions to be a false "qal v'homer," so to speak. I often find that different elements in a particular tradition have more in common with figures or groups in other traditions than with opposing groups within their own tradition.

I did find it interesting, however, that the common point he isolated was his own hobby horse. I am sure if an imam, head rabbi, or Christian leader made the statement, they may have found a different platform.

[Jared Calaway]

Correction: not a qal v'homer, but homer v'qal.

[JohnFH]

Hi Jared,

Thanks for your always-interesting comments.

I agree with you that a look at "compassion in each tradition" provides a platform for conversation. It's a great conversation-starter among people who are strong believers of different faiths.

So is "forgiveness." It's harder, but for that reason perhaps even more fruitful, to discuss what Soloveitchik calls "The Virtue of Hate":

http://www.bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchikm.htm

Sooner or later, probably sooner, it becomes productive to speak about the relationship of ethics to meta-ethics in each tradition. The discussion of this is avoided at great peril, if the purpose is to understand why people do certain things rather than others. In this sense, Dalai Lamaism is premised on a shortcut which, however tempting, has never proven its mettle.

In short, what I have doubts about is the claim that a conversation around selfless compassion as it works itself out variously in the various faith provides a platform for unitive action.

I am not even sure that unitive action on things like "pandemics, economic crises and ecological disaster" is a well-formed goal. It almost assumes that the debate is over about how to address those things, and all we to do is agree to do the right (Marxist?) thing based on the "one truth."

That might make sense to other wannabe "half-Buddhist, half-Marxist" (his words) folk, but not to many others. Just saying.

You say:

"I often find that different elements in a particular tradition have more in common with figures or groups in other traditions than with opposing groups within their own tradition."

I wholeheartedly agree. I frighten the you-know-what out of people when I remark that I know for a fact to have a greater affinity with some Muslims of my acquaintance - of a pietist, revivalist kind - than I do with some Christians of my acquaintance, who strike me as heartless brains on a stick.

What that means in practice is that if I were to explore the faith-and-practice commitments of the people who did and continue to do relief work in Haiti, from the teams of doctors from various parts of the world who worked in the University of Miami's amazing makeshift hospital in Haiti, to those who did wound care in countless missionary-run outposts throughout the land, I would discover a very, very uneven distribution of faiths represented, and a very uneven distribution of "denominations" or affinity groups within particular faiths represented.

Nor do I think it is realistic to expect Dalai Lamaism to become a substitute for the kind of very particular "10,000 hour" enculturation that stands at the root of the faith-and-practice commitments of those who, on the ground, are most involved in acts of selfless compassion.

[PatrickM]

"WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today."

I don't understand this line of thinking. Would you not become a member of a faith if you didn't think it was the best?

Humility and the belief that your faith is superior are not mutually exclusive.

[Jared Calaway]

Thanks John. Very interesting--and with the forgiveness/non-forgiveness link, thought-provoking-- reading.

@ Patrick: I hear this objection a lot. I understand it, but don't agree. I think one can see Christianity and Islam, for example, as equally valid (if "valid" is the right word) and feel absolutely no impulse to convert. I do think, however, that there is a huge gap between thinking your religion is the best and "the extremes of religious intolerance." Of course, the extremes of religious intolerance also think their tradition is not only the best, but the only correct way. (In the language of "superior" you can recognize that other traditions lead to truth, but one is more efficient at it, ec.) It may not be a profound belief that one's own tradition is superior that keeps you there, but familiarity with it, a degree of comfort in it that you do not find in other traditions but recognizing others find solace in those traditions and not in yours (or mine).

[JohnFH]

Patrick,

I think you're right insofar as how you formulated your question - "Would you not become ... unless?"

But I think Jared is right that someone like DL XIV is making a self-consistent affirmation based on the journey he has undertaken.

He no longer has any reason for suggesting that someone become a Buddhist. But, since he knows himself to be a teacher and spiritual guide, he offers a hyper-religion instead. I don't find it attractive but then, I wouldn't be worried about that if I were DL XIV. He has an immense though very soft following. Many people are looking for that level of commitment, dressed up in a compelling intellectual framework. DL XIV provides precisely that.

[Justin R]

John,

I resonate with you about learning and finding agreement in other faiths other than your own. My best friend is Muslim and I think he has taught me more about my faith then alot of Christians. Not so much about orthodoxy but orthopraxy. One of the main reasons for this is because Islam has preserved the Near East culture more than North American Evangelical Christianity. I have found in Islam a deeper sense of familial community and stricter adherence to corporate ritual. For example, there is something defining and binding about praying five times a day facing the same direction alongside millions of other Muslims. Even if someone is a nominal Muslim they are still being engrained with values and identity through physically bowing down through out the day. This has given me a stronger appreciation for my own Christian practices like Communion/Eucharist. I sometimes wonder what the Church Universal would look like if we just practiced eating a piece of bread and drinking some wine on consistant weekly basis. We might actually have a more united Church that stretched outside or defined doctrinal beliefs. There are many other things we can learn from Islam in my opinion, not to mention Islam as empire. Christians have definitely lost this aspect of their faith. Jesus is king who has called his people to spread his Kingdom after all.

Quick question about your post though. Do you think Christians are called to relieve suffering? It has always been paradoxical to me because in some sense we are supposed to feed the poor and heal the broken, but in another sense we are to carry the cross and embrace suffering. Richard Bauckham brings this up in his theology of Revelation. In essence, the Church's main tool for overcoming the world is the willful acceptance of suffering. This is why I have a slight problem with what the Dalai Lama states. Historically to become Christian means to suffer like many of the persecuted in Northern India as well as other places.

For Christian faith, God does not relieve suffering but transforms it into something redemptive, conquering, and beautiful. Paradoxically atleast.

[Theophrastus]

I think you are far too harsh. This was a 800 word op-ed designed for the broadest possible audience -- not a detailed exposition. The Dalai Lama has written about social issues (and certainly about highly technical religious details) in greater detail in books. He is hardly a scholar of other religions, but he has helped serious academic scholars who have compared beliefs of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc.

In terms of his statement about Marxism -- I think you display insensitivity to the realpolitik of Tibet and its relationship to China, especially in light of the harsh actions of the last 24 months. Sure, the Dalai Lama could launch an anti-Chinese spiel, but how does that serve the interests of his people in Tibet?

Karl Barth wrote an op-ed piece for The Christian Century in 1960 -- but we do not hold that popularization against him! (You remember that, don't you? That was the one that had the line I regard anticommunism as a matter of principle an evil even greater than communism itself. Hmmm, that sounds a little like our dear Dalai Lama's op-ed, doesn't it?)

You may find the Dalai Lama's statements a series of bromides, but as Elvis Costello asks, "What's so funny about peace, love, and understanding?"

[JohnFH]

Justin,

What a fine witness you pass on. And yes, I agree with you about the fulcrum of the Christian faith.

Nonetheless, I have reservations about thinking of it as an either/or. That is, the passion of Christ interprets us and helps us interpret our suffering in the profoundest of ways. Surely this is crucial - sorry about the overworked pun. But it is the one and the same Jesus - prophet and ethical guide, not only priest and king - who is the lamb of God who died for the sins of the world *and* the one who invites us to relieve the suffering of all per Luke 10 and expect the practice of mercy to be *the* criterion of the genuineness of our faith on Judgement Day per Matthew 25 (limited here, however, to members of the household of faith).

[JohnFH]

Theophrastus,

Your're right, I was a little harsh, but DL XIV's a big boy and I figure he can take it.

You say:

"In terms of his statement about Marxism -- I think you display insensitivity to the realpolitik of Tibet and its relationship to China, especially in light of the harsh actions of the last 24 months. Sure, the Dalai Lama could launch an anti-Chinese spiel, but how does that serve the interests of his people in Tibet?"

But those aren't the only options available to him, are they? Furthermore, is it really the case that he wins brownie points from the CCP powers- that-be if he refers to himself as "half-Buddhist, half-Marxist"? I doubt it.

My other problem is that the word "Marxist" has specific contours and references a specific ideology in my backward mind, which I find impossible to associate with either DL XIV or the current CCP, but I admit that that is my problem and not that of many others.

Excellent KB quote. You astound me sometimes.

As you may know KB was jousting with Reinhold Niebuhr in that piece, if only between the lines. But wouldn't you say that RN's precocious anti-Communism (for someone who started out as a socialist!) has been validated by what we now know to be the parabola of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism?

I would think so. In that case, KB in this instance cannot be considered to have been the best of prophets.

Furthermore, and I don't expect you to know this, Barth made a point of criticizing his pro-Communist Eastern European counterparts, e.g., the great Hromadka, as well. In short, he would take on someone like RN for being too pro-American on account of his anti-Communism and take on someone like Hromadka for identifying the socialist camp with God's privileged instrument for the realization of the kingdom of God.

For more on that - it's a great story, that of 20th century Eastern European Calvinism, though mostly a tragic one, like that of Eastern European Judaism in the same century:

http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/soc-swk/ree/2004/halama.pdf

Finally, and of course, I was not making fun of "love, peace, and understanding." On the contrary, because I think they *are* so important, we need to get them right, and I honestly don't think the Dalai Lama does. Not by a long shot. If he is a hero of yours, I'm sorry to offend.

[Theophrastus]

I suppose my point was that the Dalai Lama has twin roles to balance -- one as a spiritual leader and one as a political figure. And I think he's pretty good at that. (I would have mentioned his Nobel Prize, which at one point in time was thought to be prestigious but which we now know can be won simply for not being George Bush.)

As a point of comparison, the Dalai Lama is much better at being careful at guarding his speech than good Pope Benedict XVI, who has managed to offend Jews, Muslims, and Africans (among others) with his careless words. For example, the Dalai Lama considers his audience: in statements to his American followers, the Dalai Lama significantly tones down his traditional Buddhist beliefs about homosexuals and women.

Until the King Messiah assumes power, it is probably just as well that theocrats have become unfashionable, because it is hard to balance political governance with spiritual leadership. And that's especially true when the second most powerful country in the world is occupying your land and actively oppressing your people -- and those innocent people will pay for your remarks. (Blunt opinions didn't work out too well for the Jews in 70 CE.)

[Theophrastus]

Thanks for the information about Hromádka, by the way. I was not aware of that chapter of Christian history.

[JohnFH]

It is a very hard to be an intellectual and a political figure.

Ironically, given the fact that Ratzinger spent part of his career muzzling Catholic theologians who crossed red lines, he has gotten himself into trouble repeatedly by speaking freely in a way that political figures simply cannot do, without fastidious political repercussions.

My question with regard to DL XIV is the following: I don't claim to understand what a viable political path might be for Tibet, though I certainly think more could be done in the West to make it clear to China that its image is deeply tarnished by its harsh oppression of Tibet. But I wonder, of whom does he see himself the spiritual leader? Does he think he is providing a viable spiritual alternative to the many Jews and Christians who turn to him rather than to sources within their own traditions to inspire their faith and practice?

In short, I have reservations about the Ersatz nature of his "spiritual" role.

Re KB and Hromadka. Here's the famous cite from a letter dated 1962, KB to H:

“…bist du dir denn gar nicht klar darüber, dass Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr und andere... mit derselben Methode und im derselben Stil nun eben ihre westliche Geschichtsschau begründen... dass du also im umgekehrten Sinn genauso kalten
Krieg führst wie jene?” Freundschaft im Widerspruch..., p. 215.

"Is it really unclear to you that Emil Brunner, Reinhold Niebuhr and others . . . with the same method and the same approach now rationalize their Western view of history . . . that you in symmetrical fashion fight the Cold War precisely as they do?"

[Theophrastus]

The question of who is the Dalai Lama's "flock" is an interesting one, and any easy answer is almost certainly wrong.

On the one hand, the Dalai Lama has explicitly said that his followers should not try to recruit Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Muslims -- and that in fact, converts should only be accepted if they have sincerely explored their own faith.

When he speaks abroad, he always reserves special addresses to members of the Tibetan diaspora.

On the other hand, there is no denying that his major sources of money are: Western countries (primarily the United States), and the wealthy Eastern democracies (primarily Taiwan). And of course, his existing Western followers (most of whom are converts from Christianity, Judaism, or secular beliefs) are enthusiastic about spreading the word. That helps to explain why we see, despite nominal claims otherwise, Buddhist evangelistic activities.

Money is essential for at least some of the Dalai Lama's programs -- such as programs supporting the preservation of culture in the Tibetan diaspora.

I am certainly not a student of Buddhism, but I have read some of the Dalai Lama's work (all of which seem to be adapted from oral teachings). Many of them are fairly technical: the primary audience is Gelug; secondary, Nyingma, Kagyu, and Sakya; tertiary, Himilayan Buddhists in the Himalayan region; and quaternary, followers of Vajrayana in general. Other works are far more general and addressed to a "universal audience". They are similar to the op-ed you referenced, only longer and are more detailed.

Add to this the dual nature of Buddhism as "philosophy" (if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him) and "religion".

---

But I could continue the analogy with Pope Benedict -- Professor Ratzinger wrote technical studies, and at least some of the Pope's speeches are similarly academic. In contrast, many of the Pope's addresses -- especially to non-Catholics -- are of the "feel good" variety. Maybe the "dynamic range" between academic and "secular pastoral" isn't quite as great as the Dalai Lama has, but that is a difference of degree, not kind.

---

The sad thing is that few American Buddhists I have met are unaware of the extreme austerity that Buddhism preaches. Indeed, it makes Jonathan Edwards look like quite the party animal.

(Speaking of Eastern religions, I am reminded here of the famous interview that Britney Spears gave with Newsweek where she declared that one of her CDs was all about "Indian spirituality". Her interviewer asked "Do you mean Hinduism?" Britney's response: "What's that?")

[JohnFH]

You mean, I imagine, that few Buddhist sympathizers in the US are aware of the austerity that Buddhism preaches. Even if they are, the standard of austerity is not something they aspire to personally, even if they hold that of the monks in high regard.

For the rest, the Pope and the Dalai Lama are fun to compare, if only because they often both appeal to the most general of audiences. They are public intellectuals. But I would point out that someone like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks is their equal in more ways than one. I think the media would do well to showcase a greater variety of public intellectuals from the major religions of the world.

[Steve Pable]

I admit to some frustration as a Catholic with the secular media coverage of Pope Benedict vs. the coverage of the Dalai Lama. Admittedly in this instance we're dealing with the Dalai Lama's own writing, intentionally submitted in this venue. I'm not aware that Pope Benedict has done something similar.

It could certainly be argued that Ratzinger has had to learn just how easily his comments, regardless of the setting, can be publicized and (mis)interpreted the world over. But it seems pretty clear that the Dalai Lama is something of a darling among the media and Hollywood elites, whereas Pope Benedict is held in a rather lesser regard.

Ironically, both Buddhism and Catholicism preach a strongly countercultural message. Either of them ought to make us uncomfortable in our 21st century American bubble. But it becomes fashionable to pick and choose those elements we find appealing of any variety of faith traditions, and conveniently leave the rest aside. (I'm thinking of meditation, or yoga, or wearing a rosary, or dabbling in Kabbalah, or whatever.) Interestingly, I have a hard time coming up with examples that Hollywood types have mined from the Islamic tradition. Perhaps because Islam is feared or because it is more clearly a package deal? And after all, what would be the appeal of praying 5 times a day, or fasting, or making a pilgrimage?

I digress, but I think John's overall point is that a warm fuzzy Dalai Lamaism is not the sort of thing that will raise any objection. We can look at one another, nod sagely and comment on how wise and insightful this spirtual master is. In contrast, if Pope Benedict challenges Europe to remember and value its Christian roots, or warns against moral relativism, or even challenges his own Church to repentance, then he is somehow being intolerant, or old-fashioned, or trying to cover for pedophiles, or whatever.

Obviously, knowing what one is talking about is of relatively little import when it comes to getting a hearing in our society today.

[John]

Ah the ancient tribalistic cultic religiosity with its drive for total power and control runs hell deep!

And can find any number of quotes to justify its position of exceptionalism.

Mead as an "authority" on the great matters of human culture---oh puleez!

Meanwhile me-thinks you should listen to this impressive talk on religion as CULT---or who owns the Holy Brightness

http://www.adidam.org/flash/truthandreligion

Plus a related reference on the cultic nature of all conventional religion--especially of the exoteric varieties.

http://global.adidam.org/books/religion-reality.html

On the Great Tradition

http://www.adidam.org/teaching/17_companions/great_tradition

Humankind as one family prior to cultic exceptionalism

http://www.dabase.org/p3family.htm

[JohnFH]

John,

I will retain this post of yours above for its curiosity value, but not the others. These threads are not intended to provide free advertising for a "cult" (I use the term neutrally) which insists that it alone is not a cult.

[JohnFH]

Hi Steve,

I follow you.

There are examples of celebrity Muslims: for example, Cat Stevens = Yousef Islam; Lou Alcinder = Kareem Abbul Jabbar; Lisa Najeeb Halaby = Queen Noor of Jordan. There are several Muslim public intellectuals as well: Tariq Ramadan comes to mind.

[Theophrastus]

While Tariq Ramadan is certainly an important Muslim public intellectual, he is not religious leader (I am not aware that he has ever served as an imam, much less in a leadership position).

In this way, Ramadan is not analogous to R. Sacks (who heads the United Synagogue, the largest synagogue body in Britain), or the current Pope, or the current Dalai Lama, -- they are not only speakers for their respective religions to the broader world; they also broadly minister within their religious communities.

[JohnFH]

Point taken, Theo.

The Muslim public intellectual of the kind you are after that comes to mind is Dr. Mustafa Ceric, Grand Mufti of Bosnia. When he came to the UW-Madison in 2005, he almost got booed by the audience when he thanked the US government for having liberated Bosnian Muslims from the Serbs. That was a faux pas: to thank the "make love, not war" students and faculty of the UW for a military intervention of their government.

His plenary address was entitled:

"The Ten Commandments as a Basis for a Meaningful Jewish-Christian-Muslim Dialogue"

For details on that conference, and the website of the hosting organization, go here:

http://lisar.lss.wisc.edu/archive/2005-06/10Commandments.html

For further background on Ceric, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Ceri%C4%87