Interfaith Practice and the Dalai Lama

[path_of_one]

I would agree that preparation for a ritual is necessary. I suspect that the necessary amount of preparation necessary for the ritual would be a function of the person's understanding and faith.

From what I understand, the southern California Buddhist community knew far, far in advance that he was coming. I imagine they could (and did) prepare for initiation rituals. There were quite a few Buddhist monks and nuns there.

However, the Dalai Lama did direct the non-Buddhists to think about these things in the terms of their own religion. (These ones would not be entering into the Buddhist community, but the sympathetic effect of thinking about the same thing in their own tradition could be a powerful boost to those undergoing the actual initiation.

That's what I was trying to get at. Non-Buddhists were not directed to become Buddhist or to undergo the Amitabha initiation, but rather to take the equivalent vow within their own religious tradition, if they felt so compelled. Furthermore, I imagine there was some preparation involved for those undergoing the initiation, as he explained that only those who had prepared sufficiently should visualize the Amitabha Buddha in themselves, while the other Buddhists should visualize the Amitabha Buddha at their crown.

From what I gathered, it was not so much that non-Buddhists participated in a Buddhist ritual. It was that non-Buddhists were offered alternatives that could make sense within their own religious tradition, but that expressed the same dedication to serve other beings through seeking enlightenment. This is why I thought the ritual was a good example of interfaith practice. People were practicing their religions together, alongside one another in a unity of love and compassion... but people were not practicing each other's religions. The ritual was interesting to me because it was uniquely positioned in a way that brought people together in spirituality while allowing people to retain their own traditions. There was no encouragement to convert, yet non-Buddhists were not ignored. Non-Buddhists were able to be participants rather than bystanders, yet in a way that encouraged them to be faithful within their own traditions.

 

[Netti-Netti]

That's what I was trying to get at. Non-Buddhists were not directed to become Buddhist or to undergo the Amitabha initiation, but rather to take the equivalent vow within their own religious tradition, if they felt so compelled.

This makes the ritual an imaginative exercise rather than an actual ecclesiastical proceeding with a significance that a given religious group can agree on. But thanks for clarifying.

From what I gathered, it was not so much that non-Buddhists participated in a Buddhist ritual. It was that non-Buddhists were offered alternatives that could make sense within their own religious tradition, but that expressed the same dedication to serve other beings through seeking enlightenment.

But Enlightenment is specifically a Buddhist concept. What is the value of having people construe it in terms of in their own religious tradition? Makes no sense to me. It's like encouraging nonBuddhists to try to understand a Buddhist concept in a nonBuddhist way. How would that benefit anyone? Imho, it undercuts the interfaith spirit by the implication that it doesn't matter what the concept was in the original religious context.

Non-Buddhists were able to be participants rather than bystanders, yet in a way that encouraged them to be faithful within their own traditions.

To me this scenario symbolizes the problems that arise with trying to be an interfaith kind of person.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Normally, certain Buddhist initiations and rituals are not done in public.

I did some looking and it appears I'm not the only one to have noticed that there's a problem. This is from the so-called "Mongoose-Canine" letter which is attributed to Tibetans living in exile (in Italy) which addresses concerns about the public conduct of religious ritual. Please note that these are allegations:

To challenge lamas, you have used religion for your own aim. To that purpose you had to develop the Tibetan people’s blind faith. ... For instance, you started the politics of public Kalachakra initiations. Normally the Kalachakra initiation is not given in public.
​

Can the Dalai Lama EVER make a mistake?

I realize Buddhism has a very rich material culture, but I was unaware that certain rituals should be (or routinely are) practiced only in certain consecrated places.

Sacred places are sites that are thought to have a special connection to divine elements. Supposedly, Buddhist sacred spaces are sacred because of an association with the Buddha or other sacred persons. I suppose one could argue that any place his Holiness the Dalai Lama visits becomes sacred as a result of his presence.

Vows are dependent on intention or aspirations and that sacred space is portable - it gets choreographed by ritual. If the ritual has no intrinsic sacredness, then there's no need to protect it - e.g., by treating it as deeply personal or esoteric or as belonging to a special private realm. From that pov, location wouldn't mean much, However, from my exposure to Buddhism, I don't get the feeling that Buddhism is any different from other religion with respect to important rites or ceremonies. While Buddhists can home shrines, the more official conduct of religion would seem to take the form of temple rituals which are conducted by a priest. Wouldn't this be especially the case for initiation rites or ceremonies by which someone is initiated into a monastic career (ordination)?

Also, the proliferation of shrines in the Chinese landscape suggests a fairly systematic effort to create a fairly permanent, protected, and formally organized sacred space that is
differentiated from the chaotic, profane space of the outside world. Historically, the demarcation was often signified by portals or gates that symbolize the threshold between sacred and nonsacred reality. The protection theme is fairly obvious if you look at some of these places - especially Chinese burial sites and temples. They have guardians (dragons) who protect entrances and the periphery.

 

[path_of_one]

This makes the ritual an imaginative exercise rather than an actual ecclesiastical proceeding with a significance that a given religious group can agree on. But thanks for clarifying.

I think there is an in-between category possible... stuff that might be spiritual and even religious- neither only imaginative exercise nor actual ecclesiastical proceeding. For the Buddhists, wouldn't it be an actual ecclesiastical proceeding? And for the non-Buddhists, it is what you make it. Anyone could tell me that I was merely doing an imaginative exercise, but that does not make such a judgement so. My actions were deliberate, meditative, and while not Buddhist, certainly engaged particular Buddhist concepts (which I fully disclose were things I knew of before, so the lecture was an enhancement on prior knowledge).

As a Druid, what I was doing during the whole thing was ritual, just as the Buddhists were. I was not simply imagining some stuff. Neither was I being a Buddhist. Maybe I have an easier time doing this because Druidry trains one to be comfortable writing one's own rituals, but I doubt that I was the only non-Buddhist in a crowd of 12,000 people for whom the ritual had more significance than mere imaginative exercise.

I imagine individuals of all religions ran the gamut of stuff going on in their head, from imagining to full Buddhist participation to thinking about their errands to run. Such is the nature of religious participation in any religion. I don't feel I can pass judgement on what is in others' minds during such events. After all, I only can reference my own experience and observations.

But Enlightenment is specifically a Buddhist concept. What is the value of having people construe it in terms of in their own religious tradition? Makes no sense to me.

I can't answer for every tradition. Modern Druidic ideas about enlightenment are rather similar in many regards to Buddhist ones. That's one reason why it is not uncommon to find some fluidity of membership between Buddhists and Druids. For me, having studied Buddhism before, I understood the concept and could relate it without trouble to my practice as a Druid.

It's like encouraging nonBuddhists to try to understand a Buddhist concept in a nonBuddhist way. How would that benefit anyone? Imho, it undercuts the interfaith spirit by the implication that it doesn't matter what the concept was in the original religious context.

I could see that, if no lecture had been given and no explanation offered for how the Buddhist concept is understood within Buddhism. It would seem, however, when you offer four hours of discussion about certain concepts within Buddhism, relatively intelligent people should be able to compare and contrast these concepts to similar concepts from within their own religious tradition.

Otherwise, it seems like saying there cannot be appreciation of cultures, religions, and so forth that are not one's own, and people are doomed with a total inability to relate to one another in any way deeper than intellectual understanding.

As to the benefit, I think there is benefit in wrestling with new concepts from other cultures and religions and comparing/contrasting these with my own. This gives me a new, fresh perspective on my own worldview. Is there no benefit in this? Should people restrict themselves only to the worldviews they were brought up in or currently follow?

To me this scenario symbolizes the problems that arise with trying to be an interfaith kind of person.

What is an interfaith kind of person? I don't really get it. Do you mean someone who borrows from a variety of religious traditions? A leader that is inclusive?

 

[path_of_one]

I did some looking and it appears I'm not the only one to have noticed that there's a problem. This is from the so-called "Mongoose-Canine" letter which is attributed to Tibetans living in exile (in Italy) which addresses concerns about the public conduct of religious ritual.

That certainly seems like something Buddhists should be able to discuss. I never believed the Dalai Lama is infallible. I don't think he believes he is infallible, from the books and interviews I've read. I imagine if there was a big problem with it in Buddhism, he would listen and take that into account?

Supposedly, Buddhist sacred spaces are sacred because of an association with the Buddha or other sacred persons. I suppose one could argue that any place his Holiness the Dalai Lama visits becomes sacred as a result of his presence.

That's an interesting point.

While Buddhists can home shrines, the more official conduct of religion would seem to take the form of temple rituals which are conducted by a priest. Wouldn't this be especially the case for initiation rites or ceremonies by which someone is initiated into a monastic career (ordination)?

I would guess that depends on the religious tradition. I have no idea if it is the case for Buddhists. In some traditions, such rituals would be done in a temple and in other traditions, such rituals can be done anywhere. In most Neopagan traditions, ordination can be done in a home, woods, park, or other locations since the space is consecrated by one's actions and through recognizing all as sacred, rather than by historical use. But this might be because they are small movements who still face a certain amount of oppression. Who knows... maybe if they get larger they will also have permanent structures. (Of course, we know in the past that they did, or at least some did.)

Historically, the demarcation was often signified by portals or gates that symbolize the threshold between sacred and nonsacred reality. The protection theme is fairly obvious if you look at some of these places - especially Chinese burial sites and temples. They have guardians (dragons) who protect entrances and the periphery.

Out of curiosity, is this a Buddhist thing? Or a Taoism combined with Buddhism thing? Or a feng shui thing?

I wonder how much of all this differentiation worldwide is Buddhism adapting to various cultural differences. It would seem the Buddhist movement in the West has a unique flavor compared to in China, Japan, and so on (and each of those has its own flavor as well).

 

[Netti-Netti]

The Dalai Lama is not a great fan of conversion, either.

So what is his motive for a mass market promotion of Buddhist ritual?

 

[Netti-Netti]

What is an interfaith kind of person? I don't really get it. Do you mean someone who borrows from a variety of religious traditions? A leader that is inclusive?

Good questions.

Does borrowing a few things from another faith tradition align you with that tradition enough to where it actually has some effect on how you define your identity and your relationship to the world?

 

[seattlegal]

So what is his motive for a mass market promotion of Buddhist ritual?

I would hope that it would be to plant seeds of compassion. (karuna) (Which was the theme of the conference he spoke at in Seattle.) Also seeds of joy, or mudita, (See Luke 15,) in order to spread all-accomplishing wisdom. Seeds of agape, or metta. Seeds of equanimity. Culturing the wisdom of equality. Meditating from the different religious perspectives in order to develop the wisdom of discernment to see the important things religions share, lessening sectarian aggression so mirror-like wisdom can develop.

 

[path_of_one]

Good questions.

Does borrowing a few things from another faith tradition align you with that tradition enough to where it actually has some effect on how you define your identity and your relationship to the world?

I'd offer that depends entirely on the individual, their spiritual journey, what they are borrowing, and how they relate to the world.

My studies in Buddhism have greatly assisted in my spiritual development and the way I relate to the world. But I am not Buddhist.

In my case, I would say yes- borrowing some concepts, practices, and so on from Buddhism had and continues to have effects. Maybe it depends on your length and depth of study, as I began studying Buddhism in college through religious studies courses about ten years ago and continued to periodically include Buddhist readings in my spiritual studies since then.

My point is that I do think it is possible to gain some meaning, understanding, and respect for other traditions through being a partial participant, while acknowledging that the religion is not your own. There is a space between conversion and complete non-participation, at least for some folks.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I would hope that it would be to plant seeds of compassion. (karuna) (Which was the theme of the conference he spoke at in Seattle.) Also seeds of joy, or mudita, (See Luke 15,) in order to spread all-accomplishing wisdom. Seeds of agape, or metta. Seeds of equanimity. Culturing the wisdom of equality. Meditating from the different religious perspectives in order to develop the wisdom of discernment to see the important things religions share, lessening sectarian aggression so mirror-like wisdom can develop.

Like I said before (see my Post #2), the Dalai Lama used to speak of these values without invoking religion. He seemed to fully aware of the generic ("nonreligious") approach he was taking. It seems he even made a point of referring to "secular ethics" in order to clarify that these are not religious concepts or duties. Concepts like compassion, loving kindness, and equality you mention are in fact aspects of humanism. Economic equality in particular would be a socialistic ideal.

I realize we're just speculating here, but it is curious that the Dalai Lama seems to have switched gears and sought to advance humanistic values and principles in the context of a large scale promotion of Buddhist ritual. Why do you think he is doing this now? It seems to be a fairly recent development. (I don't think he mentioned Buddhism even once when I attended one of his talks some years ago.)

 

[Netti-Netti]

My point is that I do think it is possible to gain some meaning, understanding, and respect for other traditions through being a partial participant, while acknowledging that the religion is not your own. There is a space between conversion and complete non-participation, at least for some folks.

Yet you did not actually do the Amitabha Buddha empowerment, or did you ? (if I may ask)

 

[path_of_one]

Yet you did not actually do the Amitabha Buddha empowerment, or did you ? (if I may ask)

No problem- I did not do the Amitabha Buddha empowerment. Instead, I participated alongside and, while agreeing with the Buddhists to seek enlightenment for service to end suffering for all beings, so long as I remain, I did not visualize the Amitabha Buddha or invite him in. Instead, I visualized what I consider to be my celestial masters, and invited them in. I have prepared before to do this type of work within my own tradition, so I felt comfortable with it and felt it was appropriate. This was guided by the Dalai Lama, who encouraged non-Buddhists to do this (he made the example of Christians envisioning Christ).

In certain points of the vows that were uniquely Buddhist (such as taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha), I inserted vows that made sense within my own tradition but upheld a common understanding- in that case, for example, taking refuge in my masters/way-showers, the way/path I follow, and my spiritual community.

Hope that helps clarify. I'm sure some people just mumbled along, but then human nature is such that I wouldn't put such a thing past Buddhists either. In every religion, you have people who are mindfully participating and people who are not.

 

[seattlegal]

Like I said before (see my Post #2), the Dalai Lama used to speak of these values without invoking religion. He seemed to fully aware of the generic ("nonreligious") approach he was taking. It seems he even made a point of referring to "secular ethics" in order to clarify that these are not religious concepts or duties. Concepts like compassion, loving kindness, and equality you mention are in fact aspects of humanism. Economic equality in particular would be a socialistic ideal.

I realize we're just speculating here, but it is curious that the Dalai Lama seems to have switched gears and sought to advance humanistic values and principles in the context of a large scale promotion of Buddhist ritual. Why do you think he is doing this now? It seems to be a fairly recent development. (I don't think he mentioned Buddhism even once when I attended one of his talks some years ago.)

Perhaps the western Buddhists requested that he lead this ritual? After all, we do have freedom of religion here.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I can't speak for intrafaith issues (i.e., the promotion or tolerance of various sects within Buddhism.....)

The Dalai Lama seems to be obsessed with ostracizing Dorje Shugden Buddhists and even got into it at the Long Beach event, much to the surprise of a blogger who attended the event. Specifically, the Dalai Lama apparently made a point of asking Dorje Shugden practitioners to exclude themselves from Buddhist vows. Yet he was ok with nonBuddhists taking the vows !!

(A)fter the genyen vows, but before the bodhisattva vows, His Holiness gave an extensive statement and admonition concerning the practice of Dorje Shugden. He said that anyone is free to practice Dorje Shugden, but in the event one wished to do, he politely asked that they not take vows with him

Digital Tibetan Buddhist Altar
​

 

[path_of_one]

Actually, he requested that non-Buddhists not take the vows, but rather do what I did (i.e., vow something similar in one's own faith tradition). He also said if you were not vegetarian, you could not take the vows.

So, what's the deal with that sect of Buddhism? What's his beef with it?

 

[nativeastral]

[youtube]V9ni15ueFZk[/youtube]

 

[Netti-Netti]

Actually, he requested that non-Buddhists not take the vows, but rather do what I did (i.e., vow something similar in one's own faith tradition).

The blogger I mentioned offered a slightly different account:

His Holiness also went to some length to include non-Buddhists in the practices. He came just short of saying "you don't have to be Buddhist to take bodhisattva vows, but it helps."

Under the broadest possible interpretation of his remarks, it would not be unfair to report that may not be what he said, but it may be what he meant. In over 45 years, I have never heard dharma employed to include monotheistic believers the way it was this past Friday and Saturday

​

So it seems the Dalai lama wanted to include nonBuddhists and exclude some Buddhists based on their beliefs. Still, the blogger attributes "an extremely compassionate intention to move past sectarianism and doctrinal difference."

So is the Dalai Lama using religious proceedings to promote religious discrimination? Sounds like it.

 

[path_of_one]

To be honest, I had an entirely different experience than the blogger. Like any form of journalism, I suspect the truth is somewhere between these things. But, naturally, I have to go with my own experience and observations. I was there, and I have no reason to put a stranger's account above my own.

I didn't hear him mention the Dorjee Shungden at all, quite frankly (but I certainly could have missed it somehow). And while the blogger may interpret his intent, I do not. I try hard to not make meanings out of people's words that may or may not be there. Rather, I report what people say. What was said was that Buddhists who had sufficiently prepared (and he did not elaborate on this, I suspect Buddhists would know if they were prepared or not) could do the initiation. Buddhists who had not sufficiently prepared should visualize the Amitabha Buddha at their crown. Non-Buddhists should choose if they wish to devote themselves to the equivalent of enlightenment, compassion, and service in their own tradition and alter the visualizations and vows to be something that fits with their faith traditions.

I fail to see how I should read other stuff into this. That seems like bad reporting. You know the old addage- assuming makes an ass out of u and me.

The blogger you quote has a lot of flaws in his/her reasoning from the perspective of a social scientist and/or journalist. S/he quotes something s/he assumes the Dalai Lama was "just short of saying." If something isn't said, it isn't said. One's projections of what one thinks was behind something and what one guesses was meant and what one assumes could have been said "if it had gone farther"-- these are all irrelevant and biased, bad reporting. Basically, they are opinion and nothing more. This poor reporting is furthered by the blogger distinguishing between what was said and what "may have been meant"-- these distinctions, if not encompassing all possible (or at least many possible) interpretations of someone's words are just biased interpretations.

Your own interpretations, generalized and overlaid on the blogger's already biased reporting, just push the matter farther from what actually happened.

So far as I can tell, the issue of Dorje Shungden is a sectarian issue within Buddhism- the same way there are sectarian issues in other religions. I fail to see why this should impact interfaith experience. Nothing in life is perfect, including the Dalai Lama, which he himself admits. Whether or not it is appropriate to excommunicate this sect within Buddhism is something I can't comment on- I am not Buddhist. But I don't think that negates the good things coming out of the Dalai Lama's interfaith work.

Now, one thing I will agree on- I can completely see how someone would have never seen the dharma employed to embrace other faiths. This is precisely what I was getting at- this was an interfaith event, and care was taken to include the thousands of people who were not Buddhist.

 

[Netti-Netti]

To be honest, I had an entirely different experience than the blogger. Like any form of journalism, I suspect the truth is somewhere between these things. But, naturally, I have to go with my own experience and observations. I was there, and I have no reason to put a stranger's account above my own.

I didn't hear him mention the Dorjee Shungden at all, quite frankly (but I certainly could have missed it somehow).

Very possibly it seemed irrelevant to you at the time.

The blogger you quote has a lot of flaws in his/her reasoning from the perspective of a social scientist and/or journalist. S/he quotes something s/he assumes the Dalai Lama was "just short of saying."

I would take the blogger all the more seriously because they made a distinction between their interpretation and the words they heard. The blogger strikes me as very honest on that basis.

If something isn't said, it isn't said. One's projections of what one thinks was behind something and what one guesses was meant and what one assumes could have been said "if it had gone farther"-- these are all irrelevant and biased, bad reporting.

I don't see why this is an issue here since the blogger seems to have confirmed your impression of what was going on in terms of the Dalai Lama going out of his way to give procedural latitude to nonBuddhists.

The blogger wrote:

In over 45 years, I have never heard dharma employed to include monotheistic believers the way it was this past Friday and Saturday
​

How's that different from your post?....

Non-Buddhists should choose if they wish to devote themselves to the equivalent of enlightenment, compassion, and service in their own tradition and alter the visualizations and vows to be something that fits with their faith traditions.

​

It seems the only difference is that, for whatever reason, the blogger identified nonBuddhists as monotheists, but the basic "interfaith" meaning is basically the same.

So far as I can tell, the issue of Dorje Shungden is a sectarian issue within Buddhism- the same way there are sectarian issues in other religions. I fail to see why this should impact interfaith experience. Nothing in life is perfect, including the Dalai Lama, which he himself admits. Whether or not it is appropriate to excommunicate this sect within Buddhism is something I can't comment on- I am not Buddhist. But I don't think that negates the good things coming out of the Dalai Lama's interfaith work.

To my way of thinking it undercuts the message of tolerance. But I think you are missing the big picture here. Both your account and the blogger's account converge on the fact that the Dalai Lama invited nonBuddhists to participate in a religious proceeding and, in effect, modified the proceeding by encouraging nonBuddhists to substitute nonBuddhist imagery. You mentioned this yourself in the OP when you referred to "his willingness to assist people in using spiritual practices in ways that could be altered to suit their own religious tradition....He guided people in ways of altering the interior visualizations to fit with their own religious tradition."

The Dalai Lama invited nonBuddhists to partake in a Buddhist ritual even it meant them using different imagery from what is is ordinarily called for in that ritual. On other hand, based on the blogger's account, he evidently sought to exclude certain Buddhists on account of their beliefs. You don't see a problem here? He makes an effort to enforce orthodoxy with Buddhists and then turns Buddhist ritual into a "whatever you want it to be" with nonBuddhists.

I feel the Dalai Lama has done serious damage to his cause with this. I'm frankly astonished by his conduct.

 

[Snoopy]

I wonder how much of all this differentiation worldwide is Buddhism adapting to various cultural differences. It would seem the Buddhist movement in the West has a unique flavor compared to in China, Japan, and so on (and each of those has its own flavor as well).

It's like a recipe travelling round the world!

s.