Interfaith Practice and the Dalai Lama

[nativeastral]

l too have been enjoying and following this rootin out the ramifications of ritual and can see both sides..it is experiential, it is symbolic, it is both individualistic and it has and still is a collective action; particularly it is appropriate that buddhism via the globally recognised dalai lama would enjoin humans around the world to pay special significance to other beings as this 'religion' more than others it seems has adapted to each cultural context it had encountered due to its universal philosophy centering on purely personal responsibility for attainment of inner equilibrium which in turn allows happiness of others [unless it is a perceived heretic sect within its quasi dogmatic confines].

 

[Ciel]

wil,
you know, it's not what you think, hear, say......... it's how you think, hear, say...... What can I say..........you got it

If I say I love you too....... it's a moment of glory.....

..... you know just feels better to turn in your direction than to turn away......

,,,,,,that's basic.......

- c -

 

[Netti-Netti]

I think a lot of this is misunderstanding what I was trying to say, apparently. My own perception is that what the Dalai Lama did was to encourage people to use their own faith tradition as a vehicle of committing to serve other beings, and at a minimum, committing to not harming other beings. Depending on one's faith tradition, doing this would be borrowing some concepts from Buddhism and integrating them with one's own faith.

I don't see why. Most world religions have some virtue aspect that is roughly equivalent to kindness and harmlessness. Also, as I said in the beginning of this thread, the Dalai Lama himself describes compassion as a "secular principle." No need for religion to appreciate compassion.

Hence, he encouraged Christians to visualize things that made sense to them rather than the Amitabha Buddha.

If the Tibetan blog description I cited is accurate, the Dalai Lama encouraged nonBuddhists (not just Christians) to do something ritualistic from their own tradition that kind of fit in with what he was doing for the Buddhists. No substitutions required. This is very wise of him: he is helping people avoid borrowing in ignorance. And no one can accuse him of trying to convert nonBuddhists to Buddhism!

If you would explain what "Christian things" would be comparable to the Amitabha Buddha, I'm all ears. For starters we need to know the Amitabha Buddha's place in Buddhism. Based on blog report and your account of the proceedings, no detail was provided on that at the event. Lack of detail would have encouraged borrowing in ignorance.....IF it had been suggested to participants that they do substitutions.

It was all left rather open-ended for non-Buddhists to interpret how to integrate the proceedings with their own faith tradition.

I wonder if all this Interfaith stuff about borrowing and integrating is all in your mind. In the Tibetan blog there is nothing about integrating "faith." It sounds more like parallel - but perhaps very different - rituals being conducted under the same roof.

Your comment, the most relevant parts of which I bolded, indicated to me that you thought one person could make changes that are meaningful to another.

Historically, it has happened!! The Reformation.

I obviously misunderstood what you were trying to say, and am now a bit confused as to what it was.

Just wanted to caution against "syncretizing":

syncretize - to attempt to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity, esp. inconsistently, to unify or reconcile differing schools of thought.

​

Syncretizing is bad enough. Leaving it to people who have little understanding of the tradition they are borrowing from is potentially worse. Consider my analogy of the C++ programmer trying to modify a Fortran program. No workie.

I'll join you in praise and gratitude!

Yay!

 

[Snoopy]

l too have been enjoying and following this rootin out the ramifications of ritual and can see both sides..it is experiential, it is symbolic, it is both individualistic and it has and still is a collective action; particularly it is appropriate that buddhism via the globally recognised dalai lama would enjoin humans around the world to pay special significance to other beings as this 'religion' more than others it seems has adapted to each cultural context it had encountered due to its universal philosophy centering on purely personal responsibility for attainment of inner equilibrium which in turn allows happiness of others [unless it is a perceived heretic sect within its quasi dogmatic confines].

Damn those sects.

s.

PS Do you want me to PM you some full stops? I got loads.

 

[nativeastral]

Damn those sects.

s.

PS Do you want me to PM you some full stops? I got loads.

OMG you sound like a teacher l know; 'point' taken

 

[earl]

Well, the DL is first and foremost an advocate of compassion-his famously known quote is that his "religion" is kindness. So, he is certainly one who wants to build bridges between folk, not emphasize differences. He has also said in the past that he thinks those who are non-Buddhist but have another religious tradition should simply embrace their traditions more deeply as opposed to switching sides and could see his suggestions to substitute images from their own non-Buddhist traditions as in that vein. That being said, he has also said in the past that if one is a vajrayana practitioner, one should as accurately as possible visualize the traditional vajrayana iconic images as opposed to substituting other images or altering their appearances. earl

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well, the DL is first and foremost an advocate of compassion-his famously known quote is that his "religion" is kindness. So, he is certainly one who wants to build bridges between folk, not emphasize differences.

On the contrary, he has encouraged competition between religions.

He has also said in the past that he thinks those who are non-Buddhist but have another religious tradition should simply embrace their traditions more deeply as opposed to switching sides

Where was that?

and could see his suggestions to substitute images from their own non-Buddhist traditions as in that vein.

What words did he use when he suggested to nonBuddhists that they substitute images from their non-Buddhist traditions? (I don't know if you read any of my posts quoting the Tibetan Buddhist blogger.)

Btw, I've been not been able to find anything the Dalai Lama has said that in any way encourages "Interfaith" borrowing or crossfertilization. Could someone find an actual quote (like from an interview?

 

[Netti-Netti]

When one compares religions in terms of spiritual experience and personal development (in contrast to an academic comparison), one's analysis is going to be highly personal and individual.

Yes and no.

Problem is: If it's all so personal and idiosyncratic, then there no hope for communication. In that sense, your individualistic slant is untenable. Most of the time we assume that someone will know what we mean when we tell them about ourselves. I suspect that this has generally been a presupposition for your posts... unless you write down your thoughts for self-reminding purposes only.

I don't know if anyone has actually done a comprehensive analysis of religious ritual to see what the commonalities are. In my own experience, they often deal with certain common themes, notably faith. According to William James, the faith-state is characterized by three consistent features:

The central one is the loss of all the worry, the sense that all is ultimately well with one, the peace, the harmony, the willingness to be, even though the outer conditions should remain the same. The certainty of God's 'grace,' of 'justification,' 'salvation,' is an objective belief that usually accompanies the change in Christians; but this may be entirely lacking and yet the affective peace remain the same....

The second feature is the sense of perceiving truths not known before. The mysteries of life become lucid, as Professor Leuba says; and often, nay usually, the solution is more or less unutterable in words.

A third peculiarity of the assurance state is the objective change which the world often appears to undergo. 'An appearance of newness beautifies every object,' the precise opposite of that other sort of newness, that dreadful unreality and strangeness in the appearance of the world, which is experienced by melancholy patients, and of which you may recall my relating some examples. * This sense of clean and beautiful newness within and without is one of the commonest entries in conversion records.
​

James: The Varieties of Religious Experience (Lect. 10)

From what I've seen in Catholic and Methodist church services, rituals serve to remind people of these emotional states in fairly obvious ways, like expressing gratitude for blessings and the benefits of Grace, a sense of renewal, and a sense of ambiguities having been resolved.

People vary in the intensity with which these feel these things. But, based on the self-reports he considered in his analysis, James evidently believed these features of the faith state are pretty much universal.

As for William James, if you cannot see the connection between his entire thesis and work, and its relevance for individuals' engagement with ritual, I really don't know what to offer you. It is not that he says something on a particular page, but rather that his entire work and thesis has relevance for what we're discussing.

My impression of William James is that he undertook to examine common themes in religious experience rather than common themes of rituals.

 

[earl]

On the contrary, he has encouraged competition between religions.
Where was that?

What words did he use when he suggested to nonBuddhists that they substitute images from their non-Buddhist traditions? (I don't know if you read any of my posts quoting the Tibetan Buddhist blogger.)

Btw, I've been not been able to find anything the Dalai Lama has said that in any way encourages "Interfaith" borrowing or crossfertilization. Could someone find an actual quote (like from an interview?

NN, I ran across his statement indicating he thought those with an established non-Buddhist relgious tradition should probably plumb their own more deeply as opposed to simply converting to Buddhism so long ago, wouldn't be able to tell you where. Might have been a talk or an interview, could have been in a mag or a book. As to image substitution, based that on Path's opening comment. But I'd agree that I've never seen a comment from him which encouraged "interfaith borrowing" as you put it. earl

 

[earl]

OK, NN, here's the info re his attitude re conversion to Buddhism:
Netscape Search earl

 

[Netti-Netti]

I've never seen a comment from him which encouraged "interfaith borrowing" as you put it. earl

He may be open to interfaith dialogue, but it looks to me like he is not at all interested in crossfertilizations and evidently wants religions to remain separate:

Buddhists should implement what we believe in daily life and our Christian brothers and sisters should also implement their teachings in daily life.... We should have some competition...That is my basic feeling about the encounter of our religious traditions.
​

~Dalai Lama XIV, Spiritual advice for Buddhists and Christians

Wen he says "this is my basic feeling about the encounter of our religious traditions," I think he is saying that we should do the best we can with our existing tradition. This view was alluded to by Thomas, who remarked that the Dalai Lama "is not a great fan of conversion, either. Someone once in an audience told him he had converted from Christianity, with which he had a problem; the Dalai Lama replied that if he hadn't found what he was looking for in Christianity, he was unlikely to find it in Buddhism, and suggested the problem lay with him." (Post #17)

OK, NN, here's the info re his attitude re conversion to Buddhism: Netscape Search earl

Thanks for that, Earl. One could expand the reasoning about looking elsewhere. How about: someone who hasn't found what he/she is looking for their own tradition, they are unlikely to find it by trying to merge that tradition with Buddhism.

Based on things he has said, I don't think the Dalai Lama's wants to promote interfaith through borrowings or substitutions.

 

[path_of_one]

I don't think I can say what the Dalai Lama wants to promote regarding interfaith dialogue, though I can say that he went out of his way to talk for some time at the beginning of the Friday session about the importance of compassion and people from all religions working toward a higher potential in their own lives and in the world.

Perhaps compassion is perceived by the Dalai Lama as a secular value, and so he does not see this as interfaith work, though he clearly addressed other faiths several times in his lecture, so he was addressing interfaith issues.

Personally, as I think the growth of compassion and service to others is one of the hearts of spiritual development (both of the individual and of humanity as a whole), and as he addressed and encouraged people of non-Buddhist traditions, I saw this as interfaith work. If others see it differently, that is OK.

The real hope (to me) in this event was that thousands of people were interested in receiving such teaching and were interested in serving other beings and being compassionate people. Perhaps I am somewhat naively optimistic, but I choose to take hope where I can find it. To me, I see enough of the divisiveness in the world... and moments where many diverse people come together with love and kindness are rare. I think these are very important, both for individual growth and for the development of humanity as a whole.

But that is just how I see it. Others, of course, can take from it what they wish.

 

[Netti-Netti]

I was talking with a Buddhist about accepting all of a religion to be true or just part of it. I think that issue is relevant to borrowing.

Buddhism borrowed quite a bit from Hinduism, but rejected the stature of the priesthood. The Buddha seemed to have had very good reasons for it. It was part of a general rejection of Brahminism , including the idea of divine revelation. In other words, if your going to be a Christian Buddhist, you have to decide whether to go with the Christian view that revelation indicates G-d's involvement with Creation or the Buddhist view that it aint so. In the case of Tibetan Buddhism, you're also faced with deciding whether to accept various elaborate magical traditions.

I suppose I could do Buddhist rituals without considering myself to be a Buddhist. But the question remains: if you agree with what one ritual means, do you implicitly agree that the others should be part of your repertoire of interfaith practices?

Prostration is among the more preliminary practices and is supposed to be repeated 111,111 times. I'm having trouble keeping count!

It seems Tibetan Buddhists do long-distance prostrating pilgrimage that cover over 2000 miles.

My point here: does one undertake to do all essential practices or just the ones I find interesting and not too physically demanding?

Let's say I can rationalize not doing prostrating pilgrimage. Then I have to decide whether to do the fasting and purification practices, various prayers, etc, etc. If I am really earnest about doing one ritual, shouldn't I feel the same about ALLl of them, including some of the more basic ones?

 

[path_of_one]

Buddhism borrowed quite a bit from Hinduism, but rejected the stature of the priesthood.

Such is the nature of change in religion. Borrowing and changing has always occurred. Hence, it is not so much that one would be a Christian Buddhist as one might take Christianity and Buddhism and create something new from these. One can already see religions in which such syncretism has created something new, such as Vodun.

I don't argue for or against this; I just observe that it happens and people seem none the worse for it.

My point here: does one undertake to do all essential practices or just the ones I find interesting and not too physically demanding?

Heh, Muslims might find the prostration pilgrimage to be easier.

I think the question proposes a false dichotomy of choices. First, who decides what is "essential" and essential for what? Second, if it is the individual, just because s/he throws out some of them does not mean that s/he throws out the ones that are disinteresting or physically demanding. Alternatively, the individual may approach the issue through study, intuition, or other ways of knowing with the intent of undertaking practices that would be beneficial to his/her spiritual development rather than focusing on what seems interesting or easy.

If I am really earnest about doing one ritual, shouldn't I feel the same about ALLl of them, including some of the more basic ones?

Why would this be? This kind of indiscriminating commitment is rare even within a single religious tradition. I am not sure that such commitment demonstrates the wisest approach, either. Indiscriminating feeling and practice is not necessarily evidence of spiritual development. People might be this way because they are rote practitioners, or to feel comfortably within the boundaries of social acceptability, or to feel superior to others, or because they don't wish to bother with self-reflection and personal spiritual inquiry, etc. Action does not indicate motivation, at least in my own experience.

 

[earl]

Well, Path, personally have nothing against syncretism being a tad syncretistic myself. I tend to think that religious systems will over at least vast periods of time tend to morph somewhat in what could be seen in somewhat syncretistic terms which only makes sense to me because, even, if a particular religious system in its doctrine has its part of the truth right, I tend to believe that ultimate absolute reality is so beyond human capacity to understand that any religious system can only get part of it right. So, a religious system is likely to come to different understandings at least in the interpretive sense of their doctrines in the face of encounters with other parts of the puzzle. I also tend to think that 1 of the motivations behind syncretistic approaches is the perhaps clumsy attempt to pull together more "parts" of ultimate reality that tend to show up separately in multiple religious belief systems. earl

 

[earl]

I was talking with a Buddhist about accepting all of a religion to be true or just part of it. I think that issue is relevant to borrowing.

Buddhism borrowed quite a bit from Hinduism, but rejected the stature of the priesthood. The Buddha seemed to have had very good reasons for it. It was part of a general rejection of Brahminism , including the idea of divine revelation. In other words, if your going to be a Christian Buddhist, you have to decide whether to go with the Christian view that revelation indicates G-d's involvement with Creation or the Buddhist view that it aint so. In the case of Tibetan Buddhism, you're also faced with deciding whether to accept various elaborate magical traditions.

I suppose I could do Buddhist rituals without considering myself to be a Buddhist. But the question remains: if you agree with what one ritual means, do you implicitly agree that the others should be part of your repertoire of interfaith practices?

Prostration is among the more preliminary practices and is supposed to be repeated 111,111 times. I'm having trouble keeping count!

It seems Tibetan Buddhists do long-distance prostrating pilgrimage that cover over 2000 miles.

My point here: does one undertake to do all essential practices or just the ones I find interesting and not too physically demanding?

Let's say I can rationalize not doing prostrating pilgrimage. Then I have to decide whether to do the fasting and purification practices, various prayers, etc, etc. If I am really earnest about doing one ritual, shouldn't I feel the same about ALLl of them, including some of the more basic ones?

NN, those photos remind me of photos I've seen of Catholic priests and their ceremony of final vows. Just that they don't do them 100,000+ times. But goes to show that except for superficial changes in practice, there seem to be core practices that can be found in various religious approaches. As you no doubt know, the phenomenon of "Christian-Buddhist" amalgams, (which always seem to be about "Christians" incorporating Buddhist practices and sometimes understandings into their approach to Christianity as opposed to the other way around), can span the continuum from simply utilizing some basic Buddhist meditative practices alongside their basic Christian practice to that plus taking a more "Buddhist" approach to interpeting basic Christian doctrinal phenomena such as altering one's views re what "salvation" means and is or who/what Jesus the Christ is/was. But if ones follows ones experience as much as a collective and established body's doctrines, sometimes one is led to a fairly syncretic approach. For instance, in my case, most of my life I had little interest in Jesus and Christianity-more Buddhist don't you know. Then about 2 years ago seemingly had a recovered past life memory that led to a very personal non-traditional connection to him, which nevertheless still fit with a more Buddhist interpretation of my "recovered memory." Don't obviously know if it truly was a recovered memory of past life-i.e., suggestive of reincarnation. But, if I attempted to fit all the pieces of what I have experienced (or studied and believed), into a belief system, would be unable to do so except by a syncretic adaptation-bits of this and that. Am I Christian? Well certainly not in the traditional sense. Don't attend a church and have no interest in doing so. Am I Buddhist? Again, not in the traditional sense. However, I'd be a fool, (is that a religion?), if I wholly ignored my experiences just because they don't fit an established paradigm. So, I simply do my practices which usually look Buddhist but sometimes resemble Christian contemplative methods. I think the "heart" is syncretic and it only our heads that insist on keeping everything in neat little boxes. earl

 

[wil]

There are also muslims that make all or a portion of their trip to Mecca by reprostrating themselves the distance. (note don't know about religious ritual, but heck of a workout routine, ain't no fat prostrators)

 

[Netti-Netti]

Such is the nature of change in religion. Borrowing and changing has always occurred.

Always for reasons that made theological sense?

it is not so much that one would be a Christian Buddhist as one might take Christianity and Buddhism and create something new from these. One can already see religions in which such syncretism has created something new, such as Vodun.

Exactly how is the Catholic aspect integrated into the ancient religion?

Heh, Muslims might find the prostration pilgrimage to be easier.

Are Muslims more likely to borrow from Buddhism or convert to Buddhism on that basis? If so,maybe we should add "resemblance of ritual" to the "interesting and easy" criteria for doing a religious practice.

I think the question proposes a false dichotomy of choices. First, who decides what is "essential" and essential for what?

I know there must be a way to rationalize a cafeteria-style do-it-yourself religion that combines incompatible precepts and practices.

Second, if it is the individual, just because s/he throws out some of them does not mean that s/he throws out the ones that are disinteresting or physically demanding. Alternatively, the individual may approach the issue through study, intuition, or other ways of knowing with the intent of undertaking practices that would be beneficial to his/her spiritual development rather than focusing on what seems interesting or easy.

That's right, there could be any number of other reasons. But what about individuals who do not adopt some practices because they dont know about them or because they don't understand them because they are studying on their own. They may never even know that their practice is incomplete in significant ways, and this might explain lack of results, backsliding, faulty applications, etc. ("the snake that's wrongly grasped" phenomena).

Why would this be? This kind of indiscriminating commitment is rare even within a single religious tradition.

Do you have any data at all on patterns of religious observance?

 

[path_of_one]

Always for reasons that made theological sense?

I think much of that is in the eye of the beholder. I am also not sure as to its relevance.

Exactly how is the Catholic aspect integrated into the ancient religion?

I would suggest some detailed reading on Vodun for that. It's a bit complicated- practices are blended quite a bit (i.e., Catholic saint feast days and processions are still held, but people also are possessed by various spirits that give messages, etc.) and some concepts that have similarities are also blended (i.e., many practitioners understand Catholic saints and ancient spirits to be more or less the same entities by different names- one also sees this in other cultures in which Catholicism met ancient polytheist or animist traditions, such as among the Maya).

Are Muslims more likely to borrow from Buddhism or convert to Buddhism on that basis? If so,maybe we should add "resemblance of ritual" to the "interesting and easy" criteria for doing a religious practice.

LOL

I know there must be a way to rationalize a cafeteria-style do-it-yourself religion that combines incompatible precepts and practices.

People can handle a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Most people deal with it regularly, even if they only have one religion. Plus, compatibility is somewhat an "in the eye of the beholder" issue. What some find compatible, others do not. One can always argue accuracy of understanding, but as each religion seems to be so internally diverse and have doctrinal debate, there is a lot of room for argument.

That's right, there could be any number of other reasons. But what about individuals who do not adopt some practices because they dont know about them or because they don't understand them because they are studying on their own. They may never even know that their practice is incomplete in significant ways, and this might explain lack of results, backsliding, faulty applications, etc. ("the snake that's wrongly grasped" phenomena).

Honestly, I don't think this is how spiritual development works. I think one's motivation is the prime mover in spiritual growth, and it is not understanding or knowledge that is the primary attribute of a flowering of faith, but rather practical application in one's life. This is not to say that understanding and knowledge are unimportant, but I strongly believe that their importance is relative to the individual.

Aside from this, what I observe in Christianity is that very few people in the States put any significant amount of time into theological study. So it isn't as if this is an issue of syncretism or cafeteria-style religion.

I guess my own point of view is that sincerity in motivation and effort/time spent is what is essential. The rest will fall into place if an individual is motivated and devoted. I don't think that practices and ideas by themselves can lead one astray. As the Christian scriptures say, if we knock, the door will be opened. If we seek, we will find. Or as Archbishop of Cantebury said, it is not so much that we must find God as there is a God that encounters us.

Do you have any data at all on patterns of religious observance?

For the States, I would recommend the PEW forum report as that is the most recent and complete I know of.

You spoke of "feeling" about practices, and not just observance. I don't know of any person who feels uniformly about everything religious they do.

Do you have any data at all on patterns of religious feeling and observance?

 

[Netti-Netti]

People can handle a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Most people deal with it regularly, even if they only have one religion. Plus, compatibility is somewhat an "in the eye of the beholder" issue.

I really think you're pushing your relativizing to the furthest limits here. How can people handle mutually exclusive and contradictory G-d concepts? For example how does one reconcile atheism (Buddhism) with monotheism (Christianity? This goes well beyond "cognitive dissonance." It goes to logical impossibilties. Offhand, a likely way people can deal with G-d concepts that are so far apart is not to think about how different they are. Would you call that "mindful"?

Honestly, I don't think this is how spiritual development works. I think one's motivation is the prime mover in spiritual growth, and it is not understanding or knowledge that is the primary attribute of a flowering of faith, but rather practical application in one's life.

How can one apply an unknown? People who do not recognize behavioral options do not avail themselves of those options. What you are suggesting contradicts every we know scientifically about social learning and the acquisition of culture. Most learning is observational is is based on what we see on other people's repetoire. A lot of it is modeling rather than direct instruction.

Aside from this, what I observe in Christianity is that very few people in the States put any significant amount of time into theological study.

Also, relatively small proportions of people in the States significant amounts of time on prayer. But my point was about how do we make informed decisions when borrowing from other traditions.

Do you have any data at all on patterns of religious feeling and observance?

I'd be happy to look into it if you'd state a precise research question. In the meantime, this assertion is unsupported:

This kind of indiscriminating commitment is rare even within a single religious tradition.