Q,
I don't think your flip-flop argument here holds much water. You have to strain it too hard, change too many words, and it comes across with a message which -
at best - is something like, "Hey folks, don't ya see, it's
kind of like this ..."
No, Interfaith is about meeting people of other faiths
where they are, whether they're official representatives of that faith - as might attend a
Parliament of the World's Religions ... or just everyday
joe adherents. And this has to be done on
common ground, so let's TAKE AN EXAMPLE from what the
Parliament itself set forth as GOALS:
- Foster understanding and cooperation between diverse peoples, communities and cultures
- Promote human rights and social justice
- Cultivate cultures of peace
- Encourage sustainable ways of living
- Understand and respect each other
- Forge relationships and friendships
- Uncover shared convictions and concerns
- Commit to common cooperative action
Now when it comes to the true
raison d'etre and/or
modus operandi of various fundamentalist groups - both "Christian" and otherwise - I really don't want to be finger-pointing and accusatory.
If a person, group, representative faith (or representatives
of that faith) at a council or gathering ... chooses to
observe and agree to these goals and commitments, then
by definition they are interested in Interfaith dialogue and activity. If they
do not commit to this process, or if they can't resist the temptation to proselytize, then I think they need to examine their motives carefully.
What I
seriously question, is whether a
faith or
religion which sets itself up as the "one and only
right, true path to enlightenment (God, salavation, etc.)" ... could EVER be AS COMMITTED to
Interfaith relations - as it would necessarily be to
converting others and "preaching the gospel" (or
doctrine of salvation, whatever that might happen to be).
The Buddhists who attend Interfaith dialogues, and councils of the
Parliament of World's Religions, are NOT there to
gain additional followers. His Holiness the Dalai Lama, for example, may
speak out against the slaughtering of monks & nuns in Tibet, against the destruction of many thousands of monasteries, against the enslavement of the Tibetan people and the attack on the Buddhist religion & on all who practice it. He may even go further and ask for HELP in this situation, and naturally he might
encourage all who are sympathetic to ENQUIRE of their government about WHAT CAN BE DONE to save this dying people, this country, and this religion.
He will happily encourage
those who are interested to attend a local Dharma center to learn more.
But THIS is as far as he will go.
He will not tell people that if
they do not seek the Buddha, they will go to hell. He will not tell them
, that it's nice to have faith in Allah, or Yahweh, but this
really not where it's at, because ONLY BUDDHA saves. And he WILL NOT use his opportunity to speak about Interfaith,
as a PLATFORM for the CRUSADE to save souls and gain converts. NOT ON YOUR LIFE.
While HHDL MIGHT remind us of the problems in Tibet, you CAN TRUST AND BELIEVE that he will have prepared for such an occasion as the
Council of the Parliament of World's Religions ... a short speech that deals MOSTLY with ways that people of various faiths can dialogue with each other. He might focus on Tibetan Buddhism
(Gelugpa sect, especially) a good deal, because he knows the most about it, and is the head of that tradition. He would like for folks to understand
what it means when they dialogue with someone who has chosen this path.
But he will ALSO speak about Tibetan Buddhism in general, and also about
all followers of the Buddha,
in the context of how Interfaith works best for people of this calling. And he will NOT judge another person, another group, another tradition or
even another sect of Tibetan Buddhism - including the
Nyingma - for their choices. He may disagree with certain teachings, but you
better believe that he wouldn't abuse his speaking opportunity to proselytize, condemn, or criticize.
I dare say that most other Buddhist leaders would follow suit. And I sure know a
heckuva lot of Buddhist laypeople, and a few that have taken vows, who would do the same.
I can extend that statement to MOST people I know, of MOST other religions. But I do know a few exceptions. And I could,
if it were helpful, begin "naming names" of dozens, upon dozens, of evangelical types, and people of
all sorts of Christian backgrounds ... as well as a few of Muslim background ... who I DO think would totally SOAPBOX the kind of situtation(s) I'm talking about. And this isn't just something
religious people do, but that's the focus here.
Still, it's a diversion,
imho, to
object to Interfaith dialogue ... just because we know that some people can't put the proselytism and urge-to-convert down, long enough to get to know folks of other paths and callings. I do agree, that the
thumping crowd will pretty much hijack ANY situtation they can - but usually only where they feel threatened, or unwelcomed. I look at it as a simple, psychological defense mechanism, and pretty much a fear-based reaction.
A good
Interfaith environment, whether a large gathering, a small, informal group of college friends, or an online discussion forum ... will welcome and encourage participation from people of ALL faiths, backgrounds and interests - so immediately, the tendency for
hijacking is greatly lessened. Where it DOES arise, it's sometimes best to just
step quietly aside, and let a person
preach on ... into empty space. Usually, I've noticed, it's not as if they're actually seeking a reaction, anyway. And the audience, I've noticed, is also, almost always,
optional.
Interfaith goes great with coffee or tea. It's good in the IHop, or waffle horse, on Sunday -
or any - mornings. Or afternoons. It's not uncommon in student centers at most colleges. It can go on in philosophy class, before or after the lecture, and even during the discussions. In the philosophy club at UNC Asheville (NC, USA), we put on a film,
Mindwalk, and held a dicusssion panel afterwards, moderating a dialogue and Q&A with the audience. We had a
great turnout! And it didn't even get hijacked ...
Interfaith can happen on the airplane, when a Unitarian Universalist asks the gentleman sitting next to him, about the meaning of his traditional African garb ... leading to a discussion of cultures, backgrounds, and traditions. It can also occur, when the Baptist Reverend I know goes traveling to India, speaking with the Hindu brothers and sisters whom she knows over there ... probably by the hundreds. She doesn't go, to convert them.
Thanks to Neosnoia, I can once again appeal to the Wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi, which is appropriate here - and in
every instance or discussion of Interfaith:
“If you do not see God in the next person you see, you need look no further.”
I should think it would be
extremely difficult ...
to convert GOD.
Namaskara,
taijasi
