 |
|
|
|
|
May 26th, 2010
09:16 AM ET
The Dalai Lama is wrong
By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN I am a big fan of the Dalai Lama. I love his trademark smile and I hate the fact that I missed his talks this week in New York City. But I cannot say either "Amen" or "Om" to the shopworn clichés that he trots out in the New York Times in “Many Faiths, One Truth.” Recalling the Apostle Paul—“When I was a child, I spoke like a child”—the Dalai Lama begins by copping to youthful naivete. “When I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best,” he writes, “and that other faiths were somehow inferior.” However, just as Paul, upon becoming a man, “put away childish things,” the Dalai Lama now sees his youthful exclusivism as both naïve and dangerous. There is “one truth” behind the “many faiths,” and that core truth, he argues, is compassion. Like the Dalai Lama, who writes of how he was influenced by Thomas Merton, I believe we can learn greatly from other religions. I too hope for tolerance and harmony in our interreligious interactions. I am convinced, however, that true tolerance and lasting harmony must be built on reality, not fantasy. Religious exclusivism is dangerous and naïve. But so too is pretend pluralism. The cause of religious harmony is not advanced in the least by the shibboleth that all religions are different paths up the same mountain. If you ask religious universalists what lies at the top of the mountain, the answers they will give you are not one but many. Gandhi and philosopher of religion Huston Smith say that at the top there is the same universal God. But when others describe this religious mountaintop they invariably give voice to their own particular beliefs and biases. Followers of the Dalai Lama revere him as a reincarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the bodhisattva of compassion. So it should not be surprising that he sees compassion at the heart of all religions. But this is a parochial perspective, not a universal one. And like any form of pretend pluralism it threatens to blind us both to the particular dangers of individual religious traditions and to their unique beauties. To be sure, all religions preach compassion. But it is false to claim that compassion is the reason for being of the great religions. Jesus did not die on a cross in order to teach us to help old ladies across the street. The Jewish milieu in which he was raised already knew that. And as the Dalai Lama points out, so did the rest of the world’s religions. Jesus came, according to most Christian thinkers, to stamp out sin and pave the path to salvation. Similarly, the Buddha did not sit down under a Bo tree in India in order to teach us not to kill our brothers. The Hindu milieu in which he was raised already knew that too. He came, according to most Buddhist thinkers, to stamp out suffering and pave the path to nirvana. As I argue in my new book, "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World—and Why Their Differences Matter," religion is an immensely powerful force both personally and politically. So if we want to understand the world we must understand the world's religions. This includes reckoning with both similarities and differences, and with the capacity of each of the great religions to do both good and evil. I know that when it comes to the Dalai Lama we are all supposed to bow and scrape. So I am happy to applaud his project to find “common ground” across the world’s religions. But I also know that the Buddha said to worship no man. And I cannot agree with the Dalai Lama’s claim that “the essential message of all religions is very much the same.” The Dalai Lama was doubtless naïve when, as a boy, and before learning about other religions, he arrived at the conclusion that only his religion was true. But it is no advance out of innocence to make the equally fantastic claim that all the religions are at heart vehicles for compassion. If we are to build a world of interreligious harmony, or even a world of interreligious détente, it will have to be constructed on a foundation of adult experience rather than youthful naivete. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero. soundoff (633 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next »
« Previous entryTowards a younger, hipper Islam
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.
I know Prothero personally. This is not the first time he misses the point. Least of all in Buddhism. Also not the first time he writes from a perspective of expertise about something he has no direct experience of. But while we are talking about understanding the spiritual essence of world religions and the credentials behind the difference of opinion between the Dalai Lama and Prothero just look at who's actually had a greater positive impact on the world and decide who the true expert is.
If Stephen Prothero's purpose was to be contoversial and insult the Dalai Lama then he achieved it. If he thought he was making some fundamenally valid point then I believe he failed.
2,600 years ago the semitic scholars were putting together the old testament and building a powerful religion based on righteousness (the most powerful, destructive but also most successful of the religions from this time – Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all part of this same root). Buddha at the same time and completely separately was building a "religion" based on compassion and conciousness. In China at the same time and again separately Confucius was developing his religion. These religions look to lift peoples' conciousness to varying degress, to guide them in the do's and don'ts of life, and are separate constructs.
I believe Stephen Prothero was trying to say respect them for their differences rather than trying to find false common ground. However, people just don't work that way. When people meet, they try to find common likes, dislikes, experiences, etc. The more common ground, the more likely they will appreciate and respect each other. The Dalai Lama is working to establish this common ground, to establish respect between religions so that there will be less conflict in our world today. His aim is worthy and valid – and Stephen Prospero should praise and respect him, not insult him for doing this.
Nice plug for your new book but like the others you have missed the real point. There is no god. There is no allah....etc etc. You are all just blinded by your own fear of dying. Arent we all? The real fact of matter here is that you are writing another useless article on a topic that doesnt even really exist. Perhaps your motives are true, but your answers are full of holes and must be put to rest if we are to move forward as a people. How does it feel to know that in 100 years god will be a name of the past and people like you will be laughed at like the ones in the court of kings that believed in magic or sorcery? How does it feel dinosaur? Your time is coming to an end. Enjoy your myths while they still have mindless followers. Tool.
There may not be some "guy in the sky" between here and Saturn... but let's say you are one of those people who see God as the Universe... or Universal Spirit of Life inherent in all things... then in that situation you cannot say that there is no God anymore than you can say there is no Universe.
Thomas that's called sophistry. For those of you who don't know, Websters dictionary definition #1 for sophistry is "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation". Just like intelligent design is really religion in disguise, God = the universe is exactly the same.
If God doesn't exist...Bob and Tom...and the author and commentors here are wasting their time expounding on imaginary inert and superfluous fluff, then why are you wasting your time commenting on the ideas of those who are wasting their time chasing the imaginary? Pimping your own "God doesn't exist" religion?...For a couple of guys who suggest they "get" what a waste of time discussing religion/faith in God/belief in a diety is, your comments betray more than a neutral disinterest in what happens when we die, and who ultimately runs the universal show...Read Tim Keller's book "The Reason for God"...much better read,,,providing answers to your questions...
replying to r...
God=the Universe is a superficially correct statement as per Hindu/Vedantic belief systems, Buddhists (symantically) beleive about the same thing as well. Christians, however, believe God exists outside the physical universe, and apart from God's physical incarnation (Jesus) in the universe, is not comprised of/limited by the physical constraints of space/time/matter/energy. So God=the Universe is not a correct statement in Christian theology...I'm not sure what Muslims and other faiths believe...
Intelligent design is simply scientific/empirical/observable data...in the universe...that when analyzed tends to support the proposition that certain observable systems, structures, processes, or occurrences are more likely to have been designed items, placed or set in motion in the universe, than to have evolved, or to have always been in existence. Intelligent Design does suggest a designer, but does not extend so far as to suggest who/what that designer may be...athiests/agnostics who seek to discredit ID without attempting to refute the scientific arguments of the same are the parties who most offten suggest, wrongly, that RELIGION flows from ID research. True, some "religious" folks use ID arguments to support their notion of a diety, but read the scientists who do the majority of the serious ID scientific research...most are self-identified agnostics, or religiously ambivalent deists who could give a rip about organized religion...don't let Tom and Bob types fool you...read Behe and/or Dembski on ID for yourself and come to your own conclusions about whether you can refute their ID research and the arguments that flow therefrom...
John, you are wrong. Buddhist religion actually do not believe in God as I understand. So do part of Hindu religion as well. But that is not the point here. Beliefs are something we simple guessed about what we do not know. Whole belief system works based on fear = terror. That is why religious people are most violent. See concepts of hell and heaven or good or bad next life concept has fear and greed in its root. People want to go to heaven or want to have better next life. They be good to achieve something. Every good act of them are to gain these non exist joy. When some one try to prove against those belief, they are threatened. Any religious person is as dangerous as Hitler and Osama Bin Laden.
what an idiot...
Raj,
I indicated Hindu beliefs to hold a superficial "God" type belief (a source "energy" comprised of total love, etc.), and that Buddhism symantically believed essentially the same thing. Robert Thurman (a noted Buddhist scholar and religious adherent) in a recorded conversation with Deepak Chopra recently acknowleged the same symantic qualities in comparing Buddhist and Vedantic faith systems.
Christians have had their crusades, muslims have had their jihads, agnostic facists and national socialists have had their holocausts, communists socialists have had their Stalinist purges, killing fields, Tianamen Squares, etc....but at best it's a "tie"... And here's the kicker...NONE of the religious groups who purported to act on behalf of their respective causes....actually acted consistent with the well know/articulated/understood ideologies they claim adherence to...in other words, you can't blame an ideology espousing ideas of love and compassion for the inconsistent acts of those claiming to act on that ideology's behalf. To agree with your logic, particularly given your last statement that "[a]ny religious person is as dangerous as Hitler and Osama Bin Laden", one would also have to conclude that ostensibly non-religious persons like you are as dangerous as other non-religious persons like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.
ID is simply a tool and has no basis in fact, truth or science. John you seem like you should be smarter than to fall for such obviously flawed logic. You see no problem with first assuming an answer and using your own ignorance as proof of that answer? Just because you can't imagine or reason a way that something could come to be without a designer does not a designer prove... The only thing this proves that you have a woefully poor imagination, inability to understand reason or are to stubborn to admit that you are indeed ignorant.
To anyone who might be considering siding with the Creationists (aka I.D.). If you're comfortable turning your back on real knowledge, which can only bring a believer closer to his or her creator, and have no qualms peddling lies and misinformation to the gullible and ignorant... well Intelligent Design is for you!
To say that ID is anything but a tool created by religion is pure madness. It's only purpose is to confuse and confound those too naive to know better; usually children. It's goal is to ask questions it believes are unanswerable by any other means than religion. It's a manipulative concept which begets fear and ignorance. Sure, the ID hypothesis itself, however baseless, promotes no specific creator, but which ever fool is peddling it to you surely does and will never EVER hesitate to point you in the direction to find out more.
Yes, there are differences. That's what makes the topic of religion interesting. However, we are all more similar (and less different), than the author is willing to admit. I don't think he'll sell too many books on the subject, since it all seems to be written here.
I find the words right and wrong up for endless hours of chattering people all sure they are one or the other.
I think the author missed the point entirely.
In the Op-ed piece that this blog addresses, the Dalai Lama said: "The focus on compassion that Merton and I observed in our two religions strikes me as a strong unifying thread among all the major faiths." He never once said that compassion was "at the heart" of all major religions or anything at all about some mystic spiritual mountain. The Dalai Lama was making a point regarding a point of kinship, not reinterpreting the tenets of other religions to fit his own world view. Mr. Prothero deliberately misinterprets this in order to support his own conclusions.
I think religion is good because with it people do benefit and actually understand god in a sense however, thats the thing. you already do. The jesus christ thing is because were 'christ the redeemer' this is after christ – roman calender time(perseuctions of christains) yes, god would understand it to be a 'son' and no wouldn't forgive people for killing his son, that's non sense anyways.. its part of the society image... also in those courts where there is a bible, again you see it as persons causing death/hostage but with the 'great image' or image of the government concepts, it's like its not even persons. without it , it would just be one killing. no legitimate one especially whackos who infact went for the wrong 'for you' if the whole problem is killing and theyre not only doing it but than cannot and do not get punished but can punish other persons for doing to persons? wow...
Mr. Stephen Prothero. Here is the correction that you might take longer to understand.
"God is One: The Eight Religions (Established by Religious leaders) that Run the World and misled by few Evil Human beings for Rivalry"
As in my book "Im a shill and you can be one too" the fastest way to get attention and sales is to take a shot at someone actually famous and hope for a few book sales. BUY MY BOOK!!!!
A shallow toss causes the stone to skip across the surface of the water with barely a ripple, yet the top of the mountain is still there for anyone to experience.
Religion is a human invention and as such its constructs, whatever they are, are only as real as our intellect perceives them to be. The great failure of religion is to stifle independent thinking, that's what makes us human. The mass adoption of religious principles will only create a greater divide amongst people and force differences of opinion that naturally lead to violent conflict...so much for "adult experience" creating a world of religious detente.
Mr Heiko,
Your input is accurate.
Sincerly,
Sun.Parikh
Mr. Heiko,
You presume that religious principles stem from the intellect, which fails to acknowledge the totality of the human being. It is not so much a matter of all of humanity accepting the religious principles invented by another person, but if is more like all of humanity arriving at the point where each person acknowledges, by personal experience, that the earth spins around the Sun. You either know spiritual experience, or you don't. If you don't, at least keep your mind sufficiently open to acknowledge that somebody else might.
Stephen, I agree with what you wrote. I like the Dalai Lama a lot as well, but his comments were naive regarding this subject. All religions SHOULD preach compassion but ACTUALLY some don't. And some preach it theoretically but do not deliver, I mean their praxis contradict it. Get real guys, regardless or perhaps because your naive political correctness, too, you fail to see this obvious truth.
I think Stephen Prothero is perhaps a closet monotheist and secret dominator/submitter using his ability as a writer to lash out against religous freedom and tolerance. translation of above article: I like sunshine and I like that sunshine lights the day, BUT sunshine sucks and everyone knows its radiation........
I agree with the author of this article. Compassion is central to many religions, but the religions are NOT all the same and do NOT preach the same across the board. The doctrine in which it is founded is the essence of the religion. The compassion that comes is because of that core doctrine. For example, Christians show compassion because they believe that everyone is a Creation of God and have been commanded by the Savior to love their neighbor. But the core beliefs of who Deity is is very different than that of a Buddhist or a Jew. Compassion is NOT the center nor the root of religions. It is a byproduct.
Seriously...did you re-read your post before submitting it? You begin by saying "Compassion is central to many religions..." and end your post by stating "Compassion is NOT the center nor the root of religions." The Dalai Lama said there is a common truth behind the many faiths – compassion. OBVIOUSLY the many religions have differences, otherwise they would be the same – however, the path to salvation/nirvana/heaven/whatever is always rooted in compassion & the golden rule.
Christians have killed plenty of people in the name of "God" both in ancient times through modern day. Please don't hold one religion up over another – THAT is not very "Christian" (or compassionate).
Christians display compassion because they have to or they'll burn in hell. Compassion at gunpoint is not compassion.
Maybe some Christians are lead by those motives, certainly not all. My belief is that GOD created LOVE and that LOVE is what holds this planet together. It is a primary. You have free will, though, so you can deny it.
I don't know what religion Mr. Prothero belongs to or even believes in anything other than to question other religion's beliefs. Compassion is what binds all religions together, and that in fact each religion is a different path one person takes to achieve the same destiny. That destiny is to be with the Supreme Being,who has many different names to many different culture to many different religions. It a religion doesn't teach compassion then it is not a religion but a cult. Every major religion on this planet teaches compassion, so the Dalai Lama is right, all religions are vehicles of compassion. The opposite of compassion is hate and that is evil, if a religion teaches hate and no compassion then it not a true religion. Mr. Prothero seems only interested in stirring up controversy in order to sell his book and profit from a controversy that he created in order to make money and that is his adult experience here on earth.
Sorry but that is not a realistic view. There is a difference between what is taught and what is done. The true commonalities in religion are violence, oppression and death. Religion has always been used for control. Please read history. The dark and middle ages where all science was condemned, Spanish inquisition, Crusades all the way up to now with the threats from Muslims, honor killings, suicide bombings all in the name of the invisible man. You cannot give out a few blankets and just disregard two thousand years of violence and death over an invisible landlord whose name you call to when you kill.
No, the source of all religion is the human need for connection and belonging. We are all social animals with a need to belong and be accepted into a tribe or group. Religion is the ultimate belonging – we believe thru our religion that we belong to and with God. In all religions, 'Heaven' is the final and ultimate place to belong. In all religions, what is 'good' is what benifits the social group and 'sin' is what is bad for the social group. If we step outside our needs as a social animal, what do we need religion for? God either is or isn't. Religion is a human invention.
Bravo. Well said.
The author misses the point. The Dalai Lama simplifies things for Westerners in order to talk about compassion as a core understanding. If he really explained Buddhist philosophy most Americans wouldn't understand a darn thing about it. He is talking to children.
Richard, you're right. Wait until the rest of them listen to HHDL talk about Sunaya (Emptiness)
Right on Richard, I have countless stories of trying to explain buddhism to people, in most cases I think my dog understands it better.
I will give the Dali Lama credit for understanding that westerners have a different culture and viewpoint on things instead of denegrating them as "children". This would suggest that one believes them less experienced and not as intelligent. That seems somewhat judgemental.
Don't confuse failing to understand what you're preaching with disbelief/disagreement.
Richard, you are wrong. The Dalai is correct. If you have a religion that does not preach compassion, you've got the wrong one. You may as well be atheist.
Religion is not the only source of compassion, not to mention that it say rules and guidelines for who you should show compassion too. You obviously have none for someone simply because they do not believe in god.
Bravo Richard.
Though I am not a Buddhist, I am close (Hindu) and absolutely appreciate what you are saying. The author is taking one simplification presented by HHDL and responding with an unattractive broad generalization: "The Dalai Lama is WRONG" ?? The sales gimmick worked – I did read the article. And Stephen Prothero got his "eyeballs" and page visits.
Richard you are right. Westerners find it hard to understand Buddhism. Everybody knows about religion. Buddhism is not a religion. For the sake of religion, it is accepted as a religion just to accord with most people. Buddhism is a teaching on worldly and transcendental pure on non-violence and use unsurpassed patience to counter all suffering. Recommendation: goto CTTB check with the Good Knowing Advisor there. The link is here: – http://www.bttsonline.org.
Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar, he is just a scholar – worldly Intelligent has limitation.
You require genuine Wisdom to know how things are in this world with relation to our MIND.
This article is a shameless plug. I am a devout Christian AND I believe that the DL is right. Psuedophilosophical religious types inflame the differences between religions while inspired leaders Unite people in order to help them be better. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and the parable of the good samaritan is still a valuable message for us, christian, jew, muslim, hindu atheist or other. God bless you all, even the author of this short-sighted article.
Richard, I agree with your words. The problem with many Christians is they can't get out of the Old Testament, the "curse" of the law, they can't and/or won't drop their whip. They have to beat on you so you will get it. That negativity defeats the purpose of GOD's love. Some people can get beyond it, many can not. The question is: what is GOD's purpose in LOVE.
Stay right there, in GOD's LOVE, the answers are in there.
The Dalai Lama is a feel-good liberal con man. Don't let him near your daughter. He thoroughly misrepresents Buddhism to serve his agenda. That's all.
"true tolerance and lasting harmony must be built on reality, not fantasy." Kinda like the fantasy that there's an omnipotent father figure that loves all things and yet, for reason, wants us to kill in his name? Thanks for the book plug though. Will I find it in the "reality' or 'fantasy' section of my local bookstore?
Well played, sir. Well played.
Hold up there, writer man. The Buddha most certainly did sit under that tree to stop brothers from killing one another. I think your idea of what compassion "is", is a little narrow. It is far, far more than helping old ladies across the street. It is letting every being, living or not, into your personal bubble, and keeping them there. Everyone, even those who's mind may in some way be ill, want's one thing, and one thing only. No matter your religion, no matter your beliefs, we all want to be happy. And compassion is but one of the many sides of the path to happiness. The same path, with many sides, and one destination.
The Buddha did not teach compassion. He strove for freedom from suffering. Compassion was a later development in Buddhist thought. The Dalai Lama speaks of Buddhism as compassion (which, if I recall correctly, is true for Mahayana Buddhism in general), but fails to mention that his Tibetan Buddhism is an animistic, polytheistic, ritualistic mess of traditions.
Gandhi and philosopher of religion Huston Smith say that at the top there is the same universal God. But when others describe this religious mountaintop they invariably give voice to their own particular beliefs and biases.
This statement is false as Buddhism is not monotheism and does not view realty as have a single (god) sourse or supreme being. It view all sentient beings make reality and the all beings are interconnected without a start or end.
you are incorrect. hinduism and buddhism are monotheistic – yes you've seen all the dieties with different statues and pictures but those are believed to be different forms of a one true source considered God. go google it or something and read
Hinduism and Buddhism are a-theistic (as opposed to atheistic). There is no "god" in Buddhism, and the Brahman of Hinduism is not a god, but rather a placeholder or a representation of something far deeper.
Alex, I think you are the one in need of the google. While many buddhists do believe in a god, many more do not.
The dieties you speak of are more of a depiction of emotional states, not actual beings. Buddhism is neither monothesistic nor polythestic, in essence it isn't even a religion, its a philosphy, which people of many religious faiths have incorporated into their own personal beliefs. Buddhist ( the ones who practice Buddhism exclusively) do not blame God('s) for their suffering, nor do they praise God('s) for their comforts. Its all on the individauls shoulder to make this world a better or worse place to live.
Many years ago, a Buddhist monk who had taken me under his tutelage told me that there is a silver thread which runs through all religions, and that it is on that thread where "God" dwells. Anything that deviates from that common thread is a product of man's limited understanding. "Religions" may have different examples of dogma and interpretation, but at their core, at the level of Spirit, they are truly one. And that is what the author of this article fails to comprehend.
That is beautiful
DeAguaDulce according to Christianity? Thats the problem ..you can't go by a book written and edited by men and butchered by Constatine. god...a man on a cloud ...c'mon.