Recently on our Facebook page we pointed you to a CNN Belief blog post called “The Dalai Lama is Wrong.” Written by BU religion scholar Stephen Prothero and seemingly tied to his new book, God Is Not One, the post left many of our commenting readers wondering if it’s not the Dalai Lama who is “wrong” here, but Prothero himself.
After an appearance last night on The Colbert Report, more are likely to question the author’s line of reasoning. Is his approach to Buddhism — and all the world’s major religions, which he characterizes as “rival” to each other — helpful, or not?
Some excerpts from the piece in question:
I cannot say either “Amen” or “Om” to the shopworn clichés that [the Dalai Lama] 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 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.
As I said above, our Facebook readers had plenty to say in response. Here are five examples, culled from the thirty that seemed to pop up immediately (you can see them all, via Facebook, here):
- I have to disagree with Mr. Prothero. He is certainly entitled to his view, however, true Buddhism is being able to see the beauty in all things. To be able to draw good from all practices. To bring peace to all groups. Fundamentally, Buddhism differs from other religions but those who know Buddhism know that monks from our different sects … See Moreregularly spend time with monks from Christian, Catholic and many other religions. Its not about devoting oneself to other religions, its about seeing the goodness in other religions. If we cannot we aren’t true Buddhists!
- S. Prothero calls himself a “confused Christian,” and his confusion may not end there. It seems to me that he’s intelligent enough, but saw an opportunity, with his new book coming out, to raise his profile and sell books. I examined some of his other writings about world religions, and Buddhism, and found the statements and opinions lacking. Some comments in articles seemed misinformed and even snotty, as though he is feels a need to “Glen Beck” parts of his commentary. I would have expected more scholarship from someone who claims to be a scholar. He falls short of that mark, IMHO.
- I think Stephen missed the point and has gotten mired in the details of these other religions. Open your mind, Stephen. See the big picture. I think the Dalai Lama is completely correct.
Who says “we are all supposed to bow and scrape” to the Dalai Lama?- I feel sorry for a man who would rather focus his attentions to our religious differences then our similarities. Although, there is probably some importance in it. It does seem more like a shameless plug for his book then anything worthwhile.
- Patronize much, Mr. Prothero?
So…: is Prothero wrong?
Timothy J. McNeill, for one, says Yes. And one would think that he might know. McNeill is the president of the Buddhism-dedicated Wisdom Publications, which has published some 14 books by the Dalai Lama. Based on that alone, I think it’s safe to surmise that McNeill’s understanding of the Dalai Lama’s teachings and thinking has got to be admirable and accurate; otherwise, why would he be trusted with them so? (McNeill is a longtime practitioner, and has even had His Holiness as an overnight house-guest — so there’s a “familial” connection there as well.) He points to writings by the Dalai Lama himself, saying:
Stephen is seriously misrepresenting the position of the Dalai Lama on inter-religious dialogue. In numerous times and places including the The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus (Wisdom Publications 1996) the Dalai Lama demonstrates respect, and calls for harmony among religions but in no way glosses over the “top of the mountain” differences. He repeatedly emphasizes that “in order to develop a genuine spirit of harmony from a sound foundation of knowledge, I believe it is very important to know the fundamental differences between religious traditions.” He specifically refutes and dismisses any notion of universal unity of religions. Professor Prothero would do well to read and research more deeply into the sources he would use in defense of his thesis.
Here then is one bit from The Good Heart that McNeill would have us notice:
In order to develop a genuine spirit of harmony from a sound foundation of knowledge, I believe it is very important to know the fundamental differences between religious traditions. And it is possible to understand the fundamental differences, but at the same time recognize the value and potential of each religious tradition. In this way, a person may develop a balanced and harmonious perception. Some people believe that the most reasonable way to attain harmony and solve problems relating to religious intolerance is to establish one universal religion for everyone. […] I have always felt that we should have different religious traditions because human beings possess so many different mental dispositions: one religion simply cannot satisfy the needs of such a variety of people. If we try to unify the faiths of the world into one religion, we will also lose many of the qualities and richnesses of each particular tradition. […] People of every religious tradition must make an extra effort to try to transcend intolerance and misunderstanding and seek harmony.
McNeill also supplies the following quote from His Holiness’s new Doubleday book, Toward a True Kinship of Faiths:
“The establishment of genuine inter-religious harmony, based on understanding, is not dependent upon accepting that all religions are fundamentally the same or that they lead to the same place. I do maintain, however, that their very different metaphysical teachings give, in each case, a truly inspiring foundation for a beautiful ethical system rooted in compassion.”
This does indeed seems to be quite different from the message Prothero is attributing to His Holiness. And yet, there he was last night on The Colbert Report. Responding to a Colbert joke that, rather than “going up the mountain” some religions are “going down the crevasse,” Prothero momentarily stumbled: “That’s right.” But is his view actually divisive? Colbert playfully goaded Prothero, asking him if all religions were equal – and again, the author appeared to stumble: “No!”
Well, let’s hope it was a stumble. Prothero was, it would seem, eager to point various religions’ problems, saying that Islam is not about peace but submission. On one hand it could just be that he was merely talking about the unique challenge and worldview of each religion. On the other hand, he responded to Colbert’s next facetious query — as to which religion is “winning” — by saying “I think Islam is winning, I hate to say.” [Emphasis added.]
What do you think?
Yes, he is correct. Understanding the differences in religions is just as important as understanding their similarities. It does no one a service to clump together Islam, Christianity, and Judasim under the ridiculous "Abrahamic religion" tent. The differences between Chrisitanity and Judasim are what make each religion unique and significant. We aren't all going up the same mountain. God does not = Nirvana. I don't buy into the Bahá'í concept that most religions are just a re-messaging of God, and I think it does a diservice to water down religions to "they're all the same at heart." Even worse is the "all paths lead to God" statement. Sorry, my path doesn't.
Just because there are major differences between the world's religions does not mean that meaningful dialouge can't traspire between them. We just need to be able to recognize and appreciate the differences, and work to come together on the points that we all share.
Actually, it does make sense to clump Abrahamic religions together and religions that originate in India together. God definitely does not equal nirvana, that would be crazy. It would be like saying that Buddha equals the Christian heaven. Buddhism doesn't have a creator god concept, but it has the idea, like Christianity, that people should be compassionate and NICE to each other. I can work with Christians on that basis. However, many followers of Abrahamic religions tend to think that they have the absolute truth that works for all people, failing to realize that different people have different needs. I learned a lot from the Baha'is, but have my own issues with them (although I have a deep respect for the Baha'is).
You are getting wrapped around a manufactured concept, that of a creator God. That concept is human created, once you get past that, the way that many religions try to get us to live together in harmony really are the same.
I think this is an excellent point. There are definitely natural "family" groupings among religions. Prothero's approach completely misses this.
No, I don't think that I am getting wrapped up in the concept of a God. I was using that as an example. I could have also said that not all paths help people deal with their thetans, but you don't see many people claiming such a thing like you do with the former.
I just think it is important to realize that there are major differences in the world's religions, and that pointing this out serves a good purpose ("different people have different needs"). And yes, there certainly are teachings in most religions that help us bridge the gaps and foster understanding and compassion between one another. There are also those that serve to divide us. Understanding where we differ is just as important as understanding where we agree.
If a person is free and liberated, then there is a perspective that does acknowledge that "God = Nirvana" and the person is able to stand in that perspecttive as well as having the ability to stand in the perspective that sees "God is not = Nirvana.". In Buddhism, liberation is the more important goal than doctrinal perspective. A free person can ask What is God? just as freely as asking What is Nirvana? When God is discovered to be the one true suchness of one's own nature and Nirvana is found to be quintessence of one's own nature, then yes God is Nirvana.
"When God is discovered to be the one true suchness of one's own nature and Nirvana is found to be quintessence of one's own nature, then yes God is Nirvana."
I think that this might be an important point, but one that is part of another conversation altogether. The idea of God being the true suchness…. is wholly divorced from any concept of God that is practiced by 99.99% of the world that subscribe to any of the monotheistic religions. It would seem as though you are imposing a very different definition/view of something that doesn't really follow the mainstream here. And that's what we're talking about here, the differences between the religions as they are practiced.
Well, I'm not imposing anything. I'm stating the experience. Based on the experience even the tradition of Christian mysticism is not subservient to anthropomorphism and would not be confused by the view of "God = Nirvana".
When you have one experrience then you say "God = Nirvana." If you have a different experience then you may say "God does not = Nirvana." This is coompletely relevant to any discussion that says "God does not = Nirvana" as the evidence that there is not "One Mountain". To say "God does not = Nirvana" as proof that there is not one mountain is merely asuming the conclusion, by assuming that only a one-sided argument is valid.
. It is assumed that the practices are different and this is the meaning of "different paths." What we are talking about is whether there is an underlying (or over arching) unity of the different practices that can be called the "one mountain" that unifies the many different practices. Whether this unity is called the unity of noumenon to the different phenomena, or the unity of essence to the differences of function, or the unity of the one mountain to the different paths, etc. we can't presume that there is no unity by asserting that there are differences in practice. The question is whether there is unity? In one sense it is unprovable, because the person who is habitually satisfied with the differences has no reason to give up the differences or to give up comparing state of mind. And likewise the person who habitually sees the unity of the one mountain as the ground of the differences of practices isn't going to be persuaded that there is not one mountain by arguments reasserting the premise that there are different paths.
I suppose it all depends on how one would define God! As well as what the purpose of the metaphoric mountain is!
"When you have one experrience then you say "God = Nirvana." If you have a different experience then you may say "God does not = Nirvana." "
I understand what you are saying here, yet it is the former experience, not the latter, that 3 billion + people around the world claim to have. It is the rare exception that one would define God = Nirvana. Most Western monotheists would state that God is the creator of the known Universe, who created Adam, and sent his prophet (be it Moses, Jesus, Mohammed or whomever) to deliver his one true message. The traditional meaning for Nirvana is the end of Samsara. I think these differences are important to note, as most of us are attempting to reach different summits on these "mountains".
Now, is there an underlying, unifying theory/practice/essence that permeates all religion? Personally, I don't believe so, especially not one that is unique to religion. I suppose a case could be made for such a thing, and I believe the New Age movement (though "new age" is a quite obtuse term) generally tries to make this case. And I think that is part of what Prothero is trying to refute, and I tend to agree with him on this.
It is exactly because it is rare for people to see underneath the differences that people like the Dalai Lama say things like "Different Paths, One Mountain." If it were not a rare view there would not be a need to say it. The important point is that it is meaningless to say it is a rare view, unless we are voting on it. People who are pointing to the One Mountain arn't doing it to get a vote on it and arn't going to say "Oh, I'm mistaken" just because most people are blinded by the differences.
I wouldn't say blinded by differences. I think the point of this conversation is to recognize and accept that there are differences, and respect those differences. Each religion addresses it's own problem, and provides it's own solution. Of course there are similarities, but even the Dalai Lama has said that when talking to Christians, one should talk to them as if God (their interpretation of) really does exist in order to facilitate peace and understanding.
I suppose we just disagree! Oh well!
Adam: "I think the point of this conversation is to recognize and accept that there are differences, and respect those differences."
The problem is that there is no one, not one person anywhere, who denies "that there are differences" between religions, or who does not "respect those differences."
The problem is that Prothero denies the commonalities and does not respect those commonalities, while those who accept and respect the differences also accept and respect the differences.
It is Prothero who has staked out the extreme position here. Extreme and completely unsupportable.
I suppose I'll need to read his book. It was my understanding that his position was that he was denying that there was One underlying commonality, and refuting the "all religions are essentially one" position.
But as for respecting the differences, I don't believe for a minute that everyone does. I've know plenty of people that have attempted to impose their own definitions upon someone else's beliefs that have already been well defined. To me, that isn't a sign of respect.
Having met Prothero a couple of times when I was doing my grad work and a member of the American Academy of Religion, I can attest to the fact that he is a very intelligent professor of religion and an excellent writer. And therein lies, I believe, the reason for his iconoclastic book and his comments regarding the differences between religions and about His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Most professors need to be published, either in peer journals or in books. Prothero is no different. And making money writing about religion is hardly ever very lucrative unless you have a "hook," (consider Christopher Hitchens or Karen Armstrong as two of the more successful in the field.) Prothero is no different and he has found a hook. How convincing he is is really very subjective. Those who agree with him will already have made up their minds and simply be grateful that someone else has written another book that confirms their beliefs. Those who disagree will simply argue and say he is wrong for any number of reasons and continue to read (and write) books that contradict Prothero's thesis. He has simply extrapolated the same ideas others have held and written about for years. If his book sells well, he will be a very fortunate professor who has a good financial year. Personally, I disagree with him. But there's no point in writing a book about it. The Dalai Lama does it so much better.
A very thoughtful and insightful response. Thank you, Paul.
I understand where he is coming from in the video, not so much with his words on the Dalai Lama.
While I do see the religions being different, there is, and always will be, one similarity. We are all seeking something, whether it be outside of ourselves or within. We are all seeking guidance somehow, someway. If this doesn't interconnect us I don't know what does. The fact of the matter is that interconnection. Our actions, regardless of our religious beliefs, have an impact on all beings. We may not all be one religion, but we are all one as humanity goes!
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Orthodox, institutional religions are quite different, but their mystics have much in common. A quote from the chapter "Mystic Viewpoints" in my e-book at http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism:
Ritual and Symbols. The inner meanings of the scriptures, the spiritual teachings of the prophets and those personal searchings which can lead to divine union were often given lesser importance than outward rituals, symbolism and ceremony in many institutional religions. Observances, reading scriptures, prescribed acts, and following orthodox beliefs cannot replace your personal dedication, contemplation, activities, and direct experience. Preaching is too seldom teaching. For true mystics, every day is a holy day. Divine revelation is here and now, not limited to their sacred scriptures.
Conflicts in Conventional Religion. "What’s in a Word?" outlined some primary differences between religions and within each faith. The many divisions in large religions disagreed, sometimes bitterly. The succession of authority, interpretations of scriptures, doctrines, organization, terminology, and other disputes have often caused resentment. The customs, worship, practices, and behavior within the mainstream of religions frequently conflicted. Many leaders of any religion had only united when confronted by someone outside their faith, or by agnostics or atheists. Few mystics have believed divine oneness is exclusive to their religion or is restricted to any people.
Note: This is just a consensus to indicate some differences between the approaches of mystics and that of their institutional religion. These statements do not represent all schools of mysticism or every division of faith. Whether mystical experiences vary in their cultural context, or are similar for all true mystics, is less important than that they transform each one’s sense of being to a transpersonal outlook on all life.
I expected to find another [despicable] Christopher Hitchens, but wound up feeling a little sorry for the guy. He was clearly no match for Colbert's deft comic manipulation. I'm only a little sorry for him, because his appearance will probably sell books.
Colbert seems to have a much clearer view of what is implied by Prothero's positions then Prothero does. ____
Prothero is wrong because he doesn't even understand what the phrase "one mountain, different paths" actually means. He describes the differences and calls them different mountains, when the whole point of the view of differences is that the level of mental functioning that perceives the differences is defined as the "path" level. Prothero's book of differences is really just a bait and switch in which he waves his semantic wand and presto-chango he has redefined paths as mountains, and says see, they are not different paths they are different mountains.
__I would say to Prothero, "The mountain! The mountain! Stop talking about the differences of paths as different mountains and see the mountain, and then make the mountain dance!" .
The key word in all this really is "rival." Prothero is a Christian, and that is how Christians tend to view religions: as mutually exclusive rivals. The sad history of Christian "missionary" work shows that they view religious "conversion" as a zero sum game: in order for Christianity to expand other religions must be diminished, preferably "extirpated" (that is the word that Christians have historically used to describe their preferred fate for all other "rival" religions).
Buddhism, on the other hand, has spread from one end of Asia to the other without causing, or seeking to cause, the "extirpation" of other religions. To be a Buddhist does not mean that you are engaged in a "rivalry" with other religions.
Well stated. The point is all about the starting place. If one starts out to prove different paths are in fact different mountains, then one can aruge that way. And vice versa. The only way to get out of the logical trap is to see the mountain or see God directly and personally. Then one knows there is only one mountain with different paths without having to make it a proposition of logic.
You should put "Christian" in quotation marks, as true Christians are not evangelical, nor are they dogmatic. Christ taught compassion and enlightenment just like Siddhartha Gautama. Most of the scriptures where Christ teaches enlightenment were discarded by kings and politicians who sought to subjugate people using "Christianity".
I don't think we should get involved in deciding who is a "real" Christian and who is not. Prothero was born and raised Christian in a predominantly Christian culture. He does not claim to be a perfect Christian.
More specifically, Prothero's conception of "rival religions" is very much consistent with how Christianity has always approached the question of religious identity. From its earliest days, conversion to Christianity has meant the renunciation of all other religions.
Some reader comments via Facebook —
Rick Vosper:
Not One, Not Two.
Jim Lucier:
Prothero has got to make more constructive use of his time.
Bob Levinsky:
The Dalai Lama is correct in assigning compassion as the glue that binds us together. Compassion, however, is not a religious value, per se. We can be moral and compassionate sans religion and god. Having said that, all religious belief systems hold a grain of truth, and should therefore be respected for whatever truth value can be distilled from them.
The last comment in the video really concerns me. He says he is concerned that Islam is "winning" – aka growing. Mmmm, feels like intolerance, rather than harmony to me…. There is something about a white guy in a suit making pronouncments on the world's religions that just doesn't sit right with me – but hey maybe i am being too critical.
Completely agree. The last comment, "I think Islam is, hate to say" really rubbed me wrong. In context, though, I think he said that because of Colbert's playful mention of his Catholicism, and not specifically because he is anti-Islam or intolerant.
Colbert has a habit of hosting people who are horribly unequipped to handle him. This Stephen guy was no different.
Lest we forget the context, when he was a cardinal the current Pope said that after Communism, Buddhism was the greatest threat to the Catholic Church.
Stephen Prothero says that he believes in the Christian Trinity, but that other religions do not. There are “trinities,” of sorts, in various faiths. The e-book at http://www.suprarational.org summarizes five of them.
Mahayana and Vajrayana vehicles of Buddhism speak of Trikaya, or three bodies: Nirmanakaya is the Buddha in human form, Sambhogakaya is celestial Buddha and Dharmakaya is the formless essence, or Buddha-nature. The Theravada primarily addresses the historic Buddha. The “Three Jewels” are the Buddha, the dharma (his teachings) and the sangha (the community of monks and nuns).
Christianity has its Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit referring to God, Jesus Christ and their spiritual bond of unity (some say the Godhead). Interpretation of the essential nature of each, and their relationship, differed among the churches. In Christian mysticism, the three ways of the spiritual life are the purgative in being purified from sin, the illuminative in true understanding of created things, and the unitive in which the soul unites with God by love.
Hinduism’s trimurti are the threefold activities of Brahman: in Brahma as creator, in Vishnu as sustainer and in Shiva as destroyer. Saccidananda are the triune attributes or essence of Brahman: sat, being, cit, consciousness and ananda, bliss. The three major schools of yoga are bhakti, devotion, and jnana, knowledge and karma, the way of selfless action. Raja yoga can apply to, and integrate, all three in mental and spiritual concentration.
In Islam, nafs is the ego-soul, qalb is heart and ruh is spirit. Heart is the inner self [soul], hardened when it is turned toward ego and softened when it is polished by dhikr, remembrance of the spirit of Allah. This is a three-part foundation for Sufi psychology. Initiation guides them from shari`a, religious law, along tariqa, the spiritual path, to haqiqa, interior reality. It is a gradual unveiling of the Real.
In the Kabbalah of Judaism, sefirot – sparks from the divine – have three fulcrums to balance the horizontal levels of the Tree of Life: Da`at (a pseudo-sefirot) is knowledge combining understanding and wisdom; Tiferet is beauty, the midpoint of judgment and loving kindness; Yesod is the foundation for empathy and endurance. They also vertically connect, through the supreme crown, the infinite and transcendent Ein Sof with its kingdom in the immanent Shekhinah.
"ok lets assume ….."
Our assumptions reveal a great deal about ourselves, and very little about anything else.