Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Exclusivists vs. Pluralists: very different paths to one Truth
Q: Are all religions the same? The Dalai Lama, who just celebrated his 75th birthday, often refers to the 'oneness' of all religions, the idea that all religions preach the same message of love, tolerance and compassion. Historians Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith agree that major faiths are more alike than not. But in his new book "God is not One," religion scholar and On Faith panelist Steve Prothero says views by the Dalai Lama, Armstrong and Smith that all religions "are different paths to the same God" is untrue, disrespectful and dangerous. Who's right? Why?
The question posed here on On Faith posits a fundamental dichotomy between the contentions of the Dalai Lama and Prof. Stephen Prothero--whether sameness or schisms characterize the dialog of religions. Is the morally comforting depiction of religions as winding paths to the same goal a vacuous metaphor or does Prothero's thesis hark uncomfortably to the hand wringing over another Bostonian's prognostication of a Clash of Civilizations?
The devil here is in the careful parsing not of the words, but the holy intent of His Holiness. Hinduism and the Dalai Lama's Buddhism, as Dharmic traditions, readily grasp the mantle of pluralism. Pluralism for these faiths means not that all religions are essentially the same; pluralism simply replaces an exclusivist claim that mine is the only path with an acceptance that while my path is the best for me, others may find the same spiritual fulfillment using a different road map.
It is the dialect of faith that is so radically different between Dharmic faiths and the Abrahamic exclusivists. Dharma pluralists speak with the serene security of those that have found their way--the Truth--and share their transcendent visions of an expansive conciousness through the medium of meditation, devotional worship, yoga and holistic living. Theirs is not a message of fear or damnation and, necessarily, not one of coercion.
The pluralist's words of "love, tolerance and compassion" should not, however, be interpreted as a facile claim of sameness. A Hindu or a Buddhist will insist that faith is a personal, inward journey, but each is substantively different. Still, while a Buddhist's denial of a Supreme Being may clash with Hindu schools that profess a belief in a personal God, conflicts today are scarce due to a pluralist theology that binds them.
Contrasts between these pluralists and Abrahamic faiths are stark, however. Where pluralists encourage sincere adherence to one's own chosen faith while discouraging conversion or even cafeteria style cherry-picking of bits here and there, evangelicals and proselytizers of Abrahamic faiths require conformity insisting that theirs is the only one with any legitimacy. Rather than emphasizing the love and compassion between traditions, they are more likely to warn of hell, damnation or death for those not in their fold.
This Abrahamic perspective is pervasive in America, of course, and manifests often unexpectedly. A recent news article explaining the South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley's Sikh heritage offered a tortured explanation of Sikhism. "Its followers, called Sikhs, believe in reincarnation, gender equality and one God, but not the Christian God," it said. Would a Christian really suggest that a Sikh or Hindu God is different than a Christian God...who really is the polytheist by this equation? Such a distinction would never be entertained by the pluralist.
Dharmic and Abrahamic faiths (at least in their institutionalized forms) differ also in what they aspire to beyond this life. Salvation is the culmination of intense spiritual practices in Dharma traditions with saints and scriptures serving as guides, rather than the purely afterlife promise of rewards--it may be the promise of family members gone before or even virgins--based on a strict adherence to a faith and its rules.
However, the mystical traditions of all Abrahamic faiths--the Sufis of Islam, the Christian Quietists or Jewish Kabbalah--have also pursued spiritual paths very similar to dharmic faiths and independent of the institutions of the religions. It is such spirituality that is very similar to the practice of dharmic faiths, lacking institutions to enforce a theology, that inspires the "all religions are same" platitudes. Our own views as a nation, meanwhile, are yearning for this same spirituality, rejecting the shackles of prescriptions and proscriptions in matters of faith.
Prothero is absolutely right that all religions are not the same, but the Dalai Lama chooses to believe that an absolute adherence to the eternal Golden Rule that underlies the great religions when stripped down to their core--treat others as you would wish to be treated--will necessarily steady the mind, reduce material wants, induce selfless service and fill one with peace and serenity. What more should anyone want from religion?
Views expressed here are the personal views of Dr. Aseem Shukla and do not necessarily represent those of the Hindu American Foundation or the University of Minnesota.
By
Aseem Shukla
|
July 8, 2010; 11:48 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: God is not One, and neither are the religions |
Next: Pressing beyond "niceness"
Posted by: truth_prevails | July 18, 2010 8:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Many congratulations to Dr. Aseem for starting a much needed thought process in minds of many people.
Many times, people
- out of ignorance
- out of good will
- out of lack of sicerity
claim that all religions are same.
It is moral crime to stick by thism when history is crying in our eyes.
The times of ignorance have gone. In this era, we have all tools to find reality by ourselves. It's a duty in defence of this earth and humanity.
Posted by: iam4friendz | July 14, 2010 5:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
there is one sun for earth.but we can get many rays namely seven.one light thru a medium splits into seven.god is one,who exists in all and everywhere.to realise this truth,many thot many ways.all ways ultimately lead to god.as we are from god.where is god for human.god is within all of us.if we know this god within you is happy.therefore,love,truth,rightoeusness,bliss,peace and non-violence are the tools for realising god,within us.when we do that automatically we are like that in front of all ppl.though its easier wrtten than done,imho.as qualities like anger,greed,violence,falsehood,unrighteousness,unethical ways, are also some traits which exists amongst us.saints,sages,prohets,avatars have been showing us the ways,instead of realising these traits,we go and hro/heroine worship them and give a new twist of dominating others,which is the sad fact.just immersed in singing the glory of god,wil suffice for now,to remove demons within us.na ma si va ya.
Posted by: s007bala | July 14, 2010 4:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Shukla says "Still, while a Buddhist's denial of a Supreme Being may clash with Hindu schools that profess a belief in a personal God, conflicts today are scarce due to a pluralist theology that binds them"
If that is the case, can Dr. Shukla explain why is it the case that Buddhism, the third largest religion in the world, has been vanquished and banished from its homeland India? Today, once popular and important Buddhist monasteries have now been converted into major Hindu temples. The Sri Venkateshwara Temple of Tirupathi being one such example.
Unlike the Abrahamic Faiths which grow though conversion and political expansion, Hinduism actually grows through appropriation of the heritage of other faiths. So, a Buddhist monastery get appropriated into the Sri Venkateshwara temple, the Muslim Sufi saint Sai Baba of Shirdi gets appropriated into a Hindu god and so on and so forth. Following this pattern of appropriation, Dr. Shukla's ideological brethren in India [the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the RSS] are even claiming the Taj Mahal built by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan as a Hindu palace. These "tolerant and peace loving" pluralists have already destroyed one historical mosque by laying claims of it being a Holy Hindu site and they have a list of 30,000 other religious monuments belonging to Muslims and Christians that they wish to destroy. So much of exclusivists vs. pluralists.
Posted by: VenkatSubramaniyam | July 13, 2010 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Nicely written.
Posted by: mihirmeghani | July 9, 2010 1:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Shukla, Mr. Meacham, & Ms. Quinn:
This discussion is really makes little sense, doesn't it. All religions make truth claims that they cannot substantiate. Until now they have been did not care whether they can substantiate or not. However, with the world becoming a global village they are becoming a bit accommodating. Since none of them can substantiate their truth claims, they are resorting to the time honored paradigm of "pact among the liars". Do you really think if any of them can remotely substantiate their truth claims, would they really be accommodating to others, of course not. In fact from the writings of the panel members right here shows that those who don't feel compelled to substantiate are the ones who are less inclined to be accommodating.
For example the truth claims of some of the religions are:
1) Sweat (less prudish version semen) from an ape can impregnate a fish which gives birth to a fully grown male human, or that two monster heads are the ones trying to devour moon & sun when eclipses occur - a'la Hinduism
2) A boy is born of a virgin, and he is resurrects after 3 days, followed by ascension - Christianity
3) Mo gets on the winged horse and flies to paradise and back, to commemorate it the built a mosque. The talking bones - a'la Islam
So on and so forth,
Posted by: Secular | July 8, 2010 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Those who believe in the kinship of faiths should join the social network of the Parliament of the World's Religions. Look at http://www.peacenext.org/profile/RonKrumpos and I would be happy to be one of your first friends there.
Members include people of the five major religions, as well as those of smaller faiths. Even pagan and indigenous paths are included. They all aim toward common goals of peace and harmony and suggest practical ways to achieve them.
Posted by: ronkrumpos | July 8, 2010 6:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
VenkatSubramaniyam - if Hindus were hostile to Buddhist how would you explain Buddha being one of the 10 avatars in Hinduism? Also how would you explain refuge given to Tibetan Buddhists in India? How about the revival of Buddhism in India in past 100 years? Sanatan Dharma has a long tradition of passing leadership from Hinduism to Buddhism and vice versa throughout its history. It is possible that Buddhists did not have strong leaders in India for a long period of time so people chose other beliefs.