Dr Anindita N. Balslev in conversation with His Holiness Dalai Lama, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Dr Karan Singh and Reverend Mpho Tutu

The Four Cliusters of Questions

Anindita N. Balslev

Namaskar! We are celebrating the 150th Birth Anniversary of Swami Vivekananda by holding this international conference "On World Religions: Diversity, Not Dissension." We are doing this precisely because this is a topic on which his thoughts are particularly relevant to our contemporary multireligious situation worldwide. This conference has been inaugurated by the Hon'ble President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee at the Rashtrapati Bhavan itself. During the past two days we have been deliberating on key issues focusing on multiple aspects of this large and complex theme at the Azad Bhavan, which is the seat of ICCR. This morning's session at the India International Centre is the valedictory session of this international conference. Almost three decades ago, I heard with a sense of profound disbelief about a forecast made by certain futurists. These futurists, it was said, were pretty much convinced that with the spread of secular political ideology and the increasing sharing of scientific technology, the influence and impact of the religions of the world will gradually subside and even that in due course of time these were likely to vanish from the face of this earth. I recalled that prophecy and how it has proven to be utterly wrong with almost a sense of amusement, while providing the concept note for this significant international conference. Indeed, the religions of the world are still very much with us. A common sharing of advanced technology in a global context, while facilitating travel and communication in an unprecedented manner, has made it all the more clear to us that we are by no means living in a post-religious era. Swami Vivekananda had observed: "Of all the forces that have worked and are still working to mould the destinies of the human race, none, certainly, is more potent than that, the manifestation of which we call religion." Perhaps the single most dominant criterion used in the public dis-course for distinguishing the largest human aggregates one from the other is by their religious identity associated with one or another of the religions of the world. Indeed, the world religions are still continuing to be the primary sources from which people derive their sense of collective identity, draw their norms and values and seek guidance in times of need. Consequently, the presence of the plurality of religious identities is an inalienable fact of the contemporary global scene. It is a phenomenon that has to be dealt with at multiple levels of exchanges and inter-actions by all of us. Today, the central question before us is: Can we move on to a plane of collective existence where the presence of diversity of religious traditions will no longer be perceived as a cause for dissension-as it has so often been so far? Is it at all possible for us to view the religions of the world as our common resource that can enrich and empower us in ways that we cannot even imagine today? If we could or even give it an honest try we could then claim that we are indeed seeking to carry forward a project that was initiated by Swami Vivekananda. While exploring these issues with the eminent personalities present here, I have chosen this conversational format in order to highlight that the endeavor here is not simply to invite a series of monologues but about how to innovate a setting especially with a view to facilitate the bridge-building task among the religious traditions. This is a humble attempt to carry forward Swami Vivekananda's unfinished project of enhancing "harmony" and avoiding "dissensions" among the religions of the world. Speaking of religious identity, let us use just a couple of minutes more while trying to understand the genesis, that is the beginning and the constitution of religious identity for us as individuals-as it is generally referred to in ordinary parlance and in our everyday socio-political contexts. Let us begin by asking whether we deliberately choose these identities or are these by and large attributed to us by the accident of birth? The picture seems to me at least to be very much as follows: one is first born into a religious tradition, belongs to it and only later on one can say that a given tradition comes to belong to one. While considering the question of dissensions that often happens in the name of religious identity, it is indeed interesting to note that comparatively only a small number of people among us who actually choose their religious identity, as that would imply exiting from the ones into which they are born. There are such cases of course-as exemplified by a few persons present here-where one has been born into a given tradition but has decided to choose another. We also know that there are many cases where people have been persuaded, forced and even persecuted to exit from traditions into which they are born but even in such instances would we not hesitate to call that these are actually cases of deliberate choice? In other words, wherever there is no real option before us, there is no question of exercising choice. Thus, to start with we are born into a given religious tradition and this is not a case of choosing. I assume-like most of us present here-that to be the case for all four of them (pointing to Dr Karan Singh, HH Dalai Lama, Reverend Mpho Tutu and Maulana Wahiduddin Khan). Their religious identity is a part of the givenness of their lives-born as a Hindu, born as a Buddhist, born as a Christian and born as a Muslim. May I ask whether this is a correct assumption on my part? (They nod, but see video to note how Maulana Saab answers. My comment to that response is that he chose to "remain" a Muslim.) Let me now say that I am truly honored for having this opportunity to share the stage with you all. You have before you my four clusters of questions that are the same as those that were sent to you and I request that each one of you respond to the same question or questions but only from the vantage point of your own tradition. Let this be an opportunity for all of us to start from the scratch. Every time I read out one of these four clusters of questions and share these with the members of the audience, I request each of you to fully utilize 5-6 minutes for each cluster of questions and let us benefit from your knowledge. Friends, we are now going to listen to the practitioners, who are also all authors and have very ably propagated the core ideas of their respective traditions in their published works.

Q 1. What do you consider to be the principal teaching of your tradition? What is it that has especially inspired you most, impelling you to serve your tradition all throughout your life that we cannot simply attribute to the fact of your being connected with it by the accident of birth but will be willing to grant that it could just as well be the case had it been a matter of deliberate choice?

In other words, is there a central message that is specific to your tradi-tion that you wish to share with the entire humanity because you firmly believe that we will all live in a better world if we pay heed to it?

Replies to Question No. 1

HH Dalai Lama: Respected spiritual brothers and sisters. I also recognize some long time friends in the audience. I am very happy to have this opportunity.

I am a Tibetan. Since seventh century, and particularly eighth century, and ninth century, Buddhism very much flourished in Tibet, particularly the Nalanda tradition. Pali tradition provided the basis for mainly Vinaya practice, monastic discipline. On top of that, Sanskrit tradition provided lots of philosophical ideas and practices including some yoga or Tantric practices.

My parents were uneducated farmers. I think my father knew more about a variety of horses rather than Dharma. In early period, when people chose me as a reincarnation of Dalai Lama, I studied Buddha Dharma with little interest; it was compulsory. Gradually, I have studied it seriously. Buddhism, particularly Nalanda tradition, puts emphasis not on faith but on reasoning and experiment. Buddha himself stated: All my followers should not accept my teachings out of faith but rather through investigation and experiment. In the meantime I also developed interest in learning about technology and science. Since my childhood I have been curious by nature. The more you investigate, the more you engage in thoughts and thinking. As we observe our world and its lots of problems, essentially many of these problems are our own creation. No one wants problems, but we create many problems. Then the big question is why? I think it is due to too much self-centered attitude and lack of holistic view.

One of the main Buddhist concepts is Pratityasamutpada or every-thing is interdependent. This concept gives us a holistic view. No event is absolute and independent. Good or bad events happen because of this and those factors. Thinking this way always brings us a holistic view. It is quite useful to reduce narrow-mindedness. Additionally, there is altruism, sense of concern for other's well being. Altruism is the direct anti-dote to reduce self-centered attitude. These are good and useful practices. These are also immense help to understand other traditions. In spite of different philosophical views, all major religious traditions talk about practice of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, individual contentment, and self-discipline. All major religious traditions carry the same message. In order to strengthen these sorts of practice, use of different philosophy is necessary. Why? Because among humanity there are many different mental dispositions. Even among Buddha's own students, there are different mental dispositions. Therefore, Buddha taught different philosophies which may appear contradictory. I often tell people these seemingly contradictory philosophies came from the same teacher. This is not because Buddha is confused in his own mind. One day he taught some different philosophy; next day, next audience, another sort of philosophy. All of this is neither due to his own confusion nor for deliberately creating more confusion among his followers. He taught many different philosophies out of necessity. For different mental dispositions, different ways of approach are necessary. I personally find this reason immensely helpful to understand and appreciate different traditions-both theistic and non-theistic religious traditions. Needless to say, within these traditions we find differences as well. I feel different philosophies are necessary in order to fulfill a variety of people's wish.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan: I was born in a Muslim family. My education and my upbringing were totally on the traditional lines. But when I reached the age of maturity, I became a seeker; I wanted to discover the truth on my own. I studied many books on different subjects, including religion, that were related to my search. Finally, I discovered the truth that my nature was seeking. This discovery was Islam. I can say that Islam is my discovery. I'm a Muslim not by birth, but I'm Muslim by choice. Then I published a book with the title Islam Rediscovered. My main search was regarding the purpose of life. In the Quran I discovered the Creation Plan of God. This discovery led me to under-stand the real purpose of life. According to the Quran, after the creation, God Almighty settled man on the planet earth. The planet earth is a selection ground. Here man is constantly under divine watch, and God Almighty will select those men and women, on the basis of merit, who prove to be deserving candidates for Paradise. This selection depends completely on everyone's personal record. In the end, God Almighty will select all those individuals from entire history and settle them in Paradise, which is the perfect world, free from all kinds of limitations and disadvantages.

This discovery helped me understand the purpose of life. Here I found the justification of settling man on this planet. This discovery helped me understand the creation of man as unique. It helped me understand the pre-death period, and also the post-death period of my life. Before this discovery my feeling was that I have strayed into a world that was not made for me, but now everything seems to fall into place.

I was born as an idealist, but according to my experience the present world was less-than-ideal. It seemed that a perfectionist was compelled to live in an imperfect world. My discovery solved this problem, and I realized that the present world is not my final abode, my final abode is Paradise, and Paradise is undoubtedly the ideal place to live in.

I wanted to know the interpretation of human history. But my problem was that I wanted to interpret history in terms of humanity at large, which seemed impossible. Because, man enjoys freedom and he is also free to misuse his freedom. As we cannot abolish this freedom, we can-not establish an ideal system. It is this fact that in this world finding perfect individual is possible, but establishing a perfect society or sys-tem is simply not possible.

Then I discovered that according to the Creation Plan of God, it is persons who are required and not the masses. Gibbon has remarked: "History is indeed little more than the register of crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind." This remark seems to be right when you see history in totality. But when you see history in terms of individuals, the scene is quite different. Now the world becomes a vast garden of beautiful trees.

Reverend Mpho Tutu: John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but shall have eternal life." This is probably the most often quoted verse of the Christian Bible. It encapsulates the principal teachings of my faith tradition. First that God loves. The fullest expression of God is love. God's love is creative, generative and generous. Second that the world is the object of God's love. The world is not described here as a mistake, a lack, an incompleteness but is described as loved. Because the world is loved the world is, by definition, lovable. This quotation does not make a division between what is spiritual, beautiful, acceptable and lovable and what is fleshly, ugly, wrong and therefore unlovable. What this teaching contains is a statement of God's vastness and God's goodness. God is vast enough and good enough to love the world, not as it will be when it is perfected but as it is. God will love the world into perfection.

I am Christian. I was born into a Christian family and so this was my first exposure. It is the third aspect of the quotation that holds me to my faith. God became human and dwelt among us in the form of the man Jesus Christ. The reason that paying heed to incarnation will make a better world for all of us is the message it conveys. That God took human form tells us that our bodies matter. Our bodies are not an irrelevancy. Our bodies are not a prison for our spirits but, rather, there is something very particular and very holy, about our human form. The scriptures of the Christian faith describe the last judgment thus:

When the Son of Man comes in all his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at his right hand. "Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me."'

As described in this passage of scripture, when in the last days God returns to weigh our deeds in the balance the standard against which we are measured may surprise us. They are not the questions that one would typically be those with which religiosity is concerned. The questions that Christian scripture says we will be asked are not "How many hours did you spend in prayer?" or "What was your liturgical practice?" but, "Did you clothe the naked? Did you feed the hungry? Did you visit the prisoner? Did you care for the sick?" These questions demand that we keep our eyes on the eternal by acting in the present reality. These questions and the teaching that they encapsulate are the teachings that Christianity has to offer humanity.

The three claims of my religion as expressed here: That God is love and God loves the world as it is-and therefore the world is lovable; that God has taken human form-therefore our bodies matter; and that how we treat human beings in the here and now is what will shape our place in eternity, are all teachings that can improve human experience.

'New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989. National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America (Matthew 25: 31-36).

Let us consider each proposition in turn: in the first instance, that the world is lovable even with all the faults, terrors and disasters it contains. This truth offers us an approach to changing the world that is based on love rather one based on anger and hatred. Hatred, we know, can never overcome hatred. As only light can overcome darkness, so only love can overcome hate. In the second instance, that God took human form and therefore our bodies are good and acceptable to God. This truth should give us each a particular reverence for human flesh and blood. The rev-erence with which we meet our fellow human beings should be as the reverence with which we approach a temple or a place of worship. Treating our bodies with reverence will make rape, torture and other forms of human brutality not only wrong and distressing but, actually, blasphemous. In the third instance that what determines our place in eternity is our action in the present reality. We cannot win paradise by ignoring or injuring our fellow human beings. There is no prayer, song or meditation or liturgical practice that will earn us heaven. We are made fit for the promise of everlasting life by the practice of human kindness and concern.

Dr Karan Singh: In my view, the principal teachings of Hinduism are to be found in the Upanishads where the all pervasive divine power the Bramhan-and the Divinity within each human being-the Atman-have been analyzed in detail. There is also the concept of Yoga as the philosophy and methodology of joining the Atman and the Bramhan. There are four paths in Yoga with hundreds of by-paths. These are Jnana Yoga, the way of Wisdom; Bhakti Yoga, the way of Devotion; Karma Yoga, the way of Dedicated Works and Raja Yoga, the way of Psycho-spiritual practices.

I have always been attracted to the universal values contained in the Vedanta, and find that they are compatible with the Interfaith movement with which I have been involved for four decades. The Rig Vedic dictum "Ekam Sadvipraha Bahudha Vadante." "The truth is one, the wise call it by many names," is the keystone of the whole Interfaith philosophy. We must accept that there are multiple paths to the divine, and whereas our own path may be the best for us, this does not mean that people following other path can be murdered or tortured or persecuted in any way. This is the central message in Hinduism which needs to be shared with the entire humanity. We will certainly live in the better world if this is accepted.

Anindita N. Balslev

We all know of the dual impact of religious affiliations-benevolent and pernicious-as it is demonstrated in the history, be that of two denominations of the same religious tradition or of two religions, that is, where the religious context is definitively plural in character. Swami Vivekananda said:

No other human motive has deluged the world with blood so much as religion; at the same time,...no other human influence has taken such care, not only of humanity, but also of the lowest of animals, as religion has done. Nothing makes us so cruel as religion, nothing makes us so tender as religion.

Indeed, this cruel aspect has been played out in such gruesome manner in the name of religious identity that we really need to under-stand what makes that possible, what is at the root of it. I have said in the beginning that we draw a sense of collective identity from our religions. Let me now ask what is entailed in the teachings of these diverse traditions-explicitly or implicitly-that influence us to construe the "otherness" of other traditions in specific ways that has impact on those whom we do not perceive to be belonging to "our own" religious community. So my second cluster of questions to you is:

Q 2. What is the status of the other in the philosophy of religion of your own tradition? What is the explicit or implicit teaching that is bound to influence the attitude of the members of your own community as and when they invariably encounter these "others," that is, those who happen to derive their sense of religious identity from "other" sources than your own? That they are to be gradually vanquished? To be eventually converted for the sake of their own good? That those who are reluctant to do so are to be perceived as doomed or at best to be situated at a lower level in the hierarchy and somehow tolerated?

In other words, the question is whether it is possible to be more inclusive? Can these "others" be at all accepted as followers of a distinctly different path yet recognizably a legitimate path? If yes, on what ground?

Replies to Question No. 2

HH Dalai Lama: I think I already answered it. As I said, there is variety of people. I may add one thing. Recently, I saw one report that out of seven billion human beings; about one billion are non-believers. In this regard, I want to say that even though I am a Buddhist and accordingly I do my practice daily, but I never try to propagate Buddhism. Of course, I do understand my responsibility and duty to explain what Buddhism is to Buddhists and those who ask about it. In the Vinayapitaka it is clearly mentioned that unless someone asked you for teaching, you should not teach. This goes well with respecting individual's sort of rights. Realistically speaking, on this planet, there are so many religious traditions. When Buddha and Mahavira came, there were already other religious traditions in India. Buddha and Mahavira never tried to convert all Indians into Buddhists and Jains. The fact of the matter is today there are many religious traditions. In Arab and eastern as well as many other areas in the world, a large number of Muslims follow Islamic tradition. In the whole western countries most people are from the Judo-Christian background. India actually is home to many great religious traditions. That said, quite often religious followers, including Buddhists, forget their religions when things are going well. They do not follow religious principles at the time of need. Instead, people let destructive emotions act like god. So many problems are actually our own creation. There is too much greed, too much anger, and too much suspicion, but not enough practice of compassion and forgiveness. All major religious traditions, for the past thousand years, helped humanity. Today also millions of people get immense inspirations from them and it will be the same in the future as well. I think for at least a few centuries it will remain like that. After that nobody knows. So, that is the reality. I always expressed that religious conversion is not good. For example, there are quite a number of Tibetan Buddhist centers in the west. I always tell them they should not convert people into Buddhists. Only if people really come to learn something about Buddhism, then it is ok to teach them Buddhism. Actually, a German friend of mine who is a businessman wants to build a Buddhist meditation center in France, but I told him this is not right. France is a Judo-Christian country. If he really wants to build a Buddhist meditation center, then he should construct it either in Thailand, or Burma or even India. Like that, we must respect individual's wish and his or her tradition.

As for the question about non-believers, I think their number will increase. Non-believers are part of humanity and they also have the every right to be happy and successful members in human community. In this regard, without touching religion, usually I talk about secular ethics. Here I do not talk about God or Buddha, but simply about ethics according to our common experience and common sense. Everybody is born from a mother and that is our common experience. Rajas are also born that way. I, as a peasant child, also have been born that way, and you too. I think I want to tease my long time friend (Dr Karan Singh), that perhaps a peasant child is much closer to his mother than Raja's son. Rani lives there and someone takes care of her prince. In that sense a simple peasant's son has been more fortunate because he has received mother's affection and mother's breast-feeding with full of care and affection. Mother's affection and care for a child are extremely impor¬tant. That bond and experience remain deep in child's blood till death. All of us who are in this hall, outwardly everybody look very smart, but deep inside those of us who have received maximum affection from their mothers when we were young, I think, are much happier and more firm deep inside as compared to those who did not receive the same affection and care from their mothers at a young age. Individuals may be successful today, but at the young age, did not receive affection from their mothers or their mothers died at delivery or those who are born as an "unwanted child" or abused, then such person may outwardly look very smart, but deep inside they feel a sense of insecurity. All of these are our common experiences.

Importantly, we must respect people, and value human affection and compassion. These are very important values even from health view¬point. Medical scientists clearly say that constant fear; anger and hatred are actually eating our immune system. Calm and peaceful mind is a very important factor to sustain our immune system. You just mentioned that I look healthy. According to my own experience, I think calm mind is immensely beneficial for good health. In our discussions some scien¬tists talk about healthy body and healthy mind. It is not sufficient just taking care of physical health by taking medicine. Ultimately, source of healthy body is peace of mind. I think we can educate non-believers to be warm-hearted persons without necessarily becoming religious minded. They can be more compassionate persons for their own interest, not for the next life. In our everyday life if we become more compas¬sionate and more caring for others' well being, then we would have no room to harm others, to cheat others, and to bully others. Not at all.

Actually, you care for others' well being. Compassion is the very basis of non-violence, India's thousand years old tradition. Ahimsa is not a weakness or indifferent attitude. Not at all. Ahimsa (Nonviolence) means even though you have the ability to harm, but you respect their life, their right and so deliberately restrain from harming others. That is nonviolence. With Ahimsa, religious harmony will automatically come because you respect the followers of other religions. Therefore, I feel sometimes compassion and human affection is Universal Religion. No need of complicated philosophy, creator or Buddha. Karma means action. As you mention karma yoga, everything depends on action. Action depends on motivation. So that is my view. Too long, thank you.

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan: The word conversion is totally alien to Islam. Islam believes in spiritual development rather than religious con-version. According to Islam, religion is completely one's own intellectual choice; it is the result of one's own discovery rather than getting direction from some outside agent. The Creation Plan of God in this regard is mentioned in the Quran in these words: "This is the truth from your Lord. Let him who will, believe in it, and him who will, deny it.' As far as salvation is concerned, it will be determined by one's personal record. In Islam there is no race-wise salvation or community-wise salvation. Islam very clearly declares that salvation is individual-wise. It is a matter that is completely between man and God, and not between man and man. The rationale behind this theory is that salvation is the result of personality development. Only those persons will find entry into Paradise who have developed their personalities in such a way that they deserve settlement in Paradise, which is a highly refined society. For example, the people of Paradise will be completely free from all kinds of negative thought. So, only those people will be selected to be included in the high society of Paradise who have proved in this world that they are such developed souls that they can live in Paradise as is required. In the Quran Paradise is described as the "Home of Peace.' So, only those people will qualify to find entry into Paradise who have proved themselves to be peace-loving persons in the complete sense of the word. 18:29. 10:25.

In the later period of history Muslims jurists legislated the law that one who commits apostasy will be given capital punishment, or one who is involved in blasphemy will be given capital punishment. This kind of legislation is completely un-Islamic, it is an innovation of a later period of history, and has no sanction in the Quran. According to the Quran, everyone is free, no one can impose curbs on anyone's freedom. It is God who will decide whether someone misused his freedom or he used his freedom properly. Laws on apostasy or blasphemy are like entering into the domain of God. It is not a question of acceptance by Muslims, only God will accept or refuse, even those who claim to be true Muslims. The status of everyone, including those who claim to be Muslims, is one and the same, and that is, their fate will be decided in the Hereafter by God Almighty. The Prophet of Islam has declared that although I am the Prophet of God, but I don't know what will be decided about me in the Hereafter, and what will be decided about you. The attitude of Muslims towards others will be based on common brotherhood. Everyone is made by God, so Muslims must see others as God-made persons, they have no right to issue a decree about the fate of other human beings. Islam believes in common ancestry. The Prophet of Islam has said: "All men and women are Children of Adam." According to this all men and women are brothers and sisters to each other.

Reverend Mpho Tutu: Christianity has so much variety within itself and the posture towards other has been contested since the beginning of Christianity. Christianity began as a faith, a tradition, a path, an "other" in the center of a dominant and established faith. The Christian religion was born out of the Jewish faith. The first disciples of Jesus Christ-indeed, Jesus himself-if asked, would have described themselves as Jewish. Christianity was a minority sect within a dominant religion. Christianity stood in the posture of being the other religion to religion that already existed. Christians have adopted various postures with respect to the other throughout the history of the faith.

The Apostle Peter writes this:

Wives, in the same way, accept the authority of your husbands, so that, even if some of them do not obey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. Do not adorn yourselves outwardly by braiding your hair, and by wearing gold ornaments or fine clothing; rather, let your adornment be the inner self with the lasting beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in God's sight.'

He advises that Christians can, by being exemplars of their faith win converts to Christianity.