Buddhist Attitude To Other Religions
Reclining Buddha
(Sri Lankaramaya Buddhist Temple)
In examining the Buddhist attitude to other religions one has to note that, unlike in many other religions, there is no claim in Buddhism that Truth is a monopoly of Buddhism. The truth, according to Buddhism, is not a revelation. It is a discovery or a realisation. A discovery humanly possible that needs no external sanctification or justification.
As a matter of fact the Buddhists are constantly reminded of the fact that Dhamma or Truth is something that each and every individual has to realise himself (paccattam veditabbo). Thus it should be clear from the beginning itself that the Buddhist can entertain an open attitude to other religions. In other words the Buddhist cannot call another religion names just because it is ‘another’ or‘non-Buddhist’.
The problem of teacher’s authority is also rather different in Buddhism. The Buddha had claimed only the credit of a discovery. He was not a deliverer or redeemer. He was not offering salvation or heaven either. He said that he discovered an old road or a lost city forgotten for long time. He would give road directions so others could also follow.” Faith does not play a big role in Buddhism. “According to Buddhism, faith becomes superstition when it is not examined by reason. Gotama is described as one who reasoned according to the truth rather than on the basis of the authority of the Veda or tradition” says Hajime Nakamura. “You have to practice yourself; the Buddhas only show the way” the Buddha advised. Thus he had taken steps to avoid setting a strong authority over freedom of verification or total freedom of seeking the truth. In fact, knowing the communicative problem involved in higher truths, the Buddha did not expect people to understand without practice either. Each and every one may have to understand truth following their own effort, which the Buddha firmly believed as in the reach of all individuals. When some people insisted on spoon feeding of non-communicative wisdom the Buddha adopted silence. So there is no mistrust about other people outside Buddhism making genuine attempts in getting at Truth.
Sakka, the Lord of gods, is reported to have asked the Buddha the reason why there is a multiplicity of religions. The answer the Buddha has given is of extreme importance in appreciating the Buddhist approach to other religions.
“Manifold is the world, Lord of gods. In this many spherical world, whichever sphere the beings touch or find, that they stick to and use (as truth), saying “this only is true, the rest is false”. Thus there is no agreement among religious people on theories, morality, will and goal.” (D.II.282)
The Buddha’s recognition of genuineness of other teachers of religions is eloquently registered here. They are not criticised as concoctionists or liars. Followers of their religions are not condemned as infidels or heathens. They may not be correct but honest as far as they could be. The Buddha sees them as stopping half way and forming a theory on their experiences so far obtained. Owing to the multi-dimensional nature of the world and the possibility of a seeker touching only one dimension it is possible to have a multiplicity of stands. They may base their reach on meditational experiences or reasoning. However imperfect they may be, we are made to recognise that they are born out of real glimpses of reality resulting from sincere attempts.
One might still argue that this is an attempt to belittle other religions in a more sophisticated manner. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that no other founder of a religion has given this much concession to their rivals. This is very open admission of the genuineness and relative success of those teachers. “Buddhism has attempted to arrive at the truth not by excluding its opposites as falsehood, but by including them as another form of the same truth” thinks Hajime Nakamura. The Buddha’s position should not be understood as an attempt of belittling but as a gentle request for further investigation.
This possibility of hastening to theory formation is not only projected towards other religions. It has been seen as a possible trap for the Buddhist meditationer too. The Brahmajala sutta underlines such possibilities in detail. Many spiritual heights that a meditator may reach are liable for misunderstandings and therefore one should be too quick in theory formation. Most of the time, this problem is aggravated owing to the pre-conceived speculations of practitioners. One has to commence and continue their search leaving all their prejudices and notions aside and keep on questioning their own achievements. What the Buddha does not sympathise is not that there is a multiplicity of religions and philosophies but the fierce arguments and unrest among them. He sees the slogan shouting and quarrelling over making their respective view the only truth available is rather distressing. Humorously, the Buddha has told the story of blind men trying to describe an elephant just by touching a part of the animal. The Buddha compared the religious sectarians to blind men who kept on arguing among themselves about the true nature of the elephant. (Udana VI.4)
The Buddha did not engage himself in condemning teachers of other religions. Once, two materialistic Brahmins asked the Buddha: “Who was the honest one between Purana Kassapa and Nigantha Nataputta in their claims to omniscience?” The Buddha instructed them to put aside the question and listen to what the Buddha had to tell them. (A.IV.429). At another occasion, referring to some sages (muni) who had comprehended the nature of their desires and eliminated them, crossing over the waves of samsaric existence, the Buddha said “I do not declare that all this religious men are sunk in repeated birth and decay.” (Sn.v.1082) The Buddha maintained that whoever, with ill-fashioned wit, condemns lust-free sages of other sects receives great demerit. (A.III.372) In his broad attitude the Buddha encouraged his followers to listen to other teachings, of course, with open and critical mind. He advised “You should train yourself thus: whatever doctrine I shall hear connected with what is good (kusala = wholesome) to this I shall listen attentively, investigate objectively, reflect upon deeply and upon this concentrate wholeheartedly.” (A.III.371)
The Buddha was not, however, reluctant to discuss religious issues critically. He was not polemical in nature but when others came to argue with him he convinced them, by rational ways, the folly of their attachment to dogmatic views. As a religious teacher he did not run away from his responsibility of showing people the ill effects of wrong philosophies (miccha ditti). The term miccha ditthi he used as an abstract term, not referring to any system specifically. He did not want to attack any system of thought or religion naming it. He only pointed out that certain views, if held and allowed to determine our behaviour, may lead to spoil our spiritual welfare. According to the Buddha, if ditthi or philosophy goes wrong everything goes wrong. Every activity done by someone who holds a wrong philosophy becomes unwholesome, bad, unpleasant and productive of suffering. (A.V.212). His thoughts, words, activities, livelihood, perseverance, mindfulness, concentration and liberation, all go wrong. The result of wrong philosophy is only degeneration not regeneration. (A.V.211)
The Buddha examined the philosophies and religions that were available during his time. He would examine their inner-consistency and moral ethical soundness. He would find whether they could stand the empirical tests. He also examined whether they lead people to heaven, liberation or hell. But he would not enter into arguments on metaphysical issues. He suggested them to be postponed until the time we attain our enlightenment which is far more urgent and possible without metaphysical speculations. Regarding the Buddha’s way of dealing with people who come to argue with him Rhys Davids said: “Gotama puts himself, as far as possible, in the mental position of the questioner. He attacks none of his cherished convictions. He accepts as the starting point of his own exposition the desirability of the act or condition priced by his opponent by the union with God (as in Tevijja), or of sacrifice (as in Kutadanta), or of social rank (as in Ambattha), or of seeing heavenly sights (as in Mahali), or of the soul theory (s in Potthapada). He even adopts the very phraseology of the questioner” (Dialogus .1.206)
Extracted from:
Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist
Studies, University Of Kelaniya
Postgraduate Diploma in Buddhist Studies
DBSX 01 Indian Religious Background and Emergence of Buddhism
Professor Wijebandara Chandima
As a matter of fact the Buddhists are constantly reminded of the fact that Dhamma or Truth is something that each and every individual has to realise himself (paccattam veditabbo). Thus it should be clear from the beginning itself that the Buddhist can entertain an open attitude to other religions. In other words the Buddhist cannot call another religion names just because it is ‘another’ or‘non-Buddhist’.
The problem of teacher’s authority is also rather different in Buddhism. The Buddha had claimed only the credit of a discovery. He was not a deliverer or redeemer. He was not offering salvation or heaven either. He said that he discovered an old road or a lost city forgotten for long time. He would give road directions so others could also follow.” Faith does not play a big role in Buddhism. “According to Buddhism, faith becomes superstition when it is not examined by reason. Gotama is described as one who reasoned according to the truth rather than on the basis of the authority of the Veda or tradition” says Hajime Nakamura. “You have to practice yourself; the Buddhas only show the way” the Buddha advised. Thus he had taken steps to avoid setting a strong authority over freedom of verification or total freedom of seeking the truth. In fact, knowing the communicative problem involved in higher truths, the Buddha did not expect people to understand without practice either. Each and every one may have to understand truth following their own effort, which the Buddha firmly believed as in the reach of all individuals. When some people insisted on spoon feeding of non-communicative wisdom the Buddha adopted silence. So there is no mistrust about other people outside Buddhism making genuine attempts in getting at Truth.
Sakka, the Lord of gods, is reported to have asked the Buddha the reason why there is a multiplicity of religions. The answer the Buddha has given is of extreme importance in appreciating the Buddhist approach to other religions.
“Manifold is the world, Lord of gods. In this many spherical world, whichever sphere the beings touch or find, that they stick to and use (as truth), saying “this only is true, the rest is false”. Thus there is no agreement among religious people on theories, morality, will and goal.” (D.II.282)
The Buddha’s recognition of genuineness of other teachers of religions is eloquently registered here. They are not criticised as concoctionists or liars. Followers of their religions are not condemned as infidels or heathens. They may not be correct but honest as far as they could be. The Buddha sees them as stopping half way and forming a theory on their experiences so far obtained. Owing to the multi-dimensional nature of the world and the possibility of a seeker touching only one dimension it is possible to have a multiplicity of stands. They may base their reach on meditational experiences or reasoning. However imperfect they may be, we are made to recognise that they are born out of real glimpses of reality resulting from sincere attempts.
One might still argue that this is an attempt to belittle other religions in a more sophisticated manner. Nevertheless, we have to recognise that no other founder of a religion has given this much concession to their rivals. This is very open admission of the genuineness and relative success of those teachers. “Buddhism has attempted to arrive at the truth not by excluding its opposites as falsehood, but by including them as another form of the same truth” thinks Hajime Nakamura. The Buddha’s position should not be understood as an attempt of belittling but as a gentle request for further investigation.
This possibility of hastening to theory formation is not only projected towards other religions. It has been seen as a possible trap for the Buddhist meditationer too. The Brahmajala sutta underlines such possibilities in detail. Many spiritual heights that a meditator may reach are liable for misunderstandings and therefore one should be too quick in theory formation. Most of the time, this problem is aggravated owing to the pre-conceived speculations of practitioners. One has to commence and continue their search leaving all their prejudices and notions aside and keep on questioning their own achievements. What the Buddha does not sympathise is not that there is a multiplicity of religions and philosophies but the fierce arguments and unrest among them. He sees the slogan shouting and quarrelling over making their respective view the only truth available is rather distressing. Humorously, the Buddha has told the story of blind men trying to describe an elephant just by touching a part of the animal. The Buddha compared the religious sectarians to blind men who kept on arguing among themselves about the true nature of the elephant. (Udana VI.4)
The Buddha did not engage himself in condemning teachers of other religions. Once, two materialistic Brahmins asked the Buddha: “Who was the honest one between Purana Kassapa and Nigantha Nataputta in their claims to omniscience?” The Buddha instructed them to put aside the question and listen to what the Buddha had to tell them. (A.IV.429). At another occasion, referring to some sages (muni) who had comprehended the nature of their desires and eliminated them, crossing over the waves of samsaric existence, the Buddha said “I do not declare that all this religious men are sunk in repeated birth and decay.” (Sn.v.1082) The Buddha maintained that whoever, with ill-fashioned wit, condemns lust-free sages of other sects receives great demerit. (A.III.372) In his broad attitude the Buddha encouraged his followers to listen to other teachings, of course, with open and critical mind. He advised “You should train yourself thus: whatever doctrine I shall hear connected with what is good (kusala = wholesome) to this I shall listen attentively, investigate objectively, reflect upon deeply and upon this concentrate wholeheartedly.” (A.III.371)
The Buddha was not, however, reluctant to discuss religious issues critically. He was not polemical in nature but when others came to argue with him he convinced them, by rational ways, the folly of their attachment to dogmatic views. As a religious teacher he did not run away from his responsibility of showing people the ill effects of wrong philosophies (miccha ditti). The term miccha ditthi he used as an abstract term, not referring to any system specifically. He did not want to attack any system of thought or religion naming it. He only pointed out that certain views, if held and allowed to determine our behaviour, may lead to spoil our spiritual welfare. According to the Buddha, if ditthi or philosophy goes wrong everything goes wrong. Every activity done by someone who holds a wrong philosophy becomes unwholesome, bad, unpleasant and productive of suffering. (A.V.212). His thoughts, words, activities, livelihood, perseverance, mindfulness, concentration and liberation, all go wrong. The result of wrong philosophy is only degeneration not regeneration. (A.V.211)
The Buddha examined the philosophies and religions that were available during his time. He would examine their inner-consistency and moral ethical soundness. He would find whether they could stand the empirical tests. He also examined whether they lead people to heaven, liberation or hell. But he would not enter into arguments on metaphysical issues. He suggested them to be postponed until the time we attain our enlightenment which is far more urgent and possible without metaphysical speculations. Regarding the Buddha’s way of dealing with people who come to argue with him Rhys Davids said: “Gotama puts himself, as far as possible, in the mental position of the questioner. He attacks none of his cherished convictions. He accepts as the starting point of his own exposition the desirability of the act or condition priced by his opponent by the union with God (as in Tevijja), or of sacrifice (as in Kutadanta), or of social rank (as in Ambattha), or of seeing heavenly sights (as in Mahali), or of the soul theory (s in Potthapada). He even adopts the very phraseology of the questioner” (Dialogus .1.206)
Extracted from:
Postgraduate Institute of Pali and Buddhist
Studies, University Of Kelaniya
Postgraduate Diploma in Buddhist Studies
DBSX 01 Indian Religious Background and Emergence of Buddhism
Professor Wijebandara Chandima