Buddhism and the advocacy of pluralism

Miran PERERA

In the long history of Buddhism not only in India but throughout the world there have been no acts of intolerance, no crusades and no violence in the name of religion.

On the contrary Buddhism and Buddhists have been subject to ruthless persecution and attempts have been made to erase off Buddhism totally from certain areas. Yet on no occasion did Buddhists meet this violence perpetuated against them and their faith with violence.

They have been maintaining tolerance and some have even construed this to be a characteristic of weakness on the part of Buddhists.

This is not so. Violence is always eschewed by Buddhists. Instead they practice tolerance. Indian society 2,550 years or more ago could be described as the oldest version of racism.

The Khattiyas were born to rule, Brahamans a class exclusively mustering religious and learning influences, the Vessa trade and commerce and the menial labour class of the other tree higher classes.

As far as religions are concerned there were four faiths namely scriptural, authoritarianism (Veda pragmanayam), belief in a god creator (Katruvada), soul-thery (Atmavada) and holy dip (snane - Dharmeccha).

Thus the Buddha had to ignore these class and faith divides and treat all the people alike.

Message of peace

Emperor Dharmasoka who was greatly responsible for the worldwide expansion of Buddhism never used any kind of force or coercion. He merely offered Buddhism as a message of peace, goodwill and harmony.

In spreading this message he was not trying to rid the world’s other religions and faiths. This tolerant attitude of his is clearly expressed in one of his rock edicts which runs as follows.

‘One should not honour only one’s own religion and condemn the religions of others. But instead one should honour and respect other religions for whatever they are worth.

‘In doing so one helps ones own religion to grow and at the same time renders services to other religions. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one’s own religion and also does harm to other religions.

‘Whosoever respects only his own religion and condemn other religions may be doing so through his great devotion to his own religion. But on the contrary in doing so he is harming his own religion. Therefore harmony and concord is good. The Sandaka Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya seems to supply the answer for the Buddhist attitude towards other religions.

False religions

‘In it Ananda describes four types of false religions and four types of unsatisfactory religions and goes on to define the character of the religion of the Buddha.

‘People of various clans, tribes and religious persuasions obtained ordination under the Buddha. The Buddha stated that waters of all rivers when joining the sea are of one taste, the saline taste and those who obtained under him similarly had no divides and were called ‘Sakya Putra’ Sakya being Buddhas clan and they all became sons of the Sakyas.

The Buddha loved the people as whole as is evidenced by his exhortation to the first sixty disciples at Saranath Varanasi, ‘Go now and wander for the welfare and happiness of many out of compassion for the world for the benefit, welfare and happiness of Gods and men. He equated men with Gods’.

If we consider possible attitudes of one religion towards another in the light of history they seem to be classifiable under three main headings.

The first is that of dominance based on the belief that ones religion alone contains the full truth and that other religions are either completely false or contain so few elements of truth that the sooner they are ousted by whatever means at ones disposal the better it would be for mankind.

Traditional contexts

The next is the attitude of fulfilment which draws its strength from the belief that while other religions contain important elements of truth they find their fullest is the attitude of cooperation which arises out of a conviction that;

(a) all religions contain aspects of truth and a study of all is necessary to discover the whole truth or
(b) That all the higher religions are equally true and that the ostensible differences are due to differences in language rather than in content and that all these religions are suited to their traditional contexts and
(c) That all the higher religions are equally true but some of these religions have a great attraction for certain types of individuals as against other.

The Buddha had a heart full of compassion a heart bent on service for the well-being of all.

He had no axe to grind, no personal end to achieve. It was out of pure compassion and selfless service that he dedicated a major part of his life treading the dusty rough uneven roads of North Eastern India spreading his teachings. His tireless mission was by no means a crusade.

Spreading doctrine

The Buddha never wanted to be the head of a religious organisation nor was he concerned about spreading his doctrine for the mere sake of having more converts and increasing the co-members.

In the Alagaddupama Sutta of the Majjihimanikaya the Buddha clearly exhorts his disciples not to learn the Dhamma for the sake of defending a dogma or for the sake of disparaging and finding fault with others teachings. Thus it is seen that he was encouraging cultivation of tolerance.

Respect and admiration

His tolerance was such that in India of the 6th Century BC where there were many religious leaders attacking each other with the venomous weapons of their mouths.

The Buddha was able to maintain good relations with all and earn their respect and admiration.

Other religionists considered it a rare honour and a cause of great pleasure and to receive the Buddha among them.

Other than Buddhism, of many other religions The Buddha says in the Kalama Sutta addressed to the Kalamas; ‘Well Kalamas, it is only proper to question and inquire where such is called for.

‘Now Kalamas do not accept a thing merely by heresay or because it has been handed down by tradition or because it is believed to be so from generation to generation or merely because it has been sanctioned by the scriptures or by specious reasoning or by mere logical deduction or by rigid adherence to a school of thought or because of ideological and dogmatic preference, or because it suits you or again just out of respect for a religious teacher.

Freedom of expression

But Kalamas when you know for yourselves that these things are unwholesome blame worthy censured by the wise and when acted upon or undertaken conduce to harm and suffering then should you reject them’.

This freedom of expression and thought was introduced to mankind for the first time by the Buddha.

The Buddha is a remarkable personality that adorned the history of mankind.

Many are the great qualities that contributed to his remarkableness. Among them tolerance played a keyrole. On his own admission the Buddha never forced himself in to arguments with other religionists.

The Buddha says it is not he that gets involved in arguments but others that force themselves on him.

Even on such occasions the Buddha adopted an extremely tolerant attitude.

A tolerant attitude towards other religions has been exemplified by the Buddha followed by the world Buddhists throughout its past history and is being strickly adhered to adopt by the present day Buddhists.