The Dalai Lama is the spiritual as well as the sequential leader of Tibet. He has had to face numerous challenges since his accent to the leadership mantle, being sent to exile in 1959 at a time when the Chinese occupied Tibet. Since then, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has been vigorously advocating for non-violence in his home country. As a result, the Dalai Lama has travelled the world over in a bid to give lectures on Buddhism teachings. This is in an attempt to make the teachings readily accessible to all nations worldwide. During his worldwide lecture tours, the Dalai Lama inevitably touches more often on other faiths apart from Buddhism. The theme which seems to predominate in these lectures is his superlative tolerance to the opinions given by other religions (Compson, 1996, Web). As observed, the Dalai Lama is not hesitant to show and address the role of religious diversity in encouraging and promoting love and compassion in the world. He appears to actively celebrate this great multiplicity that different faiths contribute to humankind. On the surface, he seemingly reflects a religious pluralist stance which tends to coincide with that of the well-known religious pluralist, John Hick. However, in his active stance of religious diversity and acceptance, the Dalai Lama seems more of an exclusivist as he unprecedentedly prioritizes Buddhist ideas and doctrines over those of other religions. The religious pluralism that he seems to hold is then lost, and might be considered as deceptive religious pluralism.
This paper will critically analyze both personalities and their views regarding religious pluralism. Using John Hick’s hypothesis of religious pluralism and the Dalai Lama’s interviews, the paper will show the extent to which His Holiness is in line with religious diversity (agreeing with some of John Hick’s theory). The paper will also venture into discussing some of the Dalai Lama’s perspectives that seem to make him more of a religious exclusivist regarding the Buddhist doctrine (Higgins et al., 2013, 50).
Hick vividly argues that every tradition in the world has its different set but – as much as we can tell – more or less equal valid ways of experiencing and responding in life to what could be regarded as the reality (ultimate reality). This ultimate reality - in and of itself - is considered endless, transcategorical, indescribable, and magnificent. Hick also posits to a possible union among the world faiths in a way that belonging or being affiliated to opposing religions may be outdated in the future. Hick, however, does not relate this to everyone thinking or worshipping in a similar manner. Neither does he relate it to the experiencing of divine similarly. What he thinks or refers to is having forms of the same main tradition stretched worldwide. These forms emanate from what can be regarded as the same faith or religion (Penner, 2005, Web). This is because it entails potential membership movement in the tradition, with a potential ministerial swap. Therefore, Hick seems to be referring to eschatological harmony that goes beyond eventual unity of faiths. This eschatological unity would then achieve fulfillment for everyone, where people would be excelled by the truth, though still less than the ultimate truth (whole truth).
The Dalai Lama, in his interviews, agrees with Hick’s proposal of religion convergence and integration – though with a lesser grip than Hick was convinced. To the Dalai Lama, religious integration can only be achieved when the different religions co-exist side by side.
However, the Dalai Lama is quick to dismiss any possibilities of religious convergence as Hick puts it. He finds such a situation absolutely far-fetched than what reality would be “willing” to provide. Despite his focus on the positivity of similarities between world religions, His Holiness never loses the perspective of the main differences that exist between them. By way of example, the Dalai Lama compares Buddhism and Christianity pointing to his belief of achievement of an ultimate goal for every religion. As he puts it, the purpose of differing philosophies in each religion is quite similar (Compson, 1996, Web). This is because they are all geared up to the achievement of lasting happiness as an ultimate mission. He also comments about both religions trying to emphasize modesty and sincerity, with an intense call for all religious people to endeavor to become noble human beings. In other words, he believes that all people of conviction are called to love and give more (or fully) if it is true that they live out their religious beliefs.
These – as he notes – are mainly differences affecting the theories of selflessness and emptiness as expressed in Buddhism. The Dalai Lama considers such doctrinal differences as conflicts within the philosophical field.
Regarding liberation, the Dalai Lama points to the inability of the Buddhists achieving a complete state of enlightenment (Nirvana) in a single step in their lives. With reference to the Buddhist re-embodiment belief, His Holiness implies that it may take long periods of time for the Buddhists to realize complete liberation. The reason why he gives such a reference is because of the differences this belief brings out between the theistic and non-theistic Buddhists.
He further comments on the view of trying to convert people, specifically of other faiths towards Buddhism. He considers it pointless to try and argue on one position over the other or on the weaknesses of one side over the other. Trying to argue over such matters may serve as a weakening point, especially to the people who hold trust in such religions. This may in turn lead to the people doubting their faiths in question, particularly when these people decide not to convert. He thus dismisses the attempt to convert people or arguing a position and offers a message of encouragement or praising in part. He says that such people should be encouraged as much as possible to follow their respective religions with modesty and sincerity. The reward from this, he says, is more satisfaction in life. In the conclusion remarks, the Dalai Lama states that liberation (or Nirvana) can only be achieved by following the Buddhism course. His Holiness unconditionally believes that the Buddhist scripture explains this liberated (Nirvana) state. That is why he believes that only by following the Buddhist course can anyone willing to achieve complete liberation succeed. He gives a definitive differentiation between liberation and the Christian salvation belief pointing that salvation - as a place of ultimate peace and as a beautiful paradise – is beneficial. He, however, makes no further comments on this as he progresses to explain the ways Buddhists attain reincarnation in this paradise.
Despite his inward attitude to carefully select words when talking of religious diversity, it is still evident that such religious tolerance seems to stem out from his consistently held belief in Buddhist philosophy. His answers indicate his inward stance of a strict Buddhist philosophy. Subsequently, it can be said that he is somewhat of a religious exclusivist. In summary, therefore, he can be seen as practicing love and compassion (what he preaches) in reference to the Buddhism faith. At first, he seems to be a pluralist (with a view that all faiths have some truth and worthy of belief), but is later seen to lie more on the exclusivist side (seemingly believing Buddhism to be the way to absolute truth). While Hick does not seem to propose a single religion as the one and only truth, it is evident that the Dalai Lama has the belief in Buddhism as the only true way to paradise, which all world religions desire.
References
Compson, Jane. The Dalai Lama and World Religions: False Friend? Web. 1996.
Higgins, Kathleen, Soren Kierkegaard, Louis Pojman, Michael Rea, Robert Solomon. Encountering the Real: Faith and Philosophical Enquiry. Ohio: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.
Penner, Melinda. The Dalai Lama’s Twists and Topples. Web. 2005.
