Finding the Rights Questions about Religious Diversity

This article argues that all current theologies of religion share the presupposition that differences among religions are a problem, even a mistake, and that unity or agreement would be preferable to difference and religious diversity. But theologians of religion need to start at the other end of the puzzle, conceding from the get-go that religious diversity is here to stay, is inevitable, normal, natural, and, therefore, not the major problem or issue. The important questions are not about them, the others who are different from us, but about us. Why do we dislike diversity so much? Why does it make us so uncomfortable? Why does difference so frequently elicit the response of ranking the different options hierarchically? And, most important of all, how can we cure our own discomfort with diversity? The article also suggests that we need to practice the spiritual disciplines that help us overcome our egocentric preferences for a world in which everyone else would be just like us and can, instead, live comfortable in a world that accommodates vast differences.

Body Parts: A Theological Anthropology, by Michelle Voss Roberts. Fortress Press, 2017

Body Parts: A Theological Anthropology, by Michelle Voss Roberts. Fortress Press, 2017. 228 pp. Pb., $29 USD. 978-1-5064-1856-8

Islamic humanism or humanistic Islam?

The article presents and analyses recent books by Muslim authors addressing the issue of humanism in Islam. After some general remarks about humanism and religion (in the current political context), idealist versus critical approaches to the theme of humanism and Islam will be identified. The bulk of the article is dedicated to an analysis of three books by Mouhanad Khorchide, a group of Norwegian reformists, and Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd. After a brief consideration on how scriptures is dealt with in idealist and critical approaches, the article concludes with a distinction between “Islamic humanism” and “humanistic Islam.”

Dalai Lama and Religious Diversity

This article challenges exclusivist interpretations of the Buddha, and proposes alternative readings of early Buddhist texts that allow for the existence of the ultimate goal of the spiritual life outside Buddhism. The article clarifies the differences between exclusivist and non-exclusivist exegesis of the Buddha and suggests that exclusivist readings of his thought are a later scholastic development in the history of Buddhism. The main thesis of the article is that the Buddha cannot be considered an exclusivist because he did not understand the Dhamma and selfenlightened beings (paccekabuddhas) in sectarian terms as being the monopoly of any school. What the Buddha excludes from being paths to the final goal of the spiritual life are specific teachings incompatible with the Dhamma and the Noble Eightfold Path. This exclusion of specific teachings rather than of entire schools entails “specific exclusivism,” which is different from holding a sectarian “exclusivist view” of all non-Buddhists traditions anywhere and at any time.

Buddhism and Beyond

This article discusses Buddhist responses to religious diversity. I use the logical form of the tetralemma made famous by N?g?rjuna to clarify the ways that Buddhists can be seen to relate to other religions. With four alternatives, I discuss Buddhist claims to truth in terms of their being singularly absolute, one among many, both, and neither. As is evident in the presence of the third and fourth alternatives of the tetralemma, rigid dichotomies (like one and many, exclusivism and pluralism) are often false, for both (and neither) are live options. A key difference rests on the interpretation of ultimate truth, and in particular, whether the ultimate truth of emptiness is interpreted as a claim to the indeterminate nature of reality or its undetermined nature. The undetermined involves a participatory attitude of openness, and a healthy suspicion of preconceptions that determine and delimit the ultimate truth. Thus, the undetermined refers not so much to a descriptive truth, but rather to how one comports oneself in the world – with humility and openness. In parallel with this distinction between openness and certainty, I also spell out differences between claims and attitudes in an example from Tibetan traditions, with reference to the so-called “nonsectarian” (ris med) movement in particular. I argue that the difference between claims and attitudes can help clarify what it means to be “nonsectarian,” and thereby bridge the difference between maintaining an exclusively Buddhist claim and having an attitude that reaches beyond Buddhism.

Religious Diversity and Dialogue

With the understanding that one’s views on religious diversity shapes one’s attitude to interreligious dialogue, in this article I try to articulate how the Buddha perceived the phenomenon of religious diversity and then to discuss how this perception could inform the Buddhist practice of interreligious dialogue. I begin this discussion with reference to the diversity of views held by the Roman Catholics themselves on interreligious dialogue and the Colonial and more recent history of dialogue in the local context of Sri Lanka. Next I move on to discuss Buddhism’s own self-understanding as a non-theistic system. In order to support the non-theistic claim of Buddhism I produce two arguments, one philosophical and the other experiential, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha. Having supported the non-theist stance of Buddhism, I propose that the Buddhist attitude is to be open to religious diversity while upholding the position that nirvana is the ultimate goal irreducible to any other similar goals. The discussion shows that to accept diversity is not necessarily to accept pluralism in religion, and that this position does not preclude Buddhists from engaging in interreligious dialogue.

Contemporary Tibetan Buddhist Rimé Response to Religious Diversity

In a world where communities across the globe are becoming increasingly interconnected, encounters with diverse cultures and faiths are inevitable. How can diverse communities approach these encounters in a way that fosters dialogue rather than conflict, peace rather than war? Specifically, in the context of Buddhism, how should Buddhists relate to religious diversity in a way that simultaneously remains faithful to their own spiritual traditions while being openminded and respectful towards the beliefs and practices of others? One of the most well-known Buddhist responses to religious diversity was the rimé movement in nineteenth-century eastern Tibet. While the term “rimé” (meaning “impartial” or “non-sectarian” in Tibetan) has become a catchphrase in contemporary Tibetan Buddhist contexts, there has been little sustained engagement with this topic by Buddhists and Buddhist studies scholars. This essay documents and contextualizes the contemporary uses of the term rimé (non-sectarianism) in Tibetan Buddhist communities and situates it within Tibetan Buddhist literature and history. I argue that it is essential for both Buddhists and Buddhist-studies scholars to devote significant attention to the concept of rimé and to engage in interfaith dialogue. For Buddhists, the very survival of their religion depends on it. For Buddhist-studies scholars, it contributes to the development of an accurate understanding of one of the most significant intellectual moments in modern Tibetan history. For humankind, it contributes to interfaith understanding, harmony, and peace.

Buddhism and the Religious Other

Buddhism is sometimes characterized as having an inclusivist attitude to the religious Other. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, however, an exclusivist approach to the religious Other emerged in Sri Lanka. Using the case study of a Buddhist temple in Dambulla, this article examines the conditioning factors behind this phenomenon. It is divided into four sections. The first examines recent theoretical approaches to Buddhism and inter-religious encounter, and argues that a spectrum of Buddhist approaches to the Other has long been present in text and tradition. The second offers background information about the Dambulla temple and its leading monk, Inamuluwe Sumangala Thero. The third explores three representations of the mosque attack, those of Sumangala, the Hindus of Dambulla, and secular analysts. The fourth suggests three conditioning factors for the dominance of Sumangala’s representation and the emergence of what could be considered an uncharacteristically exclusivist Buddhist approach to the religious Other within South Asian Buddhism.

Conflict, Peace, and Religious Festivals

This study elucidates the roots and patterns of conflict and the conditions that facilitate peace and tolerance among Muslims, Hindus, and Christians on Lombok in eastern Indonesia. Known as the island of “a thousand mosques,” Lombok provides examples of how the state, community leaders, and other authorities – both religious and secular – manage a pluralistic society, resolve conflict, and maintain a sense of community. The study reveals that the interreligious conflicts are the result of the island’s history of ethnic and religious segregation. The state policy on religion, which regulates the establishment of places of worship, has further deepened the segregation that sharpened the conflicts. Despite consolidation and mediation by the state, some conflicts remain unresolved because the peacemaking processes are not inclusive of all actors. While Muslims and Hindus perform co-rituals and share commonalities in history and genealogy, which helps to sustain their peaceful relationship, Christians and other minorities seek alternative mechanisms to negotiate their place in the community and adapt to the existing modes of interreligious exchange. For example, many Christians join civic associations or engage in social work, while others participate in public religious-cultural festivals.