The Dalai Lama and Religious Pluralism

adrian009 said:

In regards those who try out aspects of different faiths like trying on different clothes, that’s simply part of the journey for many Westerners.

Click to expand...

I agree, in the beginning. But after awhile for me it has to be ... make up your mind already, choose a path, and follow it with all your heart. The same thing applies to the sects and sampradayas within Hinduism. Most Gurus would never think of 'stealing devotees' from other Gurus or sects. Most parallel the Dalai Lama ... stick to your own sect/Guru/sampradaya and do that well.

OK - confession time...I know almost nothing about this "New Age" thing...but I am completely mystified why people all over the religious spectrum seem to despise them - what is actually wrong with taking "something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something…" and making your own "path" out of them? As long as you are not pretending to BE a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever - why does the Dalai Lama suggest that this is "unhealthy"? What is wrong with syncretism - why - even among followers of obviously syncretistic religions - is it considered a dirty word?

Vinayaka said:

I agree, in the beginning. But after awhile for me it has to be ... make up your mind already, choose a path, and follow it with all your heart. The same thing applies to the sects and sampradayas within Hinduism. Most Gurus would never think of 'stealing devotees' from other Gurus or sects. Most parallel the Dalai Lama ... stick to your own sect/Guru/sampradaya and do that well.

Click to expand...

The best path for you and I is to continue the faith we have been practicing for the last 30 or 40 years of our lives. I really appreciate being a member of a clearly defined religious community. Not everyone is at that point in their lives though and many will never have a long term commitment to any faith community as we both do. I'm thinking for some, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Better no religion than the wrong religion.

I suspect when we start considering our faith like a corporation trying to maximise our market share of the lost and wandering souls of this world, that is contrary to the spiritualty that must be at the heart of any genuine faith. However, as faith practitioners living in the multicultural and multifaith world, having a sincere interest in the faith and worldviews of others seems like a healthy thing. Being open and embracing of those who want to follow the same path as us or not is another core value.

siti said:

OK - confession time...I know almost nothing about this "New Age" thing...but I am completely mystified why people all over the religious spectrum seem to despise them - what is actually wrong with taking "something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something…" and making your own "path" out of them? As long as you are not pretending to BE a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever - why does the Dalai Lama suggest that this is "unhealthy"? What is wrong with syncretism - why - even among followers of obviously syncretistic religions - is it considered a dirty word?

Click to expand...

Same. I wrote a post this morning on what I perceived New Age to actually be like:

New Age experience

I'm not sure what else to say on the subject. I didn't want to link to another thread in someone else's thread, but the subject was brought up, and I guess in a way it's relevant.

adrian009 said:

Better no religion than the wrong religion.

Click to expand...

Never a truer word!

siti said:

OK - confession time...I know almost nothing about this "New Age" thing...but I am completely mystified why people all over the religious spectrum seem to despise them - what is actually wrong with taking "something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something…" and making your own "path" out of them? As long as you are not pretending to BE a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever - why does the Dalai Lama suggest that this is "unhealthy"? What is wrong with syncretism - why - even among followers of obviously syncretistic religions - is it considered a dirty word?

Click to expand...

You can really get into trouble when you try to syncretictize science and religion, or religion and politics, for example. There is a huge possibility of becoming delusional when you try to syncreticize science and religion , and there is a huge possibility of propagating hatred when you try to syncreticize politics and religion. Greed can also become a factor when you create/syncretize a religion as a form of marketing. Greed, hatred, and delusion are known as the three poisons in Buddhism, and you are supposed to reject any doctrine that preaches greed, hatred, or delusion, no matter how well they try to sell it or how much pretzel logic they use to try to justify it.

You can be careful and mindful to not propagate greed, hatred, or delusion and cause no harm. However, many people can easily become enraptured by a new "discovery/creation" and have their minds overcome by it. (Zen calls this "makyo.") Those stuck in makyo can certainly give any syncretistic movement a bad name, which may leak over to the religions they borrowed from.

crossfire said:

There is a huge possibility of becoming delusional when you try to syncreticize science and religion

Click to expand...

Whereas sticking to a religion that teaches that snakes and donkeys really talked to people and the earth is only 6000 years old is going to protect us from becoming delusional?

siti said:

OK - confession time...I know almost nothing about this "New Age" thing...but I am completely mystified why people all over the religious spectrum seem to despise them - what is actually wrong with taking "something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something…" and making your own "path" out of them? As long as you are not pretending to BE a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever - why does the Dalai Lama suggest that this is "unhealthy"? What is wrong with syncretism - why - even among followers of obviously syncretistic religions - is it considered a dirty word?

Click to expand...

I don’t think New age beliefs and practices are necessarily syncretic. If they are, they draw upon Dharmic Faiths and the occult. I’d say it’s the occult aspects that give them bad rap from some Christians. Is practising astrology, Taro card reading and clairvoyance unhealthy? Hard to say. There’s probably a few new agers experimenting with drugs to achieve a mysticism. I don’t think that’s healthy.

I have my concerns also that the Christian church community either confuses Spiritualism and New Age, or throws the two in the same category under the description "occult".

adrian009 said:

When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:

People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.

In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.

Click to expand...

An empty assertion from a hammer of orthodoxy, the only thing unhealthy about it is that it means less faithful followers for the Dalai Lama - which is not healthy for his lust for leadership.

For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.

Click to expand...

Actually often 1 religion is self contradictory, and there is no guarantee that syncretism are more contradictory than said religion

I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.

Click to expand...

If it were impossible the syncretist would be unable to do it. If it wasn’t useful to the syncretist they wouldn’t do it - eg the Buddha wouldn’t have appropriated the Hindu gods and syncretised them into His worldview had it not been useful for Him on a personal level

The Reverend Bob said:

I agree 100% with the Dalai Lama! This is what I have been saying; what the New Age is doing by taking bits and pieces of various religions isn't good.

Click to expand...

All coming from the person who has managed to stitch together Christianity and Atheism, now there’s a syncretism of the highest order.

danieldemol said:

An empty assertion from a hammer of orthodoxy, the only thing unhealthy about it is that it means less faithful followers for the Dalai Lama - which is not healthy for his lust for leadership.

Click to expand...

The more likely concern is the movement of people from a Buddhist background to Christianity and the accompanying negativity of fundamentalist Christians towards different faiths.

danieldemol said:

Actually often 1 religion is self contradictory, and there is no guarantee that syncretism are more contradictory than said religion

Click to expand...

Most people are self-contradictory too.

danieldemol said:

If it were impossible the syncretist would be unable to do it. If it wasn’t useful to the syncretist they wouldn’t do it - eg the Buddha wouldn’t have appropriated the Hindu gods and syncretised them into His worldview had it not been useful for Him on a personal level

Click to expand...

Perhaps some Buddhists see themselves as purists in comparison to practitioners of other religions.

AT-AT said:

I have my concerns also that the Christian church community either confuses Spiritualism and New Age, or throws the two in the same category under the description "occult".

Click to expand...

The spiritualist church and the New Age movement are quite different. However clairvoyance appears to be part of both.

adrian009 said:

I’m unable to agree completely. It is undeniable that both Islam and Christianity have drawn heavily from traditions of earlier religions. Some Hindus would see Buddha as being an avatar of Vishnu. I doubt if the Dalai Lama would have a problem with such an approach.

In regards those who try out aspects of different faiths like trying on different clothes, that’s simply part of the journey for many Westerners.

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way.
If, in a college semester, you attend all the 200 courses being taught for one class-hour each only...then, in the end, you learn almost nothing. That is the bad syncretism done by the lazy directionless enthusiast.
If, on the other hand, you work twice as hard as others and get a double major on two separate specializations, then that is like the good syncretism by a dedicated religious practitioner.

Most people today go for the first option, but a few go for the second option and they are really really good. So we should differentiate between these two ways of syncretizing.

siti said:

OK - confession time...I know almost nothing about this "New Age" thing...but I am completely mystified why people all over the religious spectrum seem to despise them - what is actually wrong with taking "something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something…" and making your own "path" out of them? As long as you are not pretending to BE a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever - why does the Dalai Lama suggest that this is "unhealthy"? What is wrong with syncretism - why - even among followers of obviously syncretistic religions - is it considered a dirty word?

Click to expand...

I think perhaps because it's on the surface. It's not deep. When people do dig deeper, they do find the differences, and then that in turn leads to confusion. You can ask many a deeper question like on the nature of God, or even whether they believe in heaven/hell or reincarnation, and all you get is a nice smile and a shrug of 'it doesn't matter'. There is also a tendency to switch beliefs completely depending on who you happen to be around at any given moment.

But it is a belief system unto it's own.

sayak83 said:

Let's put it this way.
If, in a college semester, you attend all the 200 courses being taught for one class-hour each only...then, in the end, you learn almost nothing. That is the bad syncretism done by the lazy directionless enthusiast.
If, on the other hand, you work twice as hard as others and get a double major on two separate specializations, then that is like the good syncretism by a dedicated religious practitioner.

Most people today go for the first option, but a few go for the second option and they are really really good. So we should differentiate between these two ways of syncretizing.

Click to expand...

I think you are admitting we are all syncretic to some extent. Its really how we apply it. I recall a Buddhist teacher speaking about becoming 1% wise. We don't need to be 100% wise. Once we obtain a single drop of wisdom and apply that to our lives real change happens.

adrian009 said:

Multiculturalism in the twenty first century forces peoples of different cultures, races, nations and religions to interact, work together, cooperate and associate closely with one another as never before. To what extent is religious pluralism healthy and when does it become contradictory and unhealthy?

When asked, "Don’t all religions teach the same thing? Is it possible to unify them?" the Dalai Lama said:

People from different traditions should keep their own, rather than change. However, some Tibetan may prefer Islam, so he can follow it. Some Spanish prefer Buddhism; so follow it. But think about it carefully. Don’t do it for fashion. Some people start Christian, follow Islam, then Buddhism, then nothing.

In the United States I have seen people who embrace Buddhism and change their clothes! Like the New Age. They take something Hindu, something Buddhist, something, something… That is not healthy.

For individual practitioners, having one truth, one religion, is very important. Several truths, several religions, is contradictory.

I am Buddhist. Therefore, Buddhism is the only truth for me, the only religion. To my Christian friend, Christianity is the only truth, the only religion. To my Muslim friend, [Islam] is the only truth, the only religion. In the meantime, I respect and admire my Christian friend and my Muslim friend. If by unifying you mean mixing, that is impossible; useless.

Religious pluralism - Wikipedia

What is your approach to religious pluralism? Do you like to associate closely with people that are very different from you? Can we avoid diversity in our lives? Would we be better to embrace it?

Click to expand...

For me it's the stories...I can read the Bible and see the spiritual meaning in the epic. Then I can read the Mahabharata and do the same. Now I may have a deeper cultural relationship to the Bible but through my study of dreams I feel that I have touched base with common ground for all the worlds myths.

adrian009 said:

My encounters with practitioners of new age movements have left me feeling unsatisfied. Associations for me are with clairvoyance, astrology, taro readings, and healing with crystals. None of these are part of Abrahamic traditions and are generally discouraged by such religions. Meditation is universal. Chakras relate to Hinduism. Perhaps the Dalai Lama is alluding to practitioners of new age movements. If so, he may have a point.

Click to expand...

I also dont find New Age practices very appealing. However, many beliefs and practices in this area do represent creative efforts by individuals to find a spiritual practice that is personally meaningful and psychologically efficacious in a way that traditional religion is not. Most New Age practices abandon literalism and authority in favor of intuition and direct experience.

We have also had deeply influential scholars in the 20th century who have done much to show us the deep commonalities across religious story and religious history such that what is of value in religions is seen as not what is different but what is the same.

sayak83 said:

Let's put it this way.
If, in a college semester, you attend all the 200 courses being taught for one class-hour each only...then, in the end, you learn almost nothing. That is the bad syncretism done by the lazy directionless enthusiast.
If, on the other hand, you work twice as hard as others and get a double major on two separate specializations, then that is like the good syncretism by a dedicated religious practitioner.

Most people today go for the first option, but a few go for the second option and they are really really good. So we should differentiate between these two ways of syncretizing.

Click to expand...

I am as close to a real world example of this, I suppose, as one can get. I started with a double major approach but ended up with a more ambiguous bachelors then masters degree. What I lost in the process was job marketability. What I did achieve, however, was personal spiritual transformation. I found myself through the process of writing my two theses and I left my higher education with that deep sense of satisfaction and inner conviction. I turned my education into a spiritual journey.

My spiritual practice, primarily, is to study epic story in written and visual forms across time and cultures, interpret dreams, and establish as unmaterialistic a life as I can muster. Furthermore, I have found a mode of spiritual play, what Jung might call alchemy, which is endlessly satisfying to me. It comes in the form of playing modded Minecraft in a comprehensive way as a process of discovering and progressively developing an "elegant, holistic and conservational logistics". This provides my psyche, which is a logical designer, to grapple with a comprehensive approach to managing practical needs and necessities in such a way as to promote my personal values and support a community approach.

danieldemol said:

All coming from the person who has managed to stitch together Christianity and Atheism, now there’s a syncretism of the highest order.

Click to expand...

Atheism is not a religion.