“Without Bias”—The Dalai Lama in Dialogue
“Without Bias”—The Dalai Lama in Dialogue
Professor, Religious Studies, Naropa University
For decades, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet, Tenzin Gyatso, has engaged in interreligious dialogue with leaders of many different traditions, yet he speaks not merely as an individual but as a proponent of the nonsectarian Ri-me movement. Ri-me, literally “without bias”, blossomed in nineteenth century Tibet as a response to intense sectarian rivalry, and has served Tibetan Buddhism in diaspora by providing an context for interreligious discernment and understanding. This paper traces the central elements of Ri-me in Tibet, and identifies adaptations of Ri-me in western settings, especially as articulated in the Dalai Lama’s published dialogues. In addition, reflection on the social and political factors of this Ri-me stance provides critical perspective on Tibetan Buddhism in dialogue.
In July of 1996, an historic week-long dialogue between twenty-five Christian and twenty-five Buddhist contemplatives took place at Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky. Distinguished guests came from monastic communities all over the world, and the honored guest was the most famous Buddhist in the world, Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama of Tibet, called in the west “His Holiness.” Stemming from conversations that began at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1993, these dialogues were designed to explore the common features of monastic spirituality. Gethsemani was chosen because it was the home community of Thomas Merton, who met His Holiness in India in 1968, shortly before his death. The Dalai Lama spoke of seeing “profound spirituality and love” in Merton, and in a tribute commented, “I think the important thing is that we must fulfill his wishes. I think that with our dialogue today we are fulfilling one of his wishes.” These dialogues were dedicated to the memory of Merton, about whom His Holiness said, “the impact of meeting him will remain until my last breath.”
In western dialogue settings, it is commonly assumed that the Dalai Lama’s inspiration for interreligious dialogue came primarily from Christian sources. Often it is said that it was Merton himself who brought His Holiness into dialogue; his meeting with Merton “opened up his perspective,” causing him to develop a “new pluralism.” Others credit his remarkable “love of Christ,” who is “the source, center and object of all prayer.” Without an informed understanding of Tibet and its Dalai Lamas, it is easy to fall into simplistic perspectives, but this underestimates the sophistication, intelligence, and complex factors at work in the life of His Holiness.
The Fourteenth Dalai Lama has become the “leading proponent of Buddhist modernism,” a reframing of traditional Tibetan Buddhism as a world religion. When he fled Tibet in 1959, he entered a world stage that rapidly broadened his horizons and placed him in the double role of chief political advocate for independence for his country as well as most visible Buddhist on the globe. These roles required him to adopt modernist stances while preserving the integrity of his own traditions. For example, under the influence of the legacy of Mahatma Gandhi, he eschewed the violence commonly practiced by his predecessors and eventually devised the ultimatum that he would resign his seat if violence were used in the Free Tibet movement, a personal policy that began in the year of his Nobel award. Also unlike his predecessors, he presents Buddhism as a rational religion strongly affiliated with scientific worldview, based on the practice of meditation that relegates ritual, deity-worship, and superstition to popular misunderstandings of its true essence. This brand of Buddhist modernism was never known in Tibet, but it has successfully supported the precarious roles the Dalai Lama has been forced to hold, gaining sympathy everywhere for the Tibetan cause and for Buddhism.
In addition, His Holiness serves as the chief spokesperson for an ecumenical, peaceful worldview that has rendered him the most popular religious figure in the world.
His Holiness’ stance in interreligious dialogue may be part of this complex strategy, but in any case his visionary spiritual leadership in the world has been shaped by strands of his own Buddhist tradition in Tibet. In this essay, we will look especially at a little-known ecumenical movement in modern Tibet that has shaped his interreligious sensibilities. Since his exile in 1959, the Ri-me tradition has increasingly shaped the dialogue theology of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
Ri-me (literally "without bias," pronounced Ree-May) was an ecumenical movement that began in nineteenth century Tibet, countering strong sectarian rivalry that had dominated Tibet for centuries. Ri-me was an informal network of teachers from the mainstream lineages who shared an inclusivist, even pluralist sensibility, wishing to preserve practices and transmissions from all lineages of Tibet. While the movement was concentrated in monastic settings, many lay yogis and yoginis of Tibet also were counted among their numbers. This movement has shaped the orientation of many lamas and incarnate teachers (tulkus, usually called rinpoches, or "precious jewels") in exile who have come to the west. This paper outlines the primary theological features of the Ri-me school of Tibet, and extrapolates its contemporary adaptation found more recently in the interreligious dialogues of His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama.
Certainly, Tibet has had a bitter history of sectarianism and bigotry, especially in central and western Tibet. Before the thirteenth century, rivalry between the indigenous Bon and Buddhist traditions was replaced by “modernist” polemics against the tantras of the “ancients” (Nyingma). While southern and eastern Tibet had a history of greater harmony and cooperation, by the fourteenth century sectarian issues were greatly intensified all over Tibet by the political stakes at hand, even though the Great Fifth Dalai Lama (ruled 1642-82) pacified much bigotry and sectarianism through diplomacy. Monastic doctrinal catechisms further fueled sectarian rivalry and crushed the previous creativity of the debate traditions. By the mid-1800’s, sectarian rivalry was the predominant culture in all areas of Tibet, with particular suppression of the Nyingma.
The Ri-me can trace its early roots to the great Nyingma treasure-discoverer Jigme Lingpa (1730-1798), master of the yogically-oriented Dzogchen ("great perfection") meditation lineage. Dzogchen emphasizes the innate, natural state of mind, an open, expansive experience of reality unfettered by discursive thought. Ri-me developed on these yogic foundations, emphasizing the openness and purity of realization, the centrality of meditation, and the importance of scholastic study in service of practice rather than the other way around. Jigme Lingpa stated, "To become attached to intellectual models of the experience or meditational states encountered in the course of trying to achieve it is to mistake the path for the goal, whereas the real aim is to turn the goal into the path.
It was the nineteenth century that nourished the full bloom of the Ri-me in Tibet. In east Tibet, a loose network of the most creative masters of meditation “concurrently exhibited an incredibly open attitude to all teachings and shared a concern for their preservation.” These masters included wandering yogis, prolific monastic scholars, and respected masters of meditation. With the publication of the Sheja-dzo or Treasury of Knowledge in 1864, the great master Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye launched the first comprehensive demonstration of the Ri-me approach. He encyclopedically outlined the inner unity of the Buddhist teachings, while preserving teachings and lineages in danger of extinction. Kongtrul wrote that Shakyamuni taught 84,000 different teachings, and since it is unknown which teaching will influence which being, “it is best to collect them all, so that no one will miss her or his unique opportunity.” He also collected into anthologies texts of all kinds--from philosophic, artistic, and liturgical—so that they could be preserved in their original form. For practice texts, he received the wang, lung, and tri and practiced each of them, so that their meditative essence could be passed on unsullied by time.
Kongtrul’s work laid the foundation for the effective transmission of the diverse schools of Tibetan Buddhism in a challenging environment like the twentieth century diaspora, for as Ringu Tulku explains, it became possible to receive “the teachings of various lineages and schools from a single teacher in a single place.” For example, Kongtrul’s Treasury of Instructions preserve the compendium of the most essential teachings of the eight practice lineages as a single lineage of transmission.
Features of the Ri-me Approach
Since Ri-me was not a school in the sense of the ancestral schools formulated in the fourteenth through the seventeenth centuries in Tibet, it did not constitute an organized monastic order with its own temples (gompa), or its own lineages. It was a collaboration of masters of several mainstream Tibetan Buddhist schools and lineages (Kagyu, Nyingma, and Sakya) who shared an orientation toward meditation, realization, and preservation of teachings and lineages of teaching. They held as central the interpretation of dharma texts without discrimination (ris su ma chad par); hence they were named Ri-me (ris med).
With the promulgation of the Ri-me approach by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye, four distinctive elements emerged that have relevance for a theological foundation for interreligious dialogue.
1. The Ri-me advocated that all traditions of meditation practice are to be appreciated, valued and preserved, regardless of the lineages or schools from which they have come. While many of the Ri-me proponents were from the Nyingma ("ancients") school, leaders of the movement derived from the various divisions of Kagyu ("command lineage"), Sakya (a hereditary royal lineage), and Jonangpa schools. Occasional Gelukpa teachers were also included. A contemporary Ri-me master commented in a talk in North America, "To adopt the Ri-me approach means to follow your own chosen path with dedication, while maintaining respect and tolerance for all other valid choices."
For preservation, Ri-me was intent upon saving a contemplative tradition seen to be in peril of being lost or overly codified in the atmosphere of sectarianism and scholasticism of nineteenth century Tibet. For Ri-me, it was important that all these teachings and practices be preserved so that the full resources of the dharma be available for future generations. As Buddhologist Geoffrey Samuel wrote, “All methods were to be gathered together and made available. Any one might contain the liberating potential appropriate to one or another student.” This is why great Ri-me masters such as Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye devoted their lives to the collecting, editing, and preserving the texts of Tibet's various practice lineages, and receiving the corresponding empowerments and oral instructions associated with those texts.
2. Ri-me's abiding interest was in meditation and contemplative practice as the ground of spiritual life. This meant that Ri-me focused on fostering communities of practice, encouraging extensive solitary meditation retreats, preserving the texts and oral traditions of authentic practice lineages, and respecting the uniqueness of each lineage. Ri-me masters refrained from syncretism, the mixing of all kinds of spiritual paths and techniques in the name of ecumenism. While it is not clear what exactly constituted "authenticity" or “validity” in a Tibetan setting, the concerns of the Ri-me masters were promulgating an unbroken lineage of oral transmission; preserving corresponding texts (both ritual and meditation) within the lineage, with accompanying oral instructions on the conduct of the practice; and supporting living teachers who can serve as the spiritual guide. Ri-me lamas are primarily tantrikas who experience visions, discover hidden treasure texts, and place emphasis upon intensive meditation practice in retreat. Their sainthood can sometimes take unorthodox forms, especially in settings of excessive institutionalization and scholasticism.
3. Meditation is not to be regarded with naive passivity; rather, intelligent investigation and inquiry are crucial supports to a mature meditation practice. In an atmosphere of sectarian rivalry, the Ri-me movement cultivated a new kind of philosophic view that refrained from obscure points of contention. Rather than drawing on recent Tibetan sectarian texts, the nonsectarian movement focused on the Indian traditions from which much of Tibetan scholasticism derived. Ri-me monastic colleges (shedras) focused on a small number of classical scriptures from Indian Buddhism, with simple commentaries in Tibetan translation. In addition, the hermeneutical aim was to understand the meaning (ngedon), rather than just the literal words of the texts (drangdon), for it was felt that the underlying meanings of the Buddha are not in contradiction. As Jamgon Kongtrul quoted from Net of Magical Manifestation of Manjushri:
The Buddha is without beginning or end; The original Buddha is without bias.
The emphasis of such study was comprehension that would "eliminate many controversies that arose through variant expositions of the same texts by different Tibetan exegetes." As a further move away from sectarian traps, Ri-me scholars refused to accept the labels of their opponents in debate.
Still, the Ri-me movement did not have a single philosophical standpoint. Many of the Ri-me masters embraced the Shentong perspective of Madhyamaka, holding that the luminous nature of mind was not merely empty, but full of the qualities of Buddhahood. This perspective is diametrically opposed to core teachings of the Gelukpa school, that hold Rangtong Madhyamaka, asserting that the highest teachings of Buddhism are the emptiness of inherent existence of all phenomena, including the nature of mind. However, key Ri-me founders like Ju Mipham, departed from the Ri-me majority in also holding the Rangtong to be paramount. In any case, the Ri-me movement generated “a renewal of the academic and intellectual tradition within the non-Gelukpa schools.”
4. The Ri-me movement was not merely an academic or elite spiritual movement, it also had a strongly popular side. Many of the Ri-me proponents were not from aristocratic Tibet, and they flourished outside of institutional monastic Buddhism, even though many Ri-me masters were fully ordained and taught within monasteries. Pioneers like Dza Patrul Rinpoche composed works full of earthy references to nomadic and lay life, popularizing practices that could be done outside of the monastery, like chod (severance) practice from Machik Lapdron, phowa mind transference at death, and the bodhisattva practices of Shantideva and Atisa. Ri-me also relied on folk material from the Gesar of Ling epic and Shambhala teachings so beloved in Tibet, as well as on the yogic traditions of terma, visionary and prophetic teachings, and shamanic practices. The Ri-me view was “not to reject one path (e.g., monasticism) in favor of another (such as that of the lay yogin) but to maintain all paths as possible options that might be suitable for particular students.” The Ri-me embraced all of these streams of practice.
As another aspect of shamanic and prophetic teachings, Ri-me teachers held the degeneration of spiritual motivation to stem from institutionalization of the teachings, lack of deep study, and the use of dharma for merely worldly gain. This is known popularly in Tibetan Buddhism as the “dark age” (snyigs ma'i dus), a time foretold by the Buddha as a time in which obstacles to practice and realization are monumental, requiring extraordinary means to counter it. Jamgon Kongtrul wrote,
These days even famous lamas and geshes have a very meager vision or pure perception of the entirety (phyogs med) of the sage’s doctrine other than just for that of their own traditions and a few sources. Most people, high or low, have done few studies and have little familiarity with the dharma. In particular, in these later times there are indeed many who, while they themselves do not live forthrightly and lack a religious outlook, yet with the arrogance of power proclaim which dharma traditions are good and which bad, which lineages are pure and which impure. To say nothing of other tradition, they even shun their own traditions with unfounded fears, like a blind yak that startles himself.
For Jamgon Kongtrul, to exhibit such bias was “rejecting the dharma” itself, an act which he considered “grievous.” Ri-me developed under the prevailing Tibetan view that current times are the “dark age” in which the degeneration of truly spiritual motivation gives rise to corruption of the genuine dharma. This view provided the impetus for preservation of authentic lineages so in peril in this dangerous time.
The Dalai Lama in Dialogue: A Western Ri-me?
The impact of the Ri-me on Tibetan Buddhism was powerful even in the nineteenth century, but it is in diaspora that the full impact of the Ri-me has been felt. Certainly, sectarianism has continued among Tibetans in the west. Some lamas have first replicated the forms familiar to them in Tibet and India, including the sectarianism; the habit of hegemony was their birthright in more traditional settings. The norm has been for these Tibetan teachers to establish meditation centers, translation committees, retreat centers, monastic study programs such as shedras, and curricula of systematic study and practice. As Tibetan teachers of diverse lineages have been thrown together as refugees, however, others have found that cooperation, tolerance, and mutual respect have served them more fruitfully than debate and rivalry. Many teachers have found Ri-me a helpful reference point for relating with diverse religions and cultural forces at work, especially in educational and dialogue activities. This has been especially true of the current Dalai Lama.
The remarkable Fourteenth Dalai Lama was strongly influenced by Ri-me teachers in his later training in India. Though his initial tutors were exclusively Gelukpa in orientation, Kagyu lama Khunu Lama Tenzin Gyaltsen, and Nyingma masters H. H. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and the third Dodrupchen, Tenpe Nyima, all served as important teachers for His Holiness. He has practiced Mahamudra and Dzogchen, and gives empowerments from many of the major lineages. Striking evidence that he has embraced a Ri-me approach is found in his denunciation of the ancestral Gelukpa protector practice of Dorje Shugden, rejected because of its aggressive brand of sectarianism toward Nyingma practitioners. His Holiness has written a supplication for the non-sectarian approach of Tibetan Buddhism.
In short, may all the teachings of the Buddha in the Land of Snows
Flourish long into the future— the ten great pillars of the study lineage,
And the chariots of the practice lineage, such as Shijé (‘Pacifying’) and the rest,
All of them rich with their essential instructions combining su¥tra and mantra.
May the lives of the masters who uphold these teachings be secure and harmonious! May the sangha preserve these teachings through their study, meditation and activity! May the world be filled with faithful individuals intent on following these teachings! And long may the non-sectarian teachings of the Buddha continue to flourish!
His Holiness’ leadership in overcoming sectarianism and promoting interreligious understanding has been powerful both within Tibetan Buddhism and globally. As Ringu Tulku wrote:
At this time we Tibetans have little good fortune and little power. The only area in which we are fortunate is that the fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tendzin Gyatso, is still alive. The Dalai Lama is a proponent of nonsectarianism, and his views accord with those of Jamgon Kongtrul.
Early in his dialogue activities, His Holiness was tentative, even a bit stiff in his interreligious presentations. At the very first Buddhist-Christian meditation dialogue at Naropa in 1981, he spoke traditionally about Buddhist meditation, without much evidence of a Ri-me flavor of engagement with other lineages and traditions. As the 1980’s progressed and with the assimilation of late-20th century values and ethics, His Holiness’ visionary leadership, peacemaking, and dialogue activities earned him the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1989. In 1990, he met in Dharamsala with a delegation of Jewish teachers for an extensive interfaith dialogue. In his subsequent dialogues at the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1993, the Monastic Interreligious Dialogue (MID) in the 1990’s, and his more recent dialogues with Muslims, his stance has manifested more Ri-me sensibilities. He has since visited Israel three times and met in 2006 with the Chief Rabbi of Israel. He had frequent dialogues with Pope John Paul, and has met privately with Pope Benedict XVI. He has also met the late Archbishop of Canterbury and the late President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), as well as senior Eastern Orthodox Church, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh spiritual leaders and officials. There is probably no more prolific and accomplished dialogue partner on the interreligious scene today.
Dialogue and Discernment: A Ri-me View
Working from the foundation of the Ri-me movement in Tibet and extrapolating what appears to be the application of Ri-me in a western environment, let us delineate a theological structure for the Dalai Lama’s engagement in interreligious dialogue. The word theology has been assumed consciously in the context of current thinking on the subject, in which theology refers rhetorically to formal discourse concerning meaning within Buddhism with relation to other religions, and functionally to engagement with other religious traditions about fundamental questions that pertain to all of them. This investigation will pursue four fundamental questions.
1. For contemporary Tibetan Buddhists in diaspora, why would one dialogue? This is probably best addressed by the fourth characteristic of Ri-me described above, the extraordinary skillful means necessary in a period characterized by the “dark age.” From a Ri-me perspective, we live in a time in which spiritual vocation is under threat from the forces of materialism that have placed the needs of the few above the needs of the many. As Tibetans have lost control of their own homeland, the matter has become more pressing. As the social, political, and spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, His Holiness now speaks of the urgency for dialogue and interreligious understanding, drawing on the creative potential of the world’s religions to bring peace and harmony everywhere. He is not confident that such leadership can come from social and political forces. Because we all share our lives on the planet, it is very important to live in harmony and peace—in fact, it is a necessity. At the 1996 Gethsemani dialogues, His Holiness lamented how unfortunate it is that there are so many divisions, even conflict and bloodshed in the name of religion. But different religious traditions “have a great potential to help humanity by promoting human happiness and satisfaction.”
Still, His Holiness asks the world’s religions to challenge each other a bit in “constructive competition” in order to deepen the authenticity of personal practice. Truly applying one’s spiritual teachings to daily life could have a transformative effect on the world, overcoming apathy and hypocrisy. As he challenges his colleagues, “the Buddhists should implement what we believe in daily life; and our Christian brothers and sisters should also implement their teachings in daily life….Since each side would like to be better practitioners, there is no harm in such competition—it is really constructive.” The point of such competition is a truly Ri-me one: deepening authentic spirituality of the living contemplative traditions of the world, especially in the daily life of the practitioner. "We need to experience more deeply the meanings and spiritual values of our own religious tradition--we need to know these teachings not only on an intellectual level but also through our own deeper experience. We must practice our own religion sincerely; it must become part of our lives."
2. What theological stance is taken with regard to other religious traditions? The Ri-me approach is always inclusive, assuming that the multiplicity of teachings in Tibet are an expression of the skillful means of the Buddha in providing different paths and practices for students of different temperaments and propensities. On a more global stage, Ri-me says that there is no place in dialogue for advancing the superiority of one’s own tradition. His Holiness commented, just as the Buddha Shakyamuni deliberately taught different philosophies for people of different abilities, there is no point in “determining that one interpretation of reality is true, and that since another is false you therefore should follow this first interpretation. You cannot say that. Even Buddha could not say that.” When asked questions about God in Buddhist-Christian dialogue, His Holiness has demurred, saying that that the creator is beyond our concepts anyway and that there is not much benefit in such debates. He goes on to say that it is more important to talk about meditation practice and cultivation of the mind and heart.
Yet, His Holiness has at times acknowledged the philosophical differences that his tradition has with, for example, Christianity. He speaks of his own belief that there can be no “first cause and hence no creator, nor can there be such a thing as a permanent, primordially pure being.” Still, asserting this is in no way a denigration of a Christian’s belief that God is the creator and that “his will is beneficial and soothing, and so for that person such a doctrine is worthwhile.” It is important that the Buddhist not denigrate the creator when in dialogue with Christians. When Brother Wayne Teasdale presses the point, saying that Buddhists need to see that “God does exist, that God is not merely a concept, or the result of a reasoning process, but is essentially experiential,” His Holiness responds with respect. “Although I do not personally accept the notion of a creator, because we Buddhists follow the view of dependent arising, or the interdependence of all beings, I do feel that the experience of God is valid and true. There is definitely something to this theistic mysticism, and I strongly respect it.” There is no conflict between respect for other traditions and the commitment to one tradition as best for oneself. His Holiness remarks, “However on an individual basis we can say that a particular religion is good for us. For example the Buddhist way is best for me. There is no doubt! But this does not mean that Buddhism is best for everyone.”
The reason why holding an exclusivist view does not fit the Ri-me approach is that the spiritual founders of the world’s great traditions skillfully understood the diversity of needs of the many peoples of the world. Just as there are many types of peoples in the world with different sensibilities and propensities, just so there are practices and teachings that are suitable for those different types of people. A traditional analogy is that of medicine: just as there are many illnesses and sicknesses that afflict various beings, so the variety of the world’s religions provides many ways to “cure the pains and unhappiness of the human mind. Here too, it is not a question of which religion is superior as such. The question is, which will better cure a particular person.” Another analogy used by His Holiness is that of food: “one religion, like a single type of food, cannot hope to satisfy all. Depending on their different mental dispositions, some people benefit from one teaching, others from another.”
From this perspective, it is not desirable to create one universal religion in the name of harmony, as some dialogue leaders advocate. The specificity and richness of the world’s diverse traditions are precious, and must be preserved. For that matter, harmony is not achieved through oneness, but through respect of difference. His Holiness says, “If we try to unify the faiths of the world into one religion, we will also lose many of the qualities and richnesses of each particular tradition. Therefore, I feel it is better, in spite of the many quarrels in the name of religion, to maintain a variety of religious traditions.” This is why Ri-me has always emphasized education about the specific traditions we are striving to preserve. It is not enough to meditate; it is important also to understand the view of each tradition, as well as the lineages, practices, and ethics of each tradition.
Rejecting, denigrating, or despising spiritual teachings from genuine religious traditions has serious consequences for the Buddhist. The Vajrayana Buddhist vows entail acknowledging deluded attitudes that can damage the integrity of the very vows themselves. One of the root downfalls to be eschewed is the transgression of the Buddha’s teachings, even ones from different schools or levels of vow, saying that they do not matter or that they are not true. Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye wrote, “to disrespect or reject the teachings [of the Buddha], even when due to lack of understanding of them, qualifies as a downfall.” This means that the Vajrayana practitioner is not to reject the teachings of what is known as the Hinayana or the teachings of the “hearers” or “solitary realizers” for these teachings form the foundation of the Buddhist path. She or he is also cautioned to respect the teachings of the noble Mahayana, which “forms the very heart of the definitive meaning” of the Vajrayana tradition.
Jamgon Kongtrul goes on to say that denigration of other spiritual traditions “means to disparage [one’s own or] other religions out of desire for personal gain.” What other motivation would there be for denigrating another tradition? Bias in religious matters goes against the core of Vajrayana vows to maintain sacred outlook (daknang) in all matters, assuming the intrinsic goodness of all traditions one may encounter. To depart from this view in order to aggrandize one’s own tradition and practice can come only from ego-clinging. However, in its parochialism, Kongtrul’s commentary rates the denigration of non-Buddhist religions as a minimal offense, and adds that showing disrespect toward non-Buddhist traditions “with the intention of spiritually inspiring their adherents [to follow the Buddhist path], one not only does not incur this downfall, but actually acquires merit[!]” In diaspora, there are probably Tibetan lamas and disciples who actually hold this view as true, but for the contemporary Ri-me practitioner, a view like this would not be compatible with an unbiased approach. His Holiness the Dalai Lama emphasizes the appreciation of “all the religions in the world, particularly the major world traditions.”
3. What is the particular theological framework for discerning what is valuable and true in another religion? First, the Ri-me holds that preservation of meditation and spiritual practices, teachings, and lineages is of the highest priority of the movement, especially for authentic practice traditions. However, Ri-me was fashioned in an environment of some insularity, in which the diversity of religions was limited, and which assumed homogeneity of peoples and spiritual aspirations. In Tibet, an abiding concern with “authenticity of lineages” was based on an assumption of cultural cohesion, and in a diverse and dispersed western environment outside of this cohesion, it may be difficult to define “authenticity.”
Rather than concern for the authenticity of spiritual lineages, the Dalai Lama focuses on the results of contemplative practice. For him, the litmus test is the quality of heart. The measure of a faith is its ability “to produce fine warmhearted human beings,” he writes. His Holiness has spoken frequently of meeting a Christian hermit at a Benedictine monastery in Montserrat, Spain. When asked about his practice, the monk responded, “love, love, love.” His Holiness commented, “And he was not meditating on just the word. When I looked into his eyes, I saw evidence of profound spirituality and love—as I had during my meetings with Thomas Merton.” Later, His Holiness spoke of this hermit as a modern Milarepa, and credited meetings like this with his growing respect for Christianity.
In the Bodhgaya Interviews, he states that religious traditions share values of “human improvement, love, respect for others sharing other people’s suffering.” All of the major world religions also emphasize that their followers “must be honest and gentle, in other words, that a truly religious person must always strive to be a better human being.” This emphasis on human caring, concern, and decency is what deems a religious tradition “authentic” and “valuable” from the point of view of His Holiness.
4. What are the most important dialogue subjects? Contemporary Ri-me continues its interest in meditation and contemplative practice as the ground of spiritual life, fostering communities of practice, preserving and respecting the uniqueness of authentic practice lineages. For the Ri-me practitioner, the most beneficial content to dialogue is the sharing of wisdom of the actual practice traditions. When His Holiness was a presenter at that very first Naropa University dialogue conference, he spoke in detail about calm abiding (shamatha, shi-ne) and clear-seeing (vipashyana, lhakthong) meditation, as he has done at countless dialogues since. At the Gethsemani encounter, His Holiness taught meditation “as a way to enrich one another,” providing suggestions for how Christians could adapt the practice for their own theological concerns. He especially emphasized analytic meditation (comparable to what is called “meditation” in Christian circles), taking a word or idea as the object upon which to focus the mind. In each of these settings, His Holiness took great pains to teach the practice precisely, with a wealth of information about how to refine both analytic and formless meditations. These are clear Ri-me sensibilities about preserving the full authenticity of the practice traditions.
The reason that meditation is so prized by the Ri-me dialogue partner is the conviction that the undeveloped mind is the source of all suffering and the trained mind is the source of all happiness. Our mental outlook is the “key factor for the future—the future of humanity, the future of the world, and the future of the environment. Many things depend on our mental attitude, both in the personal and public spheres. Whether we are happy in our individual or family life is, in a large part, up to us. Of course, material conditions are an important factor for happiness and a good life, but one’s mental attitude is of equal or greater importance.” The purpose of the world’s religions is not so much to construct huge worldly temples, but “to create temples of goodness and compassion inside, in our hearts” through mental cultivation. From this perspective, sharing mind-cultivation is viewed in the Ri-me as the most compassionate possible gift for the benefit of the many.
For the Ri-me, meditation and contemplation practice have the potential to heal many of the world’s ills, especially prejudice and disharmony. These practices calm and clarify the mind, providing spiritual nourishment and cultivating the heart of compassion that is so pivotal in interreligious tolerance and understanding. His Holiness has often taught meditation to practitioners of other religions, saying that spiritual depth will bring us to the point where we might “feel totally convinced of the preciousness of and need for compassion and tolerance” and “a sense of being touched, a sense of being transformed from within.” His Holiness says there is no need to be a Buddhist to engage in these practices. Once we have a transformative experience, it must be cultivated and stabilized. For Tibetan Buddhism, this is done through contemplation practice that clearly sees the benefits of compassion and tolerance and consciously deepens them through practice.
The Ri-me dialogue partner hesitates to engage in philosophical debate or polemics. Philosophical perspectives are less important than religions’ desires “to help and benefit others,” and so it is important in dialogue to view philosophy as a support to this more important purpose. “If we go into the differences in philosophy and argue with and criticize each other, it is useless. There will be endless argument; the result will mainly be that we irritate each other—accomplishing nothing. Better to look at the purpose of the philosophies and to see what is shared—an emphasis on love, compassion and respect for a higher force.” Placing philosophy in service of compassion, rather than the reverse, is a classic Ri-me stance in which scholarship serves meditative practice.
5. What are the best ways to extend and deepen interreligious understanding? In 1996, I asked His Holiness in a private interview how to counter the sectarianism and misunderstanding between religious traditions, and he gave an answer similar to ones he has given elsewhere: we must have plenty of contact with practitioners of other traditions. From this perspective of Ri-me, interreligious dialogue becomes an ongoing extension of one’s contemplative practice. His Holiness suggests five ways to initiate such contact. First, organize conversations between scholars “to clarify the differences and similarities between their traditions.” He also suggests four additional types of contact between religions: gatherings of practitioners to discuss their practice; interreligious pilgrimage; social engagement projects sponsored by different religious traditions; and community forums in which religious leaders appear publicly for simple conversation. (For the latter, His Holiness feels that it is beneficial for people just to see leaders together, no matter what was actually said between them.)
Throughout his travels and dialogues, His Holiness has fostered the strength of practice communities he has encountered all over the world. At a Benedictine seminar in London, His Holiness recommends the very best way to overcome conflicts in the name of religion is “close contact and an exchange among those of various beliefs, not only on an intellectual level, but in deeper spiritual experiences. This is a powerful method to develop mutual understanding and respect.” Ultimately, however, appreciation for other contemplative traditions comes from the depth and integrity of one’s own meditation practice. His Holiness says, “I believe the best way to counter that force [of sectarianism is to experience the value of one’s own path through a meditative life, which will enable one to see the value and preciousness of other traditions.” This Ri-me theme has prevailed for more than a century.
Dialogue Tensions with Pope John Paul II
It has not always been easy for His Holiness in dialogue, as can be seen in the public criticisms that came from His Holiness John Paul II in his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. In his scathing chapter on Buddhism, John Paul refers to the Dalai Lama’s tradition of “negative soteriology,” in which the central conviction is that “the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man.” The heart of the Pope’s criticism is that Buddhism is “indifferent to the world,” which is diametrically opposed to Catholic theology. In addition, he takes issue with the Dalai Lama’s bringing Buddhism “to people of the Christian West, stirring up interest both in Buddhist spirituality and in its methods of praying.” The implication is that the Dalai Lama is proselytizing, in spite of his frequent statements that it is important for peoples of the West to practice the traditions of their own heritage, with few exceptions.
Buddhists throughout the world were deeply offended by Pope John Paul’s criticism of their tradition. When he visited Sri Lanka in 1995, protests broke out, eliciting from Catholic bishops a public apology, insisting that the Pope had not meant to hurt the feelings of Buddhists. In Thailand and Taiwan, His Holiness John Paul was denounced for his misinformed attacks on Buddhist traditions. The normally mild Vietnamese teacher Thich Nhat Hanh wrote that the book displayed an attitude that “excludes dialogue and fosters religious intolerance and discrimination. It does not help.” The Tibetan Nyingma teacher Ven. Thinley Norbu, Rinpoche, wrote a biting refutation of Crossing the Threshold, point by painstaking point, most definitely not a Ri-me tome.
Other observers note the historic shift in rhetoric from Pope John Paul during the early 1990’s. Previously, in resonance with the famous encyclical Nostra Aetate, John Paul depicted Buddhism in generally positive, though cautious, light. The shift to a more oppositional stance was most likely a response to the eagerness with which many western people, including many Catholic monastics, have embraced Buddhist meditation practice. As Buddhist theologian, Jose Ignacio Cabezon, notes: “The distorted picture of Buddhism in John Paul’s more recent writings arises from what is an increasing fear of Buddhism as a competitor in the spiritual, especially the contemplative, sphere….[T]he Pope is declaring Buddhism itself to be the threat, and now a threat not to Asia but to the Christian West.” In a pluralistic age like the present, however, we can no longer speak of the Christian West.
Ri-me dialogue partners have certainly been criticized before, given the long history of sectarian rivalry in Tibetan Buddhism, and current tensions are no exception. H. H. the Dalai Lama downplays the controversy, saying that he and Pope John Paul had a “very good” personal relationship. Both of them had experienced the tyranny of Communist regimes, and share concern for the value of spirituality in the contemporary world. When asked in an interview why Pope John Paul would be so negative toward him and Buddhism, the Dalai Lama observed that Pope John Paul did not have a very deep understanding of Buddhism, and that his remarks were both “sad and amusing. They are sad because his approach moves in the direction of polemics, and amusing because so superficial.” This is one reason why, in the Ri-me approach, it is so important to be educated in the traditions with which one is in dialogue, and to show them respect even when beliefs and practices are not one’s own.
On another occasion the Dalai Lama remarked that the criticism was, in part, because of Buddhist monks’ lack of social action. “Buddhists are inclined to withdraw from the world….We have to learn from our Christian brothers and sisters. We should have more socially engaged activities." These perspectives mirror his view that while Buddhists have powerful practices for cultivating compassion, Tibetan Buddhists in general and monastics in particular are not socially engaged enough.
Conclusion: Ri-me as Pluralism
The Ri-me perspective was forged in Tibet late in its history, after centuries of sectarian rivalry added to a toxic mixture of religion and politics. It represented in nineteenth century Tibet a kind of “fresh start” that returned to the roots of Buddhist teachings in India and looked for the commonalities rather than the differences. It sought preservation of lineages of spirituality and meditation practice, without prejudice concerning doctrinal differences. Still, Ri-me did not seek syncretism or a mere relativism. It honored the differences of lineages, practices, and textual heritages of each of the traditions it encountered.
In diaspora, Ri-me has grown in some quarters, expanding its scope and its appetite for dialogue with non-Buddhists. His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the leading proponent for contemporary Ri-me, as can be seen in his dialogue activities throughout the world. In it new form, the primary features of the nineteenth century Tibetan manifestation of Ri-me remain: its respect and appreciation for diverse traditions from the world’s religions, and desire to preserve their heritages; its abiding interest in contemplative practice as the foundation of spiritual life; its emphasis on study of texts, philosophies, and traditions as a way to foster and support those contemplative practices, rather than the reverse; and an appreciation of the popular dimensions of spirituality, rather than merely scholastic ones.
In addition, contemporary Ri-me in the dialogue activities of His Holiness the Dalai Lama can be seen to have added additional elements that enrich its view and application. His Holiness seems to have altered the criteria for “authentic” spiritual traditions based on their capacity to promote harmony and peace for both individuals and the world, and to produce warm-hearted human beings. He has developed skill in dialoging with theistic, Abrahamic traditions that have so historically advocated their own traditions as the ultimate, and has done so with appreciation and respect and, in many cases, a strong sense of friendship. He has done so without promoting that religions are essentially the same, a view that has often clouded contemporary dialogue endeavors. He has brought to the forefront a more human, less polemical approach to dialogue that has enriched contacts between religious traditions.
When I read Diana Eck’s seminal description of pluralism, I see many elements of the contemporary Ri-me approach. She says that pluralism is the recognition that truth is not exclusively (or inclusively) the property of any one religious tradition, and that the myriad understandings of truth or the »»ultimate in religious traditions provide an opportunity for celebration and dialogue rather than providing obstacles to be overcome. She also speaks of the compatibility between interreligious dialogue and personal religious commitment that is also central to Ri-me’s basic approach. The give-and-take of dialogue does not produce philosophic agreement. “We do not enter into dialogue to produce an agreement, but to produce real relationship, even friendship, which is premised upon mutual understanding, not upon agreement.” Ri-me’s appreciation of the diversity of religions and commitment to preservation of the practices, texts, and communities of many spiritual traditions in the face of modernity may provide a ground for a truly pluralistic understanding.
Barron, Richard, tr. The Autobiography of Jamgon Kongtrul: A Gem of Many Colors. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2003.
Bauemer, Bettina. “A Model for Mutual Enrichment.” In Monastic Interfaith Dialogue Journal (Number 78, 2007).
Bodo, Murray, O.F.M. “The Dalai Lama Visits Gethsemani.” In St. Anthony Messenger (January 1997).
Cabezon, Jose. “Buddhist Theology in the Academy.” In Roger Jackson and John Makransky, ed., Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars. Surrey, UK: Curzon Press, 2000.
Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, ed. Interfaith Theology: A Reader. Oxford: One World, 2001.
Dalai Lama. Freedom In Exile: The Autobiography of the Dalai Lama. New York: Harper Perennial, 1991.
Dalai Lama. The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1996.
Dreyfus, George. “The Shuk-den Affair: Origins of a Controversy.” Revised version of an article originally published in Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (21, no. 2 [1998]: 227-270). Published by the Office of Tibet, http://www.tibet.com/dholgyal/shugden-origins.html
Eck, Diana. Encountering God: A Spiritual Journey from Bozeman to Benares. Boston: Beacon Press, 1993.
Gioia, Francesco, ed. Interreligious Dialogue: The Official Teaching of the Catholic Church (1963-1995). Boston: Pauline Books, 1997.
Griffiths, Paul J., ed. Christianity Through Non-Christian Eyes. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.
Hanh, Thich Nhat. Living Buddha, Living Christ. New York: Riverhead, 1995.
Kiblinger, Kristin Beise. Buddhist Inclusivism: Attitudes Toward Religious Others. Hants, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing, 2005.
Lopez, Donald S., Jr. Prisoners of Shangri-la: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
Mitchell, Donald W. and James Wiseman, O.S.B., eds. The Gethsemani Encounter: A Dialogue on the Spiritual Life by Buddhist and Christian Monastics. New York: Continuum, 1997.
Norbu, Thinley. Welcoming Flowers: Across the Cleansed Threshold of Hope. Miramar, FL: Jewel Publishers, 1997.
Petit, John, Jr., tr. Mipham’s Beacon of Certainty. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 1999.
Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1994.
Powers, John. Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2007.
Ray, Reginald. Indestructible Truth. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2001.
Ringu Tulku. The Ri-me Philosophy of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2006.
Samuel, Geoffrey. Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Society. Washington: The Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.
Sherwin, Byron L., and Harold Kasimow, eds. Pope John Paul II and Christian-Buddhist Dialogue. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1999.
Simmer-Brown, Judith. “Commitment and Openness.” In Heart of Learning: Spirituality in Education. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam, 1999.
Simmer-Brown, Judith. “Heart to Heart: Interreligious Dialogue.” In Fabrice Midal, ed., Recalling Cho¨gyam Trungpa. Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2005.
Simmer-Brown, Judith. “Preface to the Second Edition.” In Susan Szpakowski, ed., Speaking of Silence: Christians and Buddhists in Dialogue. Halifax, N.S.: Vajradhatu Publications, 2005.
Smith, E. Gene. " 'Jam mgon Kong sprul and the Nonsectarian Movement." In Among Tibetan Texts, edited by E. Gene Smith. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2001.
Sperling, Elliot. “Orientalism and Aspects of Violence.” In Imagining Tibet: Perceptions, Projections, and Fantasies, edited by Thierry Dodin and Heinz Rather. Somerville, MA: Wisdom Publications, 2001.
Szulc, Tad. Pope John Paul II: The Biography. New York: Scribner, 1995.
Taye, Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro. Treasury of Knowledge, Book Five: Buddhist Ethics. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 1998.
Taye, Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro. Treasury of Knowledge, Book Eight, Part Four: Treasury of Esoteric Instructions. Translated by Sarah Harding. Ithaca: Snow Lion, 2008.
