Plus

Plus

A call to tear away from self
Some thoughts on religious belief
By E. Franklyn G. Amerasinghe
I am one of many persons who learnt that religion is good for us and is essential to save ourselves. The reality, nevertheless, is that violence is often perpetrated by people who have strong religious beliefs, and sometimes surprisingly, even in the name of religion. One conflict, which has always mystified me is the strange attitude of Christians to the issue between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, although one may say that the issue is not about religion but about the right to independence from Britain. Still, it was a case of Christians, who have been exhorted that they should not kill, killing those who should have similar beliefs.

Currently we have in South Asia, including Sri Lanka, serious concerns over what are called "unethical conversions". I would not wish to get drawn into an argument on this subject and my primary motive in penning some thoughts based on what others more learned than I have said on the subject of religious belief, is to generate some thought on whether we should step back and view our actions and our prejudices against the values which we should have, not merely as adherents of various religions but as human beings whose only claim to being better than other animals is to rationalize and take reasoned decisions.

The question which is being debated with great passion is whether it is immoral to coerce, dupe, entice or use some form of undue influence to convert people from one religion to another. I will not deal with the facts being spoken of in Sir Lanka, and would like to say that I believe the saying that "truth" is more often a matter of perception. Usually, when we enlarge our area of knowledge and free ourselves of in- built prejudices, we find that we would like to change our belief and adopt a different "truth". I am referring here to the so- called truth in relation to material things and facts communicated by humans, where people are likely to see things from different perspectives, and not what religious leaders call the "truth" which is immutable, and associated with God or enlightenment, depending on what religious path you take.

Social norm
If conviction is a must for a person to belong to a religion, many of us would be disqualified as we are faint hearted, or are followers more through fear of what the consequences of leaving the well trodden path and flirting with the unknown may bring. I know many Christians who also have devotion to Hindu Gods; Hindus who seek the blessings of Christian Saints etc. Many of us are born into families, which already follow a particular religion, and we are sent to schools, which would teach us only about the religion into which we were born. We mechanically continue in that religion until death, following all the rituals and traditions because that is the social norm.

Let me quote the case of one of those rare people who discarded the norm and boldly changed his religion. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike wrote an article in the 1930's entitled "Why I became a Buddhist" (reminiscent of Russell's essay "Why I am not a Christian") in which he says that having been baptized as a Christian by his parents and having undergone the traditional training as a Christian, he found that God had no meaning for him, although he felt love for Christ as a man.

He says, "thus while disbelieving what is the foundation of theistic religion, the existence of God, I believed in a vital ingredient of all religions, the fact of continuance". He thus became a Buddhist by choice and conscious decision. In fact, I find that several of my relatives and friends, some professionals at that, have left the Catholic Church and have embraced with great zeal a new form of Christianity. They claim that their new faith encourages stronger feelings of brotherhood and Christian love. My own grandfather was a Buddhist who as an adult embraced Christianity and became so ardent a Catholic, he was knighted by the Church.

However, this did not interfere with his relatives, with his brothers and sisters who remained ardent Buddhists. In fact, he had a brother who was a Buddhist priest and another who was an active member of the YMBA. Religious tolerance is not a dream but is a possibility if there is a common set of values based on the goal each one of us should be dedicated to, namely to, seek the Truth whether in the form of God or our own Enlightenment.

Truth is God
I think there is no debate regarding the right to be converted so long as the person concerned is able to make a rational choice in accordance with his human rights.

Personally I feel reluctant to talk about rights, perhaps thanks to my background. Having been a lawyer and seeing in my work as an industrial relations advisor the damage done by people demanding their rights, I quickly concluded that what was needed was for people to accept their responsibility and obligation and the challenge was to get people to recognize that a rights orientation only led to debate and conflict which was destructive.

In fact this is my point of disagreement with the gurus who preach about interest- based approaches to problem solving instead of looking closer home at the values which Buddhism and other Eastern religions give us, namely to act with compassion and understanding - a balancing of interests because that is the way in which we can find a spiritual meaning to our lives.

Radhakrishnan says he asked Gandhiji to state his view on religion which he did in the following way: "I often describe my religion as Religious Truth. Of late, instead of saying God is Truth, I have been saying Truth is God, in order more fully to define my religion. Nothing so completely describes my God, as Truth. Denial of God we have known. Denial of Truth we have not known". Gandhi preferred to describe himself as a seeker of Truth.

In January 1928 Gandhi stated to the Federation of International Fellowships: "After long study and experience I have come to these conclusions, that religions are true; religions have some error in them; all religions are almost as dear to me as my own Hinduism. My veneration for other faiths is the same as for my own faith. Our prayers for others ought never to be - God give them the light thou has given me - but give them all the light and truth they need for their highest development. My faith offers me all that is necessary for my inner development, for it teaches me to pray. But I also pray that every one else may develop to the fullness of his being in his own religion, that the Christian may become a better Christian and the Mohammedan a better Mohammedan".

The Dalai Lama
One of my favourite sages is His Holiness the Dalai Lama who in an interview quoted in "Beyond Dogma" says: "I generally say that the essence of Buddhism, from the point of view of personal conduct, is non-violence: from a philosophical point of view it is the interdependence of all phenomena. As an illustration of non-violence I would say that the ideal conduct is to do good for others. If that turns out to be difficult, then at least we must avoid causing harm". Elsewhere His Holiness says: "Hatred and malice are the greatest dangers to peace and happiness. In order to prevent hatred and anger from taking root in ourselves, we must first of all avoid discontent, for it is the root of hatred and malice".

Speaking of religious difference he says: "There are two major categories among the great world religions. Some conceive of a creator, while others place more emphasis on the transformation of the mind. If we can transform and master our mind that is what we call Nirvana. If on the other hand, we are incapable of controlling it, we are slaves to our mind, and this is Samsara." He goes on to say: "I think all beings have different aspirations, and that the diversity of religions is therefore perfectly good and desirable".

All of us have a good grounding in a value system which teaches us what is right and what is wrong; what constitutes fairplay and what is unfair; what is compassion and what is vicious; what helps us to achieve our salvation or what would be destructive to our future. However, we seem to lead fragmented lives resulting in our behaving one way towards those we care about, another towards those we do not know.

The way we behave at home differs from the way we behave at work or the way we behave with strangers. We are conditioned by our backgrounds and education so as to label people and groups in advance so that we do not weigh our decisions against the great values which are pushed to the back of our minds. Scientists tell us that there are subconscious thoughts which trigger behaviour without rational thought.

Soul searching
The point is that all our values are useless; all the inspiring words of our religious leaders are of no avail, unless we can curb this tendency to compartmentalize our responses to different people on the basis of a fragmented existence. We need to de-layer our thoughts, feelings and motives. We need to do some soul searching and attempt to achieve integrity within our own selves to achieve empathy and understanding for others. The fragmentation within us causes internal conflict, which then prevents us from demonstrating our values in our dealings with others, inevitably leading to clashes.

I would like to conclude by considering what Krishnamurthy says about religion and what he thinks it has led to. He says: "Man has always asked the question: what is it all about? Has life any meaning at all? He sees the confusion of life, the brutalities, the revolts, the wars, the endless divisions of religion, ideology and nationality, and with a sense of deep abiding frustration he asks, what is one to do, what is this thing called living, is there anything beyond it? And not finding the nameless thing of a thousand names which he has always sought, he has cultivated faith - faith in a saviour or an ideal - and faith invariably breeds violence". This perhaps is a human frailty which brings to naught the unquestionable value and timeless lessons of the religious leaders.

Perhaps part of the problem for Krishnamurthi was what was pinpointed by Radhakrishnan when he said, "we make much of the accessories of religion, not of religion itself, not of the temple of God in the human spirit, but of the props and buttresses which we have built round the temple for fear that it should fall." SWRD Bandaranaike warned about something similar when he said in a Vesak Day message: "In the first place, when a religion begins to operate through an established church, the true spirit of the religion tends to be obscured in the glittering vestments of ritual, observance and dogma".

Therefore, the Dalai Lama says, that there is an important distinction between religion and spirituality. Religion should be co-extensive with spirituality but it is not necessarily so. Religion is, as the Dalai Lama says, tied up with "teachings, ritual, prayer and such like. Spirituality is concerned with qualities of the human spirit which comprise love and compassion, patience and tolerance, forgiveness, contentment, a sense of responsibility, a sense of harmony, which brings happiness to self and others.

I think I cannot conclude more appropriately than to quote the Dalai Lama who says: "My call for a spiritual revolution is thus not a call for a religious revolution. Nor is it a reference to a way of life that is somewhat otherworldly, still less to something magical or mysterious. Rather it is a call for a radical reorientation away from our habitual preoccupation with self. It is a call to turn towards the wider community of beings with whom we are connected, and for conduct which recognized others' interests alongside our own".

Back to Plus