The Buddha in Hinduism and Hindu gods in Buddhism

In a previous post, I wrote about how lawmakers in Gujarat have defined Buddhism into a sect of Hinduism. This is not an unusual view among Hindus, many of whom see the Buddha as a Hindu reformer rather than as the founder of a distinct creed. The religions and philosophies indigenous to India have traditionally been classified into two categories: those that accept the authority of the Vedas (called âstik [आस्तिक]), and those that reject it (called nâstik [नास्तिक]). According to this scheme, Buddhism is a nâstik — but nevertheless Hindu — philosophy.

Naturally, many Buddhists disagree with the classification of Buddhism as a sect of Hinduism and consider Buddhism to be a separate religion. A part of the problem stems from the rather ambiguous definition of the word "Hindu". The religious beliefs and practices that were prevalent in India in the Buddha's time are not quite the same as those of Hindus today. There are certainly many continuities, but Hinduism has also been shaped since the Buddha's time by interactions with, and responses to challenges posed by, first Buddhism itself, and later, Islam, Christianity, Communism, and many other religions and philosophies. To draw an analogy, Jesus Christ was a Jew, but no modern form of Judaism resembles the Hellenized Judaism practised in the Roman Empire during Jesus' time. Both Judaism and Christianity have evolved since then, and though Christianity had its beginnings as a Jewish sect, it would be strange today to call Christianity a branch of Judaism or to say that Christians are Jews. Similarly, it is jarring to Buddhists to hear Buddhism being referred to as "a part of Hinduism".

However, the analogy cannot be taken too far. Whereas Judaism has ignored Jesus (or rejected him, if one takes the Christian point of view), Hinduism has assimilated the Buddha into its pantheon by identifying him an avatar of the god Vishnu. This identification was probably done at a relatively late date, since some lists of Vishnu's avatars have Balarama instead of the Buddha. It seems that the Buddha was added to the list of Vishnu's avatars in northern India, where Buddhism was popular, but this did not take place in the south. (I have met Hindus from south India who did not include the Buddha in the list of Vishnu avatars.)

The inclusion of the Buddha as one of Vishnu's avatars is something of a backhanded compliment. According to certain Hindu texts, Vishnu incarnated himself as the Buddha in order to mislead demons and miscreants into rejecting the Vedas, thereby damning themselves. Furthermore, Kalki [कल्कि], the future avatar of Vishnu, is supposed to vanquish the Buddhists when he appears. These stories were probably composed at a time when the Hindu clerics felt threatened by the popularity of Buddhism and sought to undermine it. Needless to say, Buddhists do not accept their authenticity. (I had alluded to the Hindu belief that the Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu in this previous post about plans to make a movie based on the life of the Buddha.)

Buddhism, like Hinduism, is assimilative when it comes to other religions. Whenever Buddhism was introduced into a region, it typically did not eliminate the local gods but rather absorbed them into its pantheon. Thus, Buddhist temples in India and in South East Asian countries heavily influenced by Indian culture typically have shrines dedicated to the Hindu gods. However, these gods have been subjugated to Buddhism. In Buddhist mythology, it is Vishnu who is subservient to the Buddha, rather than the other way around. In the Himalayas and in East Asia, the staggering complexity of the Mahayana pantheon is due to Buddhism's absorption of the mythologies of the cultures it encountered as it traversed the Silk Road from India to China (and on to Korean and Japan). Many of these cultures no longer exist, and the only testament that they once existed is the inclusion of their names or those of their deities in the long lists of beings who paid homage to the Buddha in some sutra or the other.

An example of a Buddhist story about a Hindu god which Hindus would probably find insulting is this tale, from "The Iconography of Nepalese Buddhism" by Min Bahadur Shakya, explaining the origin of the "Hariharihariharivahan Lokeshvara" image:

One day while [Takshaka] was leisurely sun basking in a nearby river, a hungry Garuda saw him there. He alighted down and tried to devour Takshaka. Since Takshaka was the king of Nagas, he had great strength. They began to engage in a ferocious battle. He soon began to drag Garuda into river and intended to kill him. Garuda, finding himself about to be killed, invoked his protector Vishnu who came there immediately to save him. As Vishnu was about to cut off the head of Takshaka with his Sudarsanacakra, i.e., whirling disc, Takshaka, realizing his upcoming defeat, prayed for Avalokiteshvara for his protection. Avalokiteshvara arrived there instantly flying over his lion vehicle. Vishnu was ashamed to find Avalokiteshvara, Lord of compassion in front of him and instantly bowed before him throwing away his Sudrashan Chakra and paid homage.

Thereafter Takshaka and Garuda too retreated from the battle and joined to the worship of Avalokiteshvara. After that Vishnu offered himself to Avalokiteshvara to be his vehicle. In the mean time, the lion also offered himself to be the vehicle of Garuda, in turn. Nagaraja Takshaka also offered to be the vehicle of the lion. Thus this composite image of Avalokiteshvara on Vishnu, and on Garuda, then on the lion, all then on Takshaka. The original image of this unique Lokeshvara is at Changu Narayan, a hill above Sodhani Tirtha, near Bhaktapur.

Religious competition must have been especially fierce in Nepal!

In all fairness, Hindus and Buddhists typically respect each others' deities and religious figures. When religions interact, a certain amount of syncretism naturally occurs, as each side tries to interpret the other's beliefs within its own framework. Over time, this may result in the assimilation and absorption of some aspects of one religion by the other. Occasionally, however, people try to play games of religious one-upsmanship, resulting in the Buddha becoming an avatar of Vishnu and Vishnu becoming the mount of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva.

南無阿彌陀佛

Pope follows my advice, gets himself into trouble

I had actually written this previous post on interfaith dialogue before Pope Benedict XVI gave his lecture at the University of Regensburg. By now, everyone who has access to television and the internet is aware of the reaction around the Muslim world.

(Some blog round-ups: here and here. The transcript of the Pope's lecture may be found in a number of places: here, here, here, here, and here.)

I don't want to quote the controversial passage out of context, which is part of a much longer argument about the roles of faith and reason and their relationship to one another in Christianity. The Pope's controversial comment occurs in the context of his speaking about the place of theological studies in a university – and a society – dominated by skepticism and atheism:

That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις [diálesis] - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω [syn logo]) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

By citing Ibn Hazm [ابن حزم] through Arnaldez through Khoury, the Pope's statement here makes it appear as if the Islamic doctrine that Allah is "not bound even by his own word" were some kind of doctrinal development or innovation on the part of Ibn Hazm. But by Ibn Hazm's time, the exegetical concept of al-nâsikh wa al-mansûkh [الناسخ و المنسوخ] or "abrogation", that Allah can annul his revelations or replace them at a later time, had already been established. Support for this belief can be found in the Qur'an (e.g., verses 2:106; 13:39; 16:101; 17:86; 87:6-7). It remains a mainstream Islamic belief today, even if it is debated or even repudiated among some Muslims.

Similarly, there is nothing surprising from the point of view of Islamic doctrine about the statement that "Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry." The Qur'an asserts in a number of places that it is by Allah's will that unbelievers do not believe (e.g., verses 2:253; 4:88; 7:100-102,186; 6:25,110-111; 10:99; 11:34; 17:46,97).

The Pope continues:

As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the λόγoς [logos]. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω [syn logo], with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist.

[...]

Of course, a non-Christian would object at this point that this very definition of reason, which identifies reason itself with the Christian God, is itself unreasonable. The Pope claims that Christianity is based on reason because the Bible identifies the logos with God, but he has provided no justification for accepting the Bible as an authority on reason in the first place. (Granted, the lecture may have been directed to an implicitly Christian audience.) Furthermore, it's clear that he recognizes that the source of rationalist thought in Catholicism stems not from the Bible, but from Greek philosophy. In that case, why should a rational person base his life on Catholic teachings, rather than directly on Greek rationalist philosophy or indeed on any philosophy that holds reason in high esteem?

The lecture concludes with a criticism of what the Pope perceives to be the exclusion of faith from rational inquiry in the universities. I find the following to be particularly pertinent:

In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

I suspect that the far majority of the Muslims who have been calling for the Pope to apologize have not actually read a transcript of his lecture. If would they just do that, they would probably find much to agree with in his criticism of the skeptical and atheistic attitudes found in many universities in the Western world.

I don't believe that universities in the West are unreasonably or deliberately exclusionary towards faith or belief in God. The purpose of a university is the pursuit of truth, but many of the truth-claims of religions can neither be verified nor falsified, and so cannot be investigated scientifically in the same way that one can investigate, for example, hypotheses about physics or biology. Of course, religious truth-claims can and should be taught and discussed within the appropriate contexts, such as in classes on philosophy or religious studies. Also, not all religious claims are equally (in)scrutable by science: one can study certain limited aspects of religious claims about the effects of meditation on human consciousness in a rigorously scientific manner, but it's difficult to see how one can do the same with topics which even Catholics have labeled mysteries.

Furthermore, if scientists and scholars should make discoveries that contradict Christianity or cast Catholic doctrines into doubt, would the Pope be willing to give up his beliefs? In other words, is his attitude towards the relationship between faith and reason like that of the Dalai Lama, who wrote the following in "The Universe in a Single Atom"?

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Despite disagreeing with the Pope on some of the points he raised in his lecture, I applaud him for his honesty and frankness in stating his beliefs. I don't see anything in his lecture that would warrant an apology. He stated that religious violence is unreasonable, and asserted that Christianity synthesized reason and faith in a way that (Ibn Hazm's) Islam did not, and he also took some jabs at Protestantism and atheism. In other words, the Pope was saying that Catholicism is better than other religions. But of course the Pope believes that Catholicism is better than other religions — he's the Pope, for Pete's sake!

The controversial statement was a quote from a Byzantine Emperor whose lands were under attack by Ottoman Turks, and whose view the Pope has said he does not endorse. But even if the Pope personally believes and had asserted in his speech that the Prophet of Islam had brought nothing new to the world except for "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", does he owe Muslims an apology? I don't think so, unless Muslims are willing to apologize for any beliefs they have which may be offensive to anyone else. The Islamic doctrine that the Jews and Christians had corrupted their holy books is offensive to the believers of those religions, and the Qur'anic verses pertaining to unbelievers [کفّار] are offensive to atheists, polytheists, Buddhists, and just about everyone else. If people were obligated to apologize for holding beliefs that offend others, humans would have to do nothing but apologize all day.

Muslim leaders worldwide routinely insult other religions and deliberately incite their followers to hurt the feelings of other people. (Most Americans don't exactly appreciate people chanting "Death to America!" [مرگ بر آمریکا] at rallies, having their country referred to as "The Great Satan" [شیطان بزرگ], or having their flag burned and stepped on.) For these same Muslim leaders to be demanding an apology from the Pope for a perceived insult is just hypocritical. If they think the idea that "Muhammad brought nothing new except things evil and inhuman" is wrong and offensive, the proper response is not to throw a temper tantrum, but to produce examples of things introduced by Muhammad that are not evil and inhuman, or show why the evil and inhuman things attributed to Muhammad (e.g., by the Byzantine Emperor) did not originate with him or were a distortion of his teachings. Rioting, making threats, and killing Christians simply reinforces the perception that Muslims are violent.

But I suspect that is precisely what these provocateur Muslim clerics want. The problem with the Islamic world is that, while the rest of the world modernized and secularized, institutional religion in the Islamic world has basically remained mentally stuck in the Middle Ages. It would be virtually impossible in a Western country for a religious leader to gather up a mob or to incite a riot. Any Christian (or Buddhist, etc.) religious leader who behaved the way that Muslim leaders do throughout the Islamic world would likely be ignored or ridiculed, and probably reported to the police and arrested. In much of the Islamic world, however, the common person hasn't yet learned to be skeptical of religious authority. The political clout and personal prestige of many Muslim clerics depend precisely on maintaining the ignorance of their followers and limiting their followers' exposure to ways of thought not sanctioned by them. If the common Muslims could examine their situation dispassionately, they would realize that they are being manipulated into acting in a way that is beneficial to their leaders but harmful to themselves. Thus the Muslim clerics use every opportunity and find any excuse that they can to inflame the masses.

It is very clear that the protests against the Pope, as well as earlier protests against Danish cartoons and anything else that offends Islamic sensibilities (which seems to be pretty much everything), are staged. The theatrics are carefully managed to create the impression that the clerics are more powerful and influential than they really are. (I have friends from the Middle East who have marched in demonstrations the purpose of which they knew nothing about, because they were pressured or told to do so by their governments or their neighbours.) In reality, a small number of what are essentially thugs control the impression of the Islamic world presented to the West, as well as the impression of the West presented to the Islamic world. Their dedicated followers form only a fraction of their societies, but a fanatical and violent minority can dictate the direction of an entire society. What these Muslim leaders want is not genuine dialogue, which would make them appear weak and expose their followers to doubt, but submission. For example, this story is most telling:

In Iran about 500 theological school students protested in the holy city of Qom on Sunday and influential cleric Ahmad Khatami warned that if the Pope did not apologise, "Muslims' outcry will continue until he fully regrets his remarks".

"The Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam," said Khatami.

The strategy of these Muslim clerics is to create a no-win situation for the non-Muslim who is interested in reaching out to the common Muslim in dialogue. The clerics tells their followers that non-Muslims are prejudiced against Islam and desire to persecute Muslims, and whenever a non-Muslim expresses a view on religion (and Islam in particular) that is not in keeping with theirs, they scream persecution and insult. Naturally, this silences many a non-Muslim who is interested in dialogue with Muslims, as he refrains from speaking his opinion out of politeness and the desire to avoid unintentional offense. (I've had the same experience at interfaith dialogue meetings, as I wrote in my previous post.) I think that the Pope has very cleverly exposed the insincerity of many Muslim leaders who claim to want a dialogue between cultures and religions, but are in fact interested only in asserting and expanding their power and influence by bullying their counterparts and critics in dialogue. By citing a quote that directly links Islam with violence, in a lecture about the unreasonableness of religious violence, the Pope has put these Muslim clerics in the position of having to demonstrate by their reaction whether or not they are reasonable. And they have demonstrated to the world through their actions, better than anyone else's words, that they are not.


Update: The final official Vatican translation clarifies the context of the controversial passage:

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.

南無阿彌陀佛

In Gujarat, Buddhism is now officially a sect of Hinduism

An amendment to the (Orwellianly named) "Freedom of Religion Act" in the Indian state of Gujarat has upset some Buddhists:

The Narendra Modi government has amended Gujarat's Freedom of Religion Act, which made forced religious conversions illegal in 2003.

The bill, a copy of which is with NDTV, now says there's nothing illegal about converting from one denomination to another within a religion. It also claims that Buddhism and Jainism are part of Hinduism.

The bill seems to be primarily aimed at dissuading Hindus (especially poor Dalits) from converting to "foreign" religions, mainly Christianity, but is also targeted at Buddhism. Ever since Dr. B. R. Ambedkar took refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha in 1956, Buddhism has been a popular choice of identity for low-caste Hindus, such as Dalits, seeking to assert their independence from Hinduism and its caste system. In fact, when Dr. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism, he specifically took 22 vows many of which repudiate the beliefs of Hinduism.

The purpose of the amendment seems to be to ensure that the number of people counted as "Hindus" for governmental purposes do not drop even if some of them convert to Buddhism. Naturally, many Buddhists are not pleased with being co-opted for political purposes.

To my knowledge, there have been no actual documented incidents of forced conversion, which is what the bill claims to be against. Many Christian organizations, however, provide access to education and health care, which some critics feel is a way of bribing the recipients of these services into conversion. But if Hindu leaders feel that Christians are luring away their followers with schools and hospitals, the proper response is not to outlaw conversions, but to compete against them by building better schools and hospitals. But alas, the politicians have chosen to take the easier path.

The conclusions that one may draw from the bill along with its amendment are also rather odd. Forced religious conversions are illegal -- except within a religion, and Buddhism is a part of Hinduism. This seems to mean that Buddhists are now legally entitled to convert (other) Hindus to Buddhism by force! (I'm not suggesting that any Buddhist would or should do this, I'm just pointing out the silliness of outlawing forced conversions while allowing for exceptions.)

Since 1992, the BJP has been actively wooing the Dalits, who in many areas now make up their new vote bank.

And this amendment ensures that Dalits will now be placated. If, for instance, they convert to Buddhism and thousands have done so over the years, they will now not be breaking the law.

[...]

The Buddhists of course aren't pleased with the government's cavalier attitude.

"The Hindu religion centres around Gods and Goddesses and the human beings are not given an important position. In Buddhism the religion centres around the human being," said Ramesh Banker, Bouddh citizen.

("Bouddh" is the Hindi word for "Buddhist".)

Constitutional experts say that it’s debatable whether Jainism is part of Hinduism or not. But there's no way Buddhism can be clubbed with Hinduism. They suspect a political agenda behind the move.

According to "the letter of the law" in Gujarat, a Japanese Zen monk, for example, would be classified as a Hindu. This is of course very silly.

"The basic purpose of the bill is to prohibit conversion, but the amendment results in Buddhism being converted into Hinduism. This is not right," said Girish Patel, activist and lawyer.

The opposition of course is only too happy to expound on this theory.

"The BJP and RSS always tried to exploit religion for political benefits. The bill in its original form was aimed at that and now with the amendments and subsequent definitions of religion provided in the bill, the attempt is again to extract political benefit," said Arjun Modhwadia, leader of opposition.

Over the past few years the BJP has improved its tally both in terms of number of seats and vote percentage in Dalit and tribal dominated areas like Panchmahals and the Dangs.

The amended act will now ensure that these political gains are consolidated.

Unfortunately, all sorts of bad things have a tendency to happen whenever religion is mixed together with politics. This has been true throughout the world and throughout history. One would think that humans would have learned better by now.

南無阿彌陀佛

Demographics of American Buddhism

The Christian Science Monitor ran an article recently noting that Buddhists compose the fourth largest religious group in the USA:

Buddhism is growing apace in the United States, and an identifiably American Buddhism is emerging. Teaching centers and sanghas (communities of people who practice together) are spreading here as American-born leaders reframe ancient principles in contemporary Western terms.

Though the religion born in India has been in the US since the 19th century, the number of adherents rose by 170 percent between 1990 and 2000, according to the American Religious Identity Survey. An ARIS estimate puts the total in 2004 at 1.5 million, while others have estimated twice that. "The 1.5 million is a low reasonable number," says Richard Seager, author of "Buddhism in America."

That makes Buddhism the country's fourth-largest religion, after Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Immigrants from Asia probably account for two-thirds of the total, and converts about one-third, says Dr. Seager, a professor of religious studies at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y.

The numbers are from the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001. (The actual report, in Adobe Acrobat format, may be found here. )

There are a number of interesting demographic facts about American Buddhists. In 1990, there were 401 000 (self-identified) Buddhists in the USA, and by 2001 that number had gone up to 1 082 000 (or approximately 0.5% of the country's total population). This is an increase of approximately 170%, as the article mentions.

Buddhism has a high rate of turnover. In 2001, 340 523 people (33%) who self-identified as Buddhists had switched in from another group, while 221 035 people (23%) had switched out from Buddhism to another group, with a net gain for Buddhism of 12%.

The report also distinguishes between identification and affiliation by examining household membership in a place of worship. Only 28% of Buddhists reported affiliation with a temple. The numbers range from a high of 83% for Evangelical/Born Again Christians to a low of 19% for "no religion", the only group with a lower percentage than Buddhists. (So about one fifth of Americans who claim to have "no religion" either belong to a secular organization that substitutes for a church, or attend the place of worship of a religion that they don't believe in.) I suspect that the percentage of Buddhists who participate in activities at a "place of worship" is being undercounted because Buddhist activities are not usually centred around a "place". Buddhists can get together to meditation, chant, or listen to a dharma talk not only at a temple or dharma centre, but at people's homes, rec centres, rented classrooms at a college or university, and so on. Many converts to Buddhism also tend to have multiple loose affiliations in that they may participate in the activities of various groups while not feeling strongly associated with any one of them.

In 2001, the marital status of American Buddhists are: 47% single, 7% single/co-habiting, 35% married, 8% divorced/separated, and 3% widowed. Buddhists have the highest percentage of people who are single. They also have the third lowest percentage of people who are married, after non-denominational Christians at 27% and those professing "no religion" at 19%.

A large number of Buddhists have family members belonging to another religion, with 39% of Buddhist adults living in mixed religion families. This is the second highest percentage after Episcopalians at 42%.

The ethnic make-up of American Buddhists is: 35% white, 4% black, 61% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 1% other. Politically, American Buddhists vote: 9% Republican, 31% Democrat, 48% Independent, and 12% none/other.

In 2001, the age and sex distribution among adult American Buddhists was: 56% aged 18-29, 3% aged 65 and above, and 39% female. (For comparison, in 1990, the distribution was: 35% aged 18-29, 8% aged 65 and above, and 35% female.) Buddhists have the second highest percentage of people aged 18-29, after Muslims at 58%. Buddhists have the second lowest proportion of females, after Muslims at 38%. (This is unsurprising, since immigrants tend to be young and male, and most Buddhists and Muslims are immigrants.)

That's a lot of data and much can be said about it, but perhaps at another time.

南無阿彌陀佛

Thoughts on Interfaith Dialogue

Before I became a Buddhist, I made a systematic attempt to thoroughly investigate the major world religions (and a host of minor ones), to the degree that my time and abilities allowed. I read many religious scriptures, and the books and essays of both religious believers and skeptics throughout history. I also had many discussions about religion and other interesting topics with many people of different backgrounds and differing degrees of commitment to and training in their religion, as well as those who are not religious and those who are hostile to religion. The view of religion which I have developed as a result of my investigation is quite different from most of the views of the people whose writings I read or with whom I had discussions, and I was very much enriched by the experience.

I think that everyone would benefit greatly from having serious discussions about religion with others who hold a variety of views, especially those which are diametrically opposed to one's own. I think that anyone who did this would very likely end up with very different opinions and religious beliefs than the ones that they started with, which is why many religions forbid or try to prevent their followers from learning about other religions or discussing religion with people who have different views and beliefs. Many religions teach that it is a sin to question that religion's dogma, with dire punishments in the afterlife (or even in this life).

I learned from my experience many things about how people approach questions about religion. The first is that most people begin with their beliefs (or at least a vague idea about what their beliefs ought to be), and then try to find evidence to justify them, in the process ignoring or dismissing facts that do not fit their preconceived notions. When a nominal Christian, for example, becomes religious, he does not typically ask, "Now, why should I believe that Christianity is true?", a question that ought to lead him to consider both the arguments for Christianity and the arguments against it. Instead, he will read books written by Christian apologists and discuss Christianity only with other Christians. In other words, the question that he has asked himself is, "How can I justify my belief in Christianity?", and he finds his answer in the purported evidence of the apologists. In all likelihood he is not even aware that there are well-considered counterarguments against his beliefs.

This leads me to the second thing that I learned, which is that most religious believers are overly confident that their own religious beliefs are based on reason and evidence while religious beliefs that differ from theirs are irrational and baseless. Monotheists are unable to see how anyone can disbelieve in God or believe in multiple gods. Christians cannot imagine how anyone can think that Jesus isn't the greatest human being who has ever lived. Muslims criticize the Christian concept of Trinity for being illogical, but fail to recognize the illogic of belief in an omnipotent deity who requires his followers to wage war on his behalf against unbelievers. One could go on and on with examples. The majority of people have the religious beliefs that they have only because they were taught these beliefs at a young age, and have never thought to question them.

In societies without a high degree of mobility and decent level of education (which describes pretty much every society in human history up until relatively recently), the majority of people simply adopted the beliefs of their parents and the community around them. Throughout most of history, literacy was limited to the elite (although a larger fraction of the populace may have been literate in a restricted sense, for example when it came to terminology needed for their professions or the recitation and memorization of religious or culturally important texts). Of the elite, only a fraction would have been trained in philosophy and possess the kind of reasoning skills needed to distinguish good arguments from bad ones. It follows that most of the religious conversions in history were not due to a carefully considered evaluation of the evidence. Instead, the majority would have been due to social, political, and economic incentives. People converted to the religions of their rulers and conquerors, or of mighty foreign powers, because doing so brought material benefits: advancement in social status, access to education, acquisition of superior technology. This is largely true even today, outside of the most developed (i.e., "First World") countries.

Thus, upon a little contemplation, anyone can see that the religious beliefs that he is brought up with have no necessary correlation with reality. If anything, they are likely to be false, since there are many more ways to be wrong than there are to be right (and hence false beliefs must surely greatly outnumber true ones). The thoughtful and conscientious person must, therefore, come to the conclusion that, far from being a sin, it is a virtue and a moral obligation to question one's religious beliefs as well as those of one's society. If a person maintains his religious beliefs without critically examining them, he will surely be in error. But if he makes a deliberate effort to distinguish between claims which are not substantiated by the evidence or which are based on faulty reasoning and those which are supported by the evidence and sound reasoning, he will move closer and closer towards the truth. Or as Sir Francis Bacon, one of the foremost pioneers of the scientific method, put it:

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.

I am very interested in interfaith dialogue (also known as multifaith dialogue or interreligious dialogue) for the above reason. I'm curious to know what people believe and why, and how it affects their behaviour and choices in life. However, while I have learned much from personal discussions with individuals, I have also found "official" interfaith occasions very disappointing. What I've observed is that, while many individual participants are genuinely interested in learning and sharing, people often end up hiding their true convictions for a variety of reasons. A large part of it is innocuous, a desire to be cordial and polite and to avoid possible misunderstanding or offense. But this cordiality has been exploited and subverted by religious organizations who wish to shield their followers from exposure to what might be legitimate criticisms of their religion, which could plant the seed of doubt in their minds and thus loosen their leaders' control over them. These leaders incite their followers to cry "bigotry" and accuse their critics of ignorance or malice whenever anyone says anything not to their liking about their religion.

But while falsehood must be offensive to those whose beliefs actually correspond to the truth, the truth is also offensive to those whose beliefs are false. We cannot judge the veracity of a statement by its (perceived) offensiveness. If a party is genuinely interested in dialogue, it must expect to encounter statements with which it disagrees from other parties. Otherwise – if everyone already agreed in everything – there would be no point to having a dialogue.

In the book "Land of No Buddha" by Richard P. Hayes, there is an essay titled "Christianity and Buddhism: Dialogue or Debate?" in which he asks why today's Christians and Buddhists engage in interfaith dialogue when they did not do so at any other time in history. He answers the question as follows:

At the risk of offending anyone's intelligence with an oversimplified answer, I would suggest that dialogue has become possible because both Christians and Buddhists have almost entirely lost their way in the epistemological wilderness and the moral wasteland of modern life. Christians and Buddhists alike have long since lost the courage to take a firm stand against the silliness and shallowness of the childish populism that has come to replace civilization. We no longer have the stomach to be elitist, to preach the obligation of wisdom to provide firm leadership for the morally feeble and intellectually immature. Christians and Buddhists have both lost the heart to take the unfashionable stand that there is a vast difference between truth and falsity, and between moral right and moral wrong.

I very much like the essay, which points out that in a genuine dialogue, each party must be honest and open about its beliefs as well as its opinions, however critical, of the other's beliefs. Just because two parties disagree does not mean that there need be any animosity between them, if they come together in a true spirit of wanting to learn from and share with each other. I hope that those who are engaged in interfaith dialogue would act more courageously and take a stand for what they truly believe in, at the same time that they learn to become more receptive to what the other side has to say.

南無阿彌陀佛

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I had originally wanted to post something on September 11, on September 11, but when I sat down there was so much that I wanted to write that I ended up not writing anything.

The Buddha placed tremendous emphasis on seeing things as they really are. The first component of the Buddha's Eightfold Path (八正道) is Right View (正見). When I read or hear about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I am simply amazed at the convoluted theories that people will come up with to explain things for which there are much simpler and better explanations.

I saw a comic strip from Filibuster Cartoons recently that perfectly captures the absurdity that results from this kind of convoluted thinking:


I think that one of the main reasons that these conspiracy theories are so popular is because people feel frustrated and angry over their lack of control over the chaotic events in the world around them. Believing in conspiracy theories gives a person a sense of control. In the view of the believer in a conspiracy, those he perceives to be ignorant of the conspiracy are under the control of the masterminds behind the conspiracy, while he himself is (at least partially) immune from their influence. A worldview based on conspiracy theories is a way to impose a sense of order onto a chaotic world.

From a Buddhist perspective, beliefs which are not supported by evidence, and especially beliefs which are actually contradicted by evidence, are forms of delusion. It is extremely important for the Buddhist practitioner to distinguish right views from wrong ones. I think that many of the believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories have actually been misled by a lifetime of exposure to bad physics in television and movies. For example, much is made of the fact that witnesses reported hearing multiple explosions inside the lower floors of the WTC towers. This is taken as evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives inside the building. But there's a simple explanation for why people heard what appeared to be multiple explosions on the lower floors, namely, sound travels at different speeds through different media, and there are multiple paths from the top floors down to the bottom ones. Also, the typical office building is full of materials that are flammable and which can explode under certain circumstances. All of this is much better explained at the numerous 9/11 conspiracy debunking web sites, some of which I will link below.

The belief that the American government somehow planned the 9/11 attacks reminds me of a saying known as Hanlon's razor:

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

And now, the web sites. On the one side, the conspiracy believers:

• The "911 Truth" movement
  
• Loose Change

And on the other, the conspiracy debunkers:

• 9/11 Myths
  
• eSkeptic article
  
• Screw Loose Change
  

南無阿彌陀佛

Buddha: the Movie

From The Hollywood Reporter:

What's the next Hollywood epic? If the producers at M Films have their way, it will be a biopic on the life of Buddha. In an effort to promote the project, the production company hosted a luncheon at the Peninsula Hotel on Beverly Hills Monday featuring the Dalai Lama, who offered his endorsement of the project. "From Buddha's life story, maybe you'll get inspiration," the Dalai Lama said, with some help from a translator. "Our intention is not the propagation of Buddhism but helping the world." Hollywood has the power.

It's not clear from the above article whether this is the same film planned by Indian industrialist B. K. Modi (IMDb entry here) and announced at the Cannes film festival earlier this year, which is going to be based on the book "Old Path White Clouds" by Ven. Thich Nhat Hanh. Modi had previously proposed a film based on the life of the Buddha, but that project failed for a variety of reasons, one of which was the objection of Buddhists to the filmmakers' alleged intention to portray the Buddha as an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu.

Personally, I don't think that a single movie can possibly do justice to the amount of material that's in the Buddhist canon on the life of the Buddha. A series may do the trick (the Hindu epic Mahabharata comes to mind), but I doubt that any movie or television studio is up to the task. The "basics" of the story of the Buddha have been done on film before (for example, in Bernardo Bertolucci's "Little Buddha" and the animated "The Legend of Buddha"), and there's no real need to go through the same material again, unless it's part of something much grander.

On the other hand, just because it's been done before doesn't mean that it can't be done again. Other religious figures have inspired multiple films, so why not the Buddha? Films about Jesus Christ have been evangelical, banal, controversial, epic, as well as sadistic. And despite Islam's prohibition against depictions of its founder, a movie has been made about the life of Muhammad, filmed in such a way that neither he nor his closest relatives appeared on screen. The movie starred Anthony Quinn in the role of Muhammad's uncle Hamza, and became notorious before it was even completed. More recently, the story was told in a Disneyfied form.

I don't have very high hopes that Hollywood (or Bollywood) will get it right, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

南無阿彌陀佛

Biggest. Mantra. Ever.

Throughout history, Buddhists have loved to build really big things. Here are but a few examples:

• The Buddhas of Bamiyan
  
• The Stupa of Borobudur
  
• Tian Tan Buddha (天壇大佛)
  
• The Daibutsu (大仏 or 大佛) of Japan
  
• The Giant Buddha of Leshan (樂山大佛)
  
• India's plan to build the world's biggest Buddha statue
  
• and China's bid to outdo them

And now, we have the world's Biggest. Mantra. Ever. From Siberian News Online:

Gyudmed Tantric Monastery monks, who are on a visit in Tuva, have finished their work at the world's biggest Buddhist mantra. In the opinion of all the participants of the unique project, the mantra is to hasten the visit of His Holiness Dalai Lama to the republic. The mantra of Chenrezig, the Buddha of Compassion, "Om mani padme hum" is made of huge stones on the side of Dogee Mountain, known as Lenin Peak. One can have a picturesque view on Kyzyl, the capital of Tuva, from the top of this mountain, IA Tuva-Online reports.


The length of the holy mantra is 120 m. It took 500 kilos of white paint to paint the stones. 'Tibetan Buddhists usually engrave holy mantras on the stones. A great many of them can be seen on the mountainous slopes and passes, as Tupten Shakia, the monk group leader, explained. However, there is hardly such a huge mantra made of big stones even in Tibet, he noted.
[...]


The mantra construction of the Buddha of Compassion, whose embodiment on the Earth is His Holiness Dalai Lama, started when the spiritual leader of the Buddhists visited Mongolia, the neighboring country. The mantra capable of accumulation and spreading of the tremendous positive energy was built with a wish of longevity to Dalai Lama and prayers for spiritual merits of Tuvan people to help to remove the obstacles preventing the meeting of Buddhist Tuva with its spiritual teacher.

This mantra hasn't shown up on Google Maps yet, but a similar previous offering may be found here:

Map loading...

南無阿彌陀佛

Burma's military regime ruins Buddhist ruins

The military junta in control of Burma (also known as Myanmar) is basically destroying the country's historical Buddhist sites in an attempt to attract tourists:

The bricklayers are paid $1.35 a day to rebuild the ancient ruin: a small, 13th century temple reduced by time to little more than its foundation.

But they have no training in repairing aged monuments, and their work has nothing to do with actually restoring one of the world's most important Buddhist sites. Instead, using modern red bricks and mortar, they are building a new temple on top of the old.

They work from a single page of drawings supplied by the government. Three simple sketches provide the design for a generic brick structure and a fanciful archway. No one knows, or seems to care, what the original temple looked like. Nearby are two piles of 700-year-old bricks that were pulled from the ruin. The bricklayers use them to fill holes in the temple. ...

The late Myanmar historian Than Tun called the restoration "blitzkrieg archeology."

"They are carrying out reconstruction based on complete fantasy," said an American archeologist who asked not to be identified for fear of being banned from the country. "It completely obliterates any historical record of what was there." ...

Untrained workers began covering old walls with plaster, obliterating the original contour of the brick. Statues were removed and replaced with no attempt to make accurate copies. The damage has been greatest to the medium-sized temples, many of which were neglected after the earthquake and then damaged by subsequent restoration work, said French architect Pierre Pichard, one of the foremost experts on Bagan.

"The monuments have lost a great part of their authenticity and individuality," said Pichard, who worked extensively at Bagan after the 1975 quake and wrote an eight-volume catalog of the monuments published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. "Their missing parts, especially their upper superstructures, have been rebuilt without evidence of their former shape." ...

The actions of the Burmese military regime are wrong, in regards to both the archeological treasures and the people of Burma, and must be condemned.

Here is another article on the topic of the destruction of Burma's archeological heritage:

The delicate beauty of Bagan, unfortunately, is under dire threat because it lacks something Angkor Wat, for instance, has — a World Heritage Site designation from UNESCO, whose decades-long efforts on Bagan came to a halt in recent years. The unwillingness of Myanmar's ruling junta of generals to turn over preservation and restoration work to the international body, which had created a detailed plan to conserve and protect one of the world's great cultural heritages, proved too great a barrier to surpass. Now many Asian art conservationists and art lovers around the world fear for Bagan's future.

There are no signs the generals plan to open their relations with the wider world. Indeed, there have been clear signs that unskilled work has been carried out at the Bagan archaeological site that could jeopardize its integrity and also open the door to commercialization that could further threaten its future.

Over recent years, restoration experts have lamented misguided efforts of the Myanmar authorities, who lack the knowledge and the skilled experts to undertake sound conservation and restoration efforts. ...

The outside world must be made aware of the harm that Burma's military junta is doing to the culture and people of Burma.

南無阿彌陀佛

The Leaning Tower of Yingxian

From Xinhua news comes a story about a leaning tower:

Sakyamuni Pagoda, believed to be the world's tallest wooden structure, celebrated its 950th anniversary on Tuesday amid concerns from architects that it is tilting. ...

There is an obvious tilt between the first and second floors and cracking of the interior wooden columns, and there are also 300 places in the pagoda that are in need of repair, said Chai Zejun, former director of the Shanxi Provincial Ancient Architecture Institute.

"The overall situation is dangerous and we are not optimistic. It is hard to tell whether the pagoda can survive more strong winds and earthquakes," said 82-year-old Luo Zhewen, head of the Experts Panel on Ancient Architecture with the State Bureau of Cultural Relics, who has visited the pagoda dozens of times since 1952.

Standing 67.31 meters tall, the octagonal pagoda in Yingxian County, Shanxi Province, is not only the tallest but the oldest existing wooden pagoda in China. The pagoda is 115 years older and 11.36 meters taller than the renowned Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy.

But will it ever become as famous?

南無阿彌陀佛

The Dalai Lama visits Vancouver

The Dalai Lama, who is an honourary Canadian citizen, is currently visiting Vancouver:

The Dalai Lama made his fourth visit to Vancouver on Thursday to inaugurate the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education, the world's first learning facility established in his name.

The 71-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner will also lead a series of public dialogues on the topics of peace, compassion and happiness -- the vision reflected in the non-religious, non-political institution.

The government of China is, of course, quite displeased:

"The Dalai Lama is not a religious leader. He's a political activist and also a secessionist," [senior Chinese embassy official Zhang Weidong] said.

"We hope that any country that is friendly to China should not provide him with a venue or podium for his political activities."

Besides his political stature among Tibetans which is causing problems with the government of China, the Dalai Lama is also embroiled in a number of controversies which complicates his status among Buddhists, something which usually doesn't come across in the often simplistic portrayals of the man presented in the media. However, most Buddhists respect the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader, even if they disagree with him on certain political or philosophical issues.

南無阿彌陀佛