Tolerance in Buddhism, 5
by Ken and Visakha Kawasaki

Religious tolerance

Perhaps there is no more critical issue today than that of religious tolerance. It appears that this new century is witnessing a disastrous hardening of the world's major religions into rigid fundamentalism, in which each aggressively proclaims its beliefs, zealously proselytizes, and even takes up arms against its rivals. A fundamentalist and intolerant stance, taken by any religion, is offensive to followers of other faiths and to those of no faith at all. Overzealous attempts at conversion disturb peaceful coexistence. In many countries minority groups are under siege because of their religion. Religious strife even threatens to drag us into a cataclysmic Third World War.

Against a pattern of increasing fundamentalism, the ethical guidelines of Buddhism encourage an attitude of tolerance toward other religions and their followers. Certainly, Buddha's teaching disavows aggression of any sort, in word, deed, or even thought.

Some philosophers have argued that monotheism is inherently intolerant. As Schopenhauer put it:

Intolerance is essential only to monotheism; an only God is by nature a jealous God who will not allow another to live. On the other hand, polytheistic gods tend to be tolerant; they live and let live. In the first place, they gladly tolerate their colleagues, the gods of the same religion, and this tolerance is afterwards extended even to foreign gods who are, accordingly, hospitably received and later admitted, in some cases, even to an equality of rights. . . . Thus it is only the monotheistic religions that furnish us with the spectacle of religious wars, religious persecutions, courts for trying heretics, and also with that of iconoclasm, the destruction of the images of foreign gods, the demolition of Indian temples and Egyptian colossi that had looked at the sun for three thousand years; all just because their jealous God had said, "Thou shalt make no graven image," and so on.
--Parerga and Paralipomena
When a monotheistic religion sees its scripture as revealed and divinely inspired, it finds a basis for subsequent exclusivity and intolerance. The very nature of a Supreme Being may also provide justification for intolerance, when He is described as a jealous and angry being, who punishes those who defy Him with eternal damnation. Stories in the Bible which describe God as committing genocide on unbelievers with violence toward men, women, children, and even the unborn can inspire intolerance. In the Koran we read: "Slay unbelievers wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places they drove you from . . . Fight them until idolatry is no more and God's religion is supreme." Martin Luther wrote, in his treatise Secular Authority, "It is a Christian act, and an act of love, confidently to kill, rob and pillage the enemy. Such happenings must be considered as sent of God, that he may now and then cleanse the land and drive out knaves."

History teems with examples of gross intolerance. By the sixth century, pagans in Europe were declared devoid of all rights. In 782, Emperor Charlemagne beheaded 4500 Saxons unwilling to convert to Christianity. In just the First Crusade (1095-1099) more than one million "infidels" were killed.

In 1193, Muslim invaders slaughtered thousands of Buddhist monks in Bihar, India. The university of Nalanda with its great library was left in ruins. Countless ancient Buddhist monuments were defaced or destroyed, virtually erasing the Buddhist faith from India. In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini, a powerful Islamic cleric in Iran, pronounced the fatwa, or sentence of death, against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, a satire on the prophet Mohammad, which raises issues of divine inspiration and the nature of blasphemy. Rushdie has survived, mainly by living in seclusion for more than ten years, but the Japanese translator of the novel was killed, and the Italian and Norwegian translators were attacked and wounded.*

Buddhism does not accept an omnipotent God, a Creator, nor any revealed scripture. Because faith in God or a savior is not an issue for Buddhists, there is no reason to judge others, to condemn them for their beliefs, or to feel compelled to convert them. The Buddha Dhamma is described as ehipassiko, inviting one to come and see for himself. There is no concept of coercion or proselytization.

Buddhists revere Buddha as the teacher who showed the way to liberation. He is not a god. Repeatedly, Buddha taught the importance of patience, tolerance, and non-aggression, providing a splendid ideal of tolerance for Buddhists to follow. On no occasion did Buddha ever show anger toward anyone, even the most irritating or aggressive. Once when he was cursed and abused, Buddha replied, "He who abuses his abuser is the worse of the two. To refrain from retaliation is to win a battle hard to win. If one knows that the other person is angry but refrains from anger oneself, one does what is best for oneself and the other person also. One is a healer of both."

There is not a single occasion in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha being less than compassionate, not only to those who accepted his teachings but also to the followers of all faiths, not only to the good but also to the wicked, not only to humans but also to animals and to all living beings. The oft-recited Metta Sutta states:

One should do no unkind thing that wise men might condemn. and one should think, "May all beings he secure and happy. Whatever beings there are, moving or still, tall, middle-sized or short, great or small, seen or unseen, whether living far or near, existing or not yet come into existence, may they all be happy." One should not harm another or despise anyone for any reason. Do not wish pain on another out of either anger or jealousy. Just as a mother would protect her only child even at the risk of her own life, even so, one should develop unbounded love toward all beings in the world.

When a wealthy man named Upali, a follower of the Jain religion, heard Buddha explain the Dhamma, he decided to become a follower of the Buddha. Instead of exulting at the conversion, Buddha advised Upali to think carefully before making such an important decision, "Make a careful investigation first, Upali. Careful investigation is good for well-known people like yourself."

At another time, a man named Vacchogatta said to Buddha, "I have heard it said that you say that charity should only be given to you, not to other teachers, to your disciples, not to the disciples of other religions." Buddha answered, "Those who say this are not reporting my words, they misrepresent me and tell lies. Truly, whoever discourages anyone from giving charity hinders in three ways. He hinders the giver from doing good; he hinders the receiver from being helped; and he hinders himself through his meanness."

This is not to say that Buddhists should remain silent when there is cause to discuss, criticize, and rebut other religions. Buddha made it clear to his disciples that there was no value in the religious practices of asceticism, ritual bathing, animal sacrifice, and caste system of the time. In the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta, instructed his disciples: "Teach the Dhamma, declare it, establish it, expound it, analyse it, make it clear, and be able by means of the Dhamma to refute false teachings that have arisen." Subjecting a point of view to careful scrutiny and criticism has an important part to play in helping to winnow truth from falsehood, so that we can be in a better position to choose between "the two and sixty contending sects."

Criticism of another religion becomes inappropriate when it is based on a deliberate misrepresentation of that religion, or when it descends into an exercise in ridicule and name-calling. Likewise, it is worse than useless for Buddhists to argue about the Buddha's teaching:
"Monks, if anyone should speak in disparagement of me, of the Dhamma, or of the Sangha, you should not be angry, resentful, or upset on that account. If you were to be angry or displeased at such disparagement, that would only be a hindrance to you. For if others disparage me, the Dhamma, or the Sangha, and you are angry or displeased, can you recognize whether what they say is right or not?"
"No, Lord."

"If others disparage me, the Dhamma, or the Sangha, then you must explain what is incorrect as being incorrect, saying: 'That is incorrect, that is false, that is not our way, that is not found among us.'"
--Digha Nikaya
In striking contrast to the spread of other world religions, which are replete with forcible conversions, sectarian strife, and the suppression of heresies, the history of Buddhism is remarkable for the complete absence of bloodshed in the name of the teacher.

* Much of this discussion has been taken from "Islamic Intolerance," by Ibn Warraq, at <www.islamreview.com/articles/islamicintolerance.shtml>
continue