Essay #1

Standing Up for the Middle Way: A Buddhist Perspective on Religious Freedom

Whoever fights against the Shugden spirit defends religious freedom. I compare this definitely to the Nazis in Germany. Whoever fights them defends human rights, since the freedom of Nazis is not freedom. — The 14th Dalai Lama1

Both sides of the Dorje Shugden controversy lay claim to non-sectarianism in defense of religious freedom. When it comes to gauging someone’s views as sectarian or non-sectarian, however, it cannot simply be an either-or scenario. As Buddhists, we must be careful to avoid such black-or-white thinking. Seeing things from a Buddhist perspective necessarily entails being able to map them out on the model of the two truths of the middle way between extremes—the touchstone of the Buddhist faith. It is also the best tool to use for explaining the Buddhist perspective on religious freedom.

I have come to realize that there is always middle ground,2 even between the polarizing extremes that too often dominate the religious landscape. Sectarianism obviously places an inordinate emphasis on our differences; but if we are to truly celebrate diversity, we must come to appreciate our differences equally as much as our similarities. That is to say, it is not all about our differences (which leads to sectarianism), nor can we simply ignore our differences (which leads to eclecticism). True religious pluralism would respect both people’s similarities and their differences, not just one or the other.

When I looked to see exactly where the Dalai Lama and Geshe Kelsang Gyatso present themselves on this continuum, I was pleasantly surprised to find the latter’s stance more closely befitting the middle way than what typically goes as ‘mainstream’ today. I put together the following to help us understand Venerable Geshe-la’s sage advice to abandon the two extremes of sectarianism and eclecticism.3

Sectarianism Religious Freedom Eclecticism
Extreme Exclusivism Moderate Exclusivism Moderate exclusivism corrects eclecticism.
Moderate inclusivism corrects sectarianism. Moderate Inclusivism		 Extreme Inclusivism

At the same time as cherishing our own tradition we should respect all other traditions and the right of each individual to follow the tradition of their choosing. This approach leads to harmony and tolerance. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind: an Explanation of the Nature and Functions of the Mind, p. 162, © 1993, 1997, 2002)

There are two truths to the middle way because there are two extremes to be corrected; therefore, the middle way always has two complimentary aspects,4 as exemplified in the above quote in regards to religious freedom:5 moderate exclusivism (i.e., cherishing our own tradition) is an expression of the Spiritual Guide’s discriminating wisdom, while moderate inclusivism (i.e., respecting all other traditions) is an expression of the Spiritual Guide’s compassionate skillful means. The differences between traditions are important, not because they should further divide us, but because we do not all need the same thing. Thus, these two aspects of the middle way—wisdom and compassion—may be applied consistently at both the inter-faith and intra-faith levels to guarantee religious freedom for everyone.

The two extremes—sectarianism and eclecticism—are each a lopsided distortion of the twofold middle way, wherein one aspect is left untempered by the other: extreme exclusivism (i.e., exclusivism without inclusivism) is like wisdom without compassion, while extreme inclusivism (i.e., inclusivism without exclusivism) is like compassion without wisdom.6 For example, in the following quote, Geshe-la reminds us of the faults of eclecticism, which arise due to not cherishing one’s own tradition as a complete path unto itself:

Every Teacher and every tradition has a slightly different approach and employs different methods. The practices taught by one Teacher will differ from those taught by another, and if we try to combine them we shall become confused, develop doubts, and lose direction. If we try to create a synthesis of different traditions we shall destroy the special power of each and be left only with a mishmash of our own making that will be a source of confusion and doubt. Having chosen our tradition and our daily practices we should rely upon them single-pointedly, never allowing dissatisfaction to arise. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Understanding the Mind: an Explanation of the Nature and Functions of the Mind, pp. 161-162, © 1993, 1997, 2002)

For many people, however, any hint of exclusivity is immediately taken as a sign of intolerance and bigotry,7 so how could we even consider that a moderate degree of exclusivism accords with Buddha’s teachings?8 One obvious example is that Buddhists in general take refuge exclusively9 in the Three Jewels—Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.10 And, like many religions, Buddhism also has its own exclusive claims to truth (e.g., Buddhadharma is the only pathway to liberation and enlightenment).11

While it can be said that moderate inclusivism and extreme inclusivism are both ‘non-sectarian,’ the latter is rather destructive in accomplishing this goal. Therefore, to have genuine religious freedom, we also need to combat reverse sectarianism,12 which is the attitude that extreme inclusivists adopt towards any religious tradition having even moderate exclusivist tendencies, still regarded by them as being sectarian in nature. Often heralded as the middle way, religious eclecticism is fast becoming regarded as the only legitimate form of spiritual practice (often used as the litmus for proving that one is not sectarian),13 threatening the integrity of individual religious traditions (hence the self-conscious ‘boundary maintenance’ of even moderate exclusivism).

[W]e don’t need to mix our traditions. Each tradition has its own uncommon good qualities, and it is important not to lose these. We should concentrate on our own tradition and maintain the good qualities of our tradition, but we should always keep good relations with each other and never argue or criticize each other. What I would like to request is that we should improve our own traditions while maintaining good relations with each other. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, An Interview With Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Tricycle: the Buddhist Review, No. 27, Spring 1998, p. 76)

To maintain harmony, we do not need to bridge every gap or buy agreement at any price. Truth does not depend on numbers, so getting everyone to agree would not necessarily make something legitimate. The only way to assimilate different traditions into one is to take away the uncommon good qualities, core values, and principles giving each its unique identity and which give their practitioners great meaning. This happens especially if something integral to one tradition is regarded as “incompatible” with others (i.e., not in the common interests). Plagued by political correctness, syncretism’s monomaniacal imperative dictates that there is no room for disagreement.14 In this way, extreme inclusivism reveals itself to be a self-refuting idealism: it prides itself on being accepting of everyone, but in reality it is breeding its own kind of absolutism.15 This is hardly a ‘middle way approach.’

Main Menu

Sectarianism is an extreme form of exclusivism, entailing a hostility towards any other religious tradition—Buddhist or non-Buddhist, demonstrated through one’s attitudes and actions. The moderate exclusivist (tempered by moderate inclusivism) can “agree to disagree” and “live and let live,” but the extreme exclusivist cannot.

Moderate exclusivism means practicing one’s own tradition exclusively, recognizing it as being a complete path. If we wish to gain the wisdom of any one tradition, we must concentrate on it single-pointedly, undistracted even by other virtuous traditions (which would just be a form of ‘mental excitement’). This ‘spiritual monogamy’ is contrasted with the hedonistic ‘spiritual polygamy’ of eclecticism.

Moderate inclusivism means respecting traditions other than one’s own, simply by recognizing their value as spiritual paths. Respect is shown through equanimity and rejoicing in others’ sincere spiritual practice. When there is respect, people can co-exist and live harmoniously without fighting over religious differences.

A pure Buddhist tradition is a perfect synthesis of Buddha’s teachings presented by an enlightened being, a special set of Dharma instructions uniquely suited to that tradition’s practitioners. With his or her skillful means, a Spiritual Guide may re-synthesize a tradition as necessary, according to the needs and dispositions of that tradition’s disciples.

In contrast, a Buddhist eclecticism is an attempted remix of Buddhist (and even non-Buddhist!) teachings created by an unenlightened being. Synthesizing new presentations of the path is the function of a Buddha, not an ordinary being such as ourselves. Instead, our Spiritual Guide will guide us along whichever correct spiritual path is most suited to us.

An example of Godwin’s Law, this quote is taken from the Dalai Lama’s interview with the well known, long-time Tibet observer, Klemens Ludwig (“Auch im Buddhismus gibt es gute und böse Kräfte” [Even in Buddhism there are Good and Evil Forces], Esotera, May 1998, p. 82).

The English translation is very precise. In German it says, “Wer also den Shugden-Geist bekämpft, verteidigt die Religionsfreiheit. Ich vergleiche das durchaus mit den Nazis in Deutschland. Wer sie bekämpft, verteidigt die Menschenrechte, denn die Freiheit der Nazis ist keine Freiheit.”

Elizabeth M. Callahan describes “a middle ground where the various views and styles of different traditions were appreciated for their individual contributions rather than being refuted, marginalized, or banned,” and which “does not mix traditions” (Frameworks of Buddhist Philosophy, p. 10).

Religious eclecticism presumes that no religious tradition is complete, but is ‘missing’ something that must be added in from elsewhere. The spiritual eclectic also claims to be able to discern those parts of each religion which can be summarily dismissed as non-essential. The truth is that the teachings within any one faith are intricately interwoven, and once you start tugging on and pulling out even a single thread not to your liking, the whole tapestry will begin to unravel.

‘Everything exists’: That is one extreme. ‘Everything doesn’t exist’: That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle. (Buddha Shakyamuni, Kaccayanagotta Sutta).

Regarding the middle way between the extremes of existence and non-existence, Geshe-la explains, “When we realize that there is no contradiction between the body being empty of inherent existence and the body existing conventionally, and when we understand how these two support each other, we will have found the correct view of the middle way and then we will have understood emptiness completely” (Understanding the Mind, p. 218).

When outlining religious pluralism as the “path between absolutism or exclusivism, on the one hand, and relatvisim or skepticism, on the other,” Ian Barbour says, “Loyalty to our own tradition can be combined with respect for other traditions” (Science and Religion, pp. 276, 156).

Similarly, Lama Sarah Harding says that pluralism is “appreciating [other traditions] through mutual understanding, while not abnegating one’s own tradition” (Esoteric Instructions, p. 40).

Diana Eck explains how extreme inclusivism is a distortion of moderate inclusivism (A New Religious America):

Some critics have persisted in linking pluralism with a kind of valueless relativism, in which all cats are gray, all perspectives equally viable and, as a result, equally uncompelling. Pluralism, they would contend, undermines commitment to one’s own particular faith with its own particular language, watering down particularity in the interests of universality. I consider this view a distortion of the process of pluralism. I would argue that pluralism is the engagement, not the abdication, of differences and particularities.

Concentrating exclusively on one’s own religious tradition need not necessarily imply sectarianism. What is being excluded in moderate exclusivism is the mixing of traditions, not other traditions as valuable in themselves. David N. Kay notes (Tibetan Buddhism and Zen in Britain, p. 41):

To many observers and practitioners, ‘exclusivism’ is dismissed as an unhealthy and restrictive attitude and is often seen as synonymous with ‘sectarianism’, which in this context means the bigoted and narrow-minded pursuit and defence of a particular sect’s interests, doctrines and identity. For the purposes of this study, it is important to recognise that whilst ‘exclusivism’ and ‘sectarianism’ share a similar emphasis on boundary maintenance and purity, they are not synonymous. Conservative and closed orientations may often result in bigoted, intolerant and even violent behaviour between Tibetan Buddhist schools—this fact is amply attested to by accounts of Tibet’s religio-political history—but exclusively oriented individuals and factions do not always, or necessarily, engage in such hostilities. It should also be remembered that when traditions come into conflict, religious and philosophical differences are often markers of disputes that are primarily economic, material and political in nature.

Dr. Ursula Bernis comments on the consequences of this ‘all-inclusive’ non-sectarianism (Condemned to Silence: A Tibetan Identity Crisis, p. 88):

When I asked the Dalai Lama in December 1997 with which of his many accomplishments he is most pleased, he mentioned the contribution he made to “the unity among the four Tibetan traditions, you know—Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug, Sakya,” which clearly he sees this to be his life’s work. From the point of view of eternal Dharma, all religions and Buddhist traditions are equal. His Holiness is truly committed to making equal all religious traditions especially in his Tibetan sphere of influence where now Bön, a non-Buddhist set of beliefs, is seen to be equal to the various Tibetan Buddhist traditions such that it has served as preliminary instruction to the Kalachakra initiation (New York 1991). Surely, in this context, today, Shakyamuni Buddha would be branded sectarian as well as the many highly revered scholar sages of India, like Aryadeva, etc., all of whom defeated non-Buddhists in debate under the provision that whoever lost had to take on the religious persuasion of the victor. Milarepa in eleventh century Tibet became famous for his fight with the non-Buddhists for dominance of the Mount Kailash area with lake Manasarovar—a millennia old holy place for Hindus, Bönpos, and Buddhists alike.

As was explained by Lord Atisha, Jamgon Kongtrul (1813-1899) includes putting “one’s trust exclusively in the [Three] Jewels,” when discussing the refuge vows (The Treasury of Knowledge: Buddhist Ethics, p. 101).

Dr. Bernis continues (pp. 88-89):

In addition, the most widely accepted Buddhist practices, like taking refuge in the Three Jewels, for example, could be interpreted as sectarian under the generalized “new age” form of Buddhism now taught [by the Dalai Lama] since traditionally it involves a commitment not to take refuge in anyone but the Three Jewels: the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. I am not criticizing non-sectarianism most people understand to mean a mutual respect of each other’s difference and non-interference. I believe that such a non-sectarian approach to religion—and not the mix of religion, politics, and business common with Tibetans in exile today—builds important bridges among people as well as mutual understanding, increasing insight into one’s own tradition. However, I think it is not necessary to destroy individual transmission lineages to accomplish this and no new synthesis based purely on Buddhist principles, rather than social-political ones, should find it necessary to do so. Buddhists traditionally believe that discriminatory views of all sorts, including religious sectarianism, prevent higher realizations.

Geshe-la affirms this last point by saying:

However, when we abandon going for refuge to other objects we should not do so out of sectarianism. Our motivation should be simply to keep our refuge vows purely and avoid the harm we would inflict upon ourself by breaking our commitments. If we have perfect faith in Buddha there is no reason why we should ever need to go for refuge to other objects. (Joyful Path of Good Fortune, p. 212)

As pointed out by Buddha Shakyamuni himself in the Brahmajala Sutta:

Bhikkus, there are countless philosophies, doctrines, and theories in this world. People criticize each other and argue endlessly over their theories. According to my investigation, there are sixty-two main theories which underlie the thousands of philosophies and religions current in our world. Looked at from the Way of Enlightenment and Emancipation, all sixty-two of these theories contain errors and create obstacles... A good fisherman places his net in the water and catches all the shrimp and fish he can. As he watches the creatures try to leap out of the net, he tells them, ‘No matter how high you jump, you will only land in the net again.’ He is correct. The thousands of beliefs flourishing at present can all be found in the net of these sixty-two theories. Bhikkus, don’t fall into that bewitching net. You will only waste time and lose your chance to practice the Way of Enlightenment. (Brahmajala Sutta, translated by Thich Nhat Hanh, Old Path, White Clouds, pp. 399-400)

I believe that it is this reverse sectarianism which Geshe-la is referring to when he says, “It is mixing different religious traditions that causes sectarianism” (Understanding the Mind, p. 162).

According to the Dalai Lama, “non-sectarian [among the Tibetan Buddhist traditions Sakya, Nyingma, Kagyu, Gelug] means not only to respect but to practice [them] simultaneously” (Interview with Dr. Bernis, p. 88; emphasis mine).

Dr. Bernis concludes (p. 89):

Non-sectarianism is already part of traditional Buddhism. While it must be encouraged and protected, it does not have to be newly invented and imposed through political means. There are irreconcilable contradictions built into non-sectarianism understood as a positive entity—as the Dalai Lama does with his emphasis on practicing all [Tibetan Buddhist traditions] simultaneously—since anyone who does not agree with its doctrine as the dominant view even for good reasons would be considered sectarian. The extremist idea that all those who are forced into a group by virtue of arbitrarily declaring a deity in its pantheon evil are therefore evil and do not have any rights, as the Dalai Lama suggested in Germany [referring to the opening quote of this essay], sets a dangerous precedent, something not lost on Nyingma and Kagyu practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism.

Bön teacher Tenzin Wangyal cautions that even a non-sectarian attitude may be taken to an extreme (Wonders of the Natural Mind, p. 22):

A problem that seems very difficult to avoid involves the tendency of spiritual schools either to want to preserve their traditions in a very closed way or to want to be very open and nonsectarian; but there is often the danger that this very nonsectarianism can become a source of self-justification and lead to as closed an attitude as that of the sectarians.