Is it true that Buddhists are tolerant of other religions? To what extent are Buddhists tolerant? Is nirvana held to be attainable through Buddhism alone? If so, through which Buddhist tradition? Buddhist Responses to Religious Diversity approaches these questions and others from perspectives representing Theravādin and Tibetan traditions of Buddhism. Buddhist attitudes toward other religious traditions (and its own) are unquestionably diverse, and have undergone changes throughout historical eras and geographic spaces, as Buddhists, and traditions Buddhists have encountered, continue to change (after all, all conditioned things are impermanent). The present time is a particularly dynamic moment to take stock of Buddhist attitudes toward religious others, as Buddhist identities are being renegotiated in unprecedented ways in our increasingly globalized age. This volume brings together a spectrum of views that are not often found side-by-side or in a meaningful dialogue with each other. It breaks new ground to further understanding and constructive encounters across Buddhist traditions and between other religious traditions and Buddhists.

Is it true that Buddhists are tolerant of other religions? To what extent are Buddhists tolerant? Is nirvana held to be attainable through Buddhism alone? If so, through which Buddhist tradition? Buddhist Responses to Religious Diversity approaches these questions and others from perspectives representing Theravādin and Tibetan traditions of Buddhism. Buddhist attitudes toward other religious traditions (and its own) are unquestionably diverse, and have undergone changes throughout historical eras and geographic spaces, as Buddhists, and traditions Buddhists have encountered, continue to change (after all, all conditioned things are impermanent). The present time is a particularly dynamic moment to take stock of Buddhist attitudes toward religious others, as Buddhist identities are being renegotiated in unprecedented ways in our increasingly globalized age. This volume brings together a spectrum of views that are not often found side-by-side or in a meaningful dialogue with each other. It breaks new ground to further understanding and constructive encounters across Buddhist traditions and between other religious traditions and Buddhists.

This volume discusses contemporary Buddhist responses to religious diversity from Theravādin and Tibetan Buddhist perspectives. Buddhist attitudes toward other religious traditions (and its own) are unquestionably diverse, and have undergone changes throughout historical eras and geographic spaces, as Buddhists, and traditions Buddhists have encountered, continue to change (after all, all conditioned things are impermanent). The present time is a particularly dynamic moment to take stock of Buddhist attitudes toward religious others, as Buddhist identities are being renegotiated in unprecedented ways in our increasingly globalized age. Is it true that Buddhists are tolerant of other religions? To what extent are Buddhists tolerant? Is nirvana held to be attainable through Buddhism alone? If so, through which Buddhist tradition? This volume approaches these questions and others from perspectives representing Theravādin and Tibetan traditions of Buddhism. The chapters herein bring together a spectrum of views that are not often found side-by-side in a single volume or in a meaningful dialogue with each other, needless to mention with other religions. This volume seeks to remedy this situation, and break new ground to enable further dialogue, understanding, and constructive encounters across Buddhist traditions and between other religious traditions and Buddhists.

This chapter contends that the historical Buddha is best understood as advocating an exclusivist view of other religions. Contrary to common belief, the Buddha, as represented by the Pali Nikāyas and their parallels, did not subscribe to the view that the ultimate goal of the spiritual life could be attained through diverse spiritual paths but rather that the ultimate goal is accessible solely through the noble eightfold path, the distinctive discovery of the sammā-sambuddhas, those who attain perfect enlightenment. Nevertheless, through the centuries Buddhism has displayed an impressive tolerance in its relationship to other faiths. The chapter explains this apparently paradoxical attitude on the basis of a dual perspective that the Buddha adopts on the diversity of spiritual paths. On the one hand, he asserts that the eightfold path is the sole means to the final goal of the spiritual life, irreversible release from the cycle of repeated birth and death. At the same time the cosmology of Early Buddhism allows a more accommodative stance according to which the provisional goal of the spiritual life, the achievement of a blissful rebirth, is not exclusive to the Buddha’s teaching but can be reached through other faith commitments.

This chapter challenges exclusivist interpretations of the Buddha, and proposes alternative readings of early Buddhist texts that allow for the existence of the ultimate goal of the spiritual life outside Buddhism. The chapter clarifies the differences between exclusivist and non-exclusivist exegesis of the Buddha and suggests that exclusivist readings of his thought are a later scholastic development in the history of Buddhism. The main thesis of the chapter is that the Buddha cannot be considered an exclusivist because he did not understand the Dhamma and self-enlightened beings (paccekabuddhas) in sectarian terms as being the monopoly of any school. What the Buddha excludes from being paths to the final goal of the spiritual life are specific teachings incompatible with the Dhamma and the Noble Eightfold Path. This exclusion of specific teachings rather than of entire schools entails “specific exclusivism,” which is different from holding a sectarian “exclusivist view” of all non-Buddhists traditions anywhere and at any time.

Distinguishing between “tolerance” and “appreciation”, this chapter asks to what extent Theravādins are able to appreciate other religious traditions as means or paths of liberation/salvation. After clarifying the conditions of enlightenment as taught in classical Theravāda, and the three types of enlightened persons that Theravāda admits, the chapter presents and discusses exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist stances as they are taken from a Theravāda background. It argues that the doctrinal presuppositions of classical Theravāda (especially the idea of only one Buddha and saṅgha at a time) have a strong tendency toward exclusivism which was apparently the dominant position of the past. Further, the chapter looks at the arguments of some Theravādins who, in the twentieth century, moved toward an inclusivist understanding of non-Buddhist religions, and finally presents the position of Buddhadāsa as an example of a Theravāda pluralist.

This chapter argues that in Buddhism—irrespective of the religious other’s understanding of ultimate reality—there is potential for fruitful exchange and common ground with other religions. For the peaceful and respectful coexistence of religious communities it is crucial to address—and not to exclude or minimize—the different views of their respective religious truths. Cultivating an inner attitude of benevolence and openness will prove advantageous for our interaction with others. Three central Buddhist teachings are analyzed in view of their potential for openness towards the religious others in theory and in practice: the Four Immeasurables, the Skill in Liberative Technique and the Two Truths. These teachings, although not explicitly spoken about, still have the potential to generate openness towards and elaborate on the religious other with reference to modern societies in the 21st century.

Buddhism is sometimes characterized as having an inclusivist attitude to the religious Other. In the second decade of the twenty-first century, however, an exclusivist approach to the religious Other emerged in Sri Lanka. Using the case study of a Buddhist temple in Dambulla, this chapter examines the conditioning factors behind this phenomenon. It is divided into four sections. The first examines recent theoretical approaches to Buddhism and inter-religious encounter, and argues that a spectrum of Buddhist approaches to the Other has long been present in text and tradition. The second offers background information about the Dambulla temple and its leading monk, Inamuluwe Sumangala Thero. The third explores three representations of the mosque attack, those of Sumangala, the Hindus of Dambulla, and secular analysts. The fourth suggests three conditioning factors for the dominance of Sumangala’s representation and the emergence of what could be considered an uncharacteristically exclusivist Buddhist approach to the religious Other within South Asian Buddhism.

In a world where communities across the globe are becoming increasingly interconnected, encounters with diverse cultures and faiths is inevitable. How can diverse communities approach these encounters in a way that fosters dialogue rather than conflict, peace rather than war? Specifically, in the context of Buddhism, how should Buddhists relate to religious diversity in a way that simultaneously remains faithful to their own spiritual traditions while being open-minded and respectful towards the beliefs and practices of others? One of the most well-known Buddhist responses to religious diversity was the rimé movement in nineteenth-century eastern Tibet. While the term “rimé” (meaning “impartial” or “non-sectarian” in Tibetan) has become a catchphrase in contemporary Tibetan Buddhist contexts, there has been little sustained engagement with this topic by Buddhists and Buddhist studies scholars. This essay documents and contextualizes the contemporary uses of the term rimé (non-sectarianism) in Tibetan Buddhist communities and situates it within Tibetan Buddhist literature and history. I argue that it is essential for both Buddhists and Buddhist-studies scholars to devote significant attention to the concept of rimé and to engage in interfaith dialogue. For Buddhists, the very survival of their religion depends on it. For Buddhist-studies scholars, it contributes to the development of an accurate understanding of one of the most significant intellectual moments in modern Tibetan history. For humankind, it contributes to interfaith understanding, harmony, and peace.

This paper probes the criteria by which Buddhist philosophical traditions are evaluated, particularly those that are articulated in what came to be referred as the ‘nonsectarian’ (ris med) tradition. The essay queries the assumptions of the hierarchical structures of ‘nonsectarian’ traditions and attempts to articulate evaluative criteria for a nonsectarian stance that are not based solely on metaphysical or tradition-specific claims.

This paper draws out some implications of the difference between Buddhist exclusivist and pluralist stances. A key difference rests on the interpretation of ultimate truth, and in particular, whether the ultimate truth of emptiness is interpreted as the indeterminate nature of reality or its undetermined nature. The difference between these interpretations marks a difference between a distinctively Buddhist view and a view that reaches beyond Buddhism.

The chapter introduces the Dalai Lama’s approach to religious diversity as formulated in Towards True Kinship of Faiths: How the World’s Religions Can Come Together. The first part explains the Dalai Lama’s ideal of interreligious harmony and the means to achieve it. Interreligious harmony requires various types of dialogue and the acknowledgment of fundamental differences among the religions. In order to achieve the ideal of interreligious harmony it is also necessary a balance between respectful acceptance of religious diversity and faithful commitment to one’s own tradition. The means to attain such balance is to uphold with integrity two distinct perspectives: the exclusivist perspective “one truth, one religion” in the context of individual practice, and the pluralist perspective “many truths, many religions” in the context of social interreligious relationships. The second part provides a sympathetic yet critical assessment of the Dalai Lama’s approach to religious diversity. It is argued that while the Dalai Lama’s proposal offers a robust foundation for accepting religious diversity, such acceptance is problematic because it is limited to the level of ethical teachings and confined to the context of social interactions.

This essay attempts to establish foundations for doing comparative theology, deep learning across religious boundaries, from a Buddhist perspective (from the author’s location in Tibetan Buddhism). The essay argues for the necessity of developing a Buddhist theology of religions, a way of understanding the possibility of liberating truth in other religions, which is consistent with Buddhist principles and would appropriately motivate and guide a Buddhist approach to comparative theology. It develops such a theology of religions, a Buddhist form of open inclusivism, by drawing on relevant principles from Buddhist texts together with recent academic scholarship in the various theologies of religions. With that basis, the essay gives examples of five areas of comparative theological learning for Buddhists from Christianity, focusing on the following themes: atonement theory, faith in God, the two great commandments, ecclesiology, and justice. It concludes with the author’s reflections on how this process of inter-religious learning further informs his Buddhist approach to the theology of religions.

A fruitful Buddhist approach to religious pluralism is to step away from viewing the plurality of religious traditions as different ways of getting at the Real or śūnyatā (à la John Hick and Masao Abe) and construe the plurality of religious traditions as different responses to core human problems, including what Buddhism designates as “suffering.” Along these lines, the Four Noble Truths can provide a template for encountering (and perhaps analyzing and categorizing) various religious traditions—for theorizing religious pluralism. At the practical level, with this approach Buddhists can build on dialogue with adherents of other traditions and engage in collaborative action with them in response to problems like violence and the climate crisis.

With the understanding that one’s views on religious diversity shapes one’s attitude to interreligious dialogue, in this chapter I try to articulate how the Buddha perceived the phenomenon of religious diversity and then to discuss how this perception could inform the Buddhist practice of interreligious dialogue. I begin this discussion with reference to the diversity of views held by the Roman Catholics themselves on interreligious dialogue and the Colonial and more recent history of dialogue in the local context of Sri Lanka. Next I move on to discuss Buddhism’s own self-understanding as a non-theistic system. In order to support the non-theistic claim of Buddhism I produce two arguments, one philosophical and the other experiential, both derived from the discourses of the Buddha. Having supported the non-theist stance of Buddhism, I propose that the Buddhist attitude is to be open to religious diversity while upholding the position that nirvana is the ultimate goal irreducible to any other similar goals. The discussion shows that to accept diversity is not necessarily to accept pluralism in religion, and that this position does not preclude Buddhists from engaging in interreligious dialogue.

This chapter argues that all current theologies of religion share the presupposition that differences among religions are a problem, even a mistake, and that unity or agreement would be preferable to difference and religious diversity. But theologians of religion need to start at the other end of the puzzle, conceding from the get-go that religious diversity is here to stay, is inevitable, normal, natural, and, therefore, not the major problem or issue. The important questions are not about them, the others who are different from us, but about us. Why do we dislike diversity so much? Why does it make us so uncomfortable? Why does difference so frequently elicit the response of ranking the different options hierarchically? And, most important of all, how can we cure our own discomfort with diversity? The chapter also suggests that we need to practice the spiritual disciplines that help us overcome our egocentric preferences for a world in which everyone else would be just like us and can, instead, live comfortable in a world that accommodates vast differences.

Is it true that Buddhists are tolerant of other religions? To what extent are Buddhists tolerant? Is nirvana held to be attainable through Buddhism alone? If so, through which Buddhist tradition? Buddhist Responses to Religious Diversity approaches these questions and others from perspectives representing Theravādin and Tibetan traditions of Buddhism. Buddhist attitudes toward other religious traditions (and its own) are unquestionably diverse, and have undergone changes throughout historical eras and geographic spaces, as Buddhists, and traditions Buddhists have encountered, continue to change (after all, all conditioned things are impermanent). The present time is a particularly dynamic moment to take stock of Buddhist attitudes toward religious others, as Buddhist identities are being renegotiated in unprecedented ways in our increasingly globalized age. This volume brings together a spectrum of views that are not often found side-by-side or in a meaningful dialogue with each other. It breaks new ground to further understanding and constructive encounters across Buddhist traditions and between other religious traditions and Buddhists.