ovde - vera znanje mir

The Dalai Lama believes that from a Buddhist perspective one does not attain liberation while
still attached to the idea of a permanent self. There is no enduring person, a permanent self, or an
immortal soul, as Jews and Christians claim. For the Dalai Lama, as for many Mahayana
Buddhists, the Buddha had different teachings for different people. From this perspective, other
great religious teachers and founders of religions may be seen as bodhisattvas who use skillful
means to bring to the world a preliminary teaching such as the concept of a personal savior god.
To the question put to him at “the Bodhgaya interviews” – “But is it only the Buddha who can be
the ultimate source of refuge?” – the Dalai Lama responded:
Liberation in which “a mind that understands the sphere of reality annihilates all defilements in
the sphere of reality” is a state that only Buddhists can accomplish. This kind of moksa or nirvana
is only explained in the Buddhist scriptures, and is achieved only through Buddhist practice.
According to certain religions, however, salvation is a place, a beautiful paradise, like a peaceful
valley. To attain such a state as this, to achieve such a state of moksa, does not require the
practice of emptiness, the understanding of reality.
This statement by the Dalai Lama is not consistent with John Hick’s view of other faiths. It seems
to me that both the Dalai Lama and Heschel viewed their own traditions as somehow better. Both
are also deeply committed to their own paths, yet they are opposed to proselytism and make no
claim that they have exclusive possession of ultimate truth. I repeat Heschel’s statements:
“Holiness is not the monopoly of any religion or tradition” and that “the Jews do not maintain that
the way of the Torah is the only way of God.”
In one of his best-known books, the Dalai Lama writes in a similar vein when he states:
In my own case, I am convinced that Buddhism provides me with the most effective framework
within which to situate my efforts to develop spiritually through cultivating love and compassion.
At the same time, I must acknowledge that while Buddhism represents the best path for me – that
is, it suits my character, my temperament, my inclinations, and my cultural background – the same
will be true of Christianity for Christians. For them, Christianity is the best way. On the basis of
my conviction, I cannot, therefore, say that Buddhism is best for everyone.
In this book the core message of the Dalai Lama is the necessity of love and compassion. This is
precisely the message of Heschel, who claimed that “the greatest heresy is despair of men’s power
for goodness, men’s power for love.” In the Jewish tradition we are commanded to love all human
beings because all are created in the image of God. For Heschel, as for the great second century
sage Rabbi Akiva, the supreme principle of the Torah is “love thy neighbor as thyself.”
Heschel was very much in love with the Jewish tradition. He loved the Jewish people. But his
greatness lies in his ability to extend this love to everyone and to see the humanity and touch of
divinity present in various religious traditions. His love and compassion have brought great
healing and great hope to all who have encountered him through the example of his life and the
eloquence of his written word.
In his unique view of religious diversity, Heschel is neither a pluralist nor an inclusivist. I now see
him as a Jewish interreligious artist who transcends the categories created by Christian scholars.
Heschel was a committed Jew, who, on the one hand, was able to affirm and live out the
consequences of the fact that no religion has a monopoly on truth or holiness, and, on the other
hand, that the Hebrew Bible is “the only book in the whole world that can never be replaced.”
http://escholarship.bc.edu/scjr/vol2/iss2/4/
Israeli and Palestinian
Tuesday, February 12th, 2008
by Daniel Barenboim
31 January 2008