Secularism is respecting all religions, say Dalai Lama and Dada J P Vaswani

www.dalailama.com...

From July 29

Pune, Maharashtra, India, 29 July 2013 (TNN) - Secularism does not favour one god over another, rather manifests as a belief in a supreme power present in all humanity, said spiritual leaders Dalai Lama and Dada J P Vaswani of the Sadhu Vaswani Mission, as they came together on one stage on Sunday as part of the week-long celebrations of Dada Vaswani's 95th birthday.

So, why didn't CNN and all those other media sites report THIS - might have given some more strength to the Pope's statement.

The Dalai Lama urged the rapt audience to inculcate moral values and ethics in children from an early age, which would empower them to respect all religions and humans. "Secularism means respecting all religions. One can be secular even while being a non-believer. By teaching children the right values, one can empower them to make the distinction between wrong action and the actor," he said, adding that service of humanity is the biggest form of prayer to god.

"For the entire world, India has always been the proof that different religions can co-exist without conflict. I consider myself as the messenger of that ahimsa which has always been upheld by India," he said.

Hmm. Now, as I understand it, Muslims in India are very much disenfranchised and persecuted. Now I'm really confused. As much as I was before.

If respect for all religions is a vital part of wearing the secular label, then there are many people out there who consider themselves secular but are in actuality pseudo-secular, because they lack that respect.

The Dalai lama said, "secularism does not favour one god over another, rather manifests as a belief in a supreme power present in all humanity". That reminds me of something Joseph Campbell said:

"No one, as far as I know, has yet tried to compose into a single picture the new perspectives that have been opened in the fields of comparative symbolism, religion, mythology, and philosophy by the scholarship of recent years. The richly rewarded archaeological researches of the past few decades; astonishing clarifications, simplifications, and coordinations achieved by intensive studies in the spheres of philology, ethnology, philosophy, art history, folklore, and religion; fresh insights in psychological research; and the many priceless contributions to our science by the scholars, monks, and literary men of Asia, have combined to suggest a new image of the fundamental unity of the spiritual history of mankind.

Without straining beyond the treasuries of evidence already on hand in these widely scattered departments of our subject, therefore, but simply gathering from them the membra disjuncta of a unitary mythological science, I attempt in the following pages the first sketch of a natural history of the gods and heroes, such as in its final form should include in its purview all divine beings--not regarding any as sacrosanct or beyond its scientific domain. For, as in the visible world of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, so also in the visionary world of the gods: there has been a history, an evolution, a series of mutations, governed by laws; and to show forth such laws is the proper aim of science."

reply to post by wildtimes


Atheism means "not believing in God".

Secularism means "not having to do with God".

Hanging out with friends is "secular", you don't have to talk about the topic of God, it can just be regular life stuff. If your conversation becomes specifically about whether God exists or not then it becomes an atheistic (or theological) discussion.


Secularism is not about respecting and religion or God. Secularism is about not MENTIONING it and letting it be personal to each person.

Acceptance is about respecting each person's beliefs.

reply to post by BlueMule

The Dalai lama said, "secularism does not favour one god over another, rather manifests as a belief in a supreme power present in all humanity".

PRECISELY.

That is why I get bothered by people claiming "secular society" is Godless and sinful and wrong and that secular persons are going to hell.

Thanks for contributing!!

I also don't see India as being all that tolerant and peaceful. I wonder what sort of people were in his 5,000-large crowd? I would LOVE to hear him speak in person.

reply to post by arpgme


Why do you point out the difference? I know what atheism is, and what secularism is, arpgme.

The Dalai Lama's point is that in "secular" countries (such as the USA), people are free to have their own beliefs and are treated equally to everyone else.

The other speaker said this:

Dada Vaswani said there is no scope in party politics, but in coming together as one. "Governments come and go, but the conditions remain the same. The only way there can be any real change is when all political parties come together to work for the emancipation of the people," he said.

Explaining that politics creates divisions in the community, Vaswani said belief in god is more important than being part of any community. "No one will ever indulge in any wrong-doing if there is faith that there is a supreme power which is watching all humanity. Let us bring back god into our lives and homes," he said.

The first statement about Governments is true, beyond a doubt.

The second, claiming that "no one will ever indulge in any wrong-doing" is NOT one I agree with. Atheists can be - and often ARE - more ethical and moral than believers. It has been proven to my satisfaction that "belief in God" does NOT CAUSE MORALITY. That is fear-based behavior modification, NOT true altruism and ethics.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
The Dalai Lama's point is that in "secular" countries (such as the USA), people are free to have their own beliefs and are treated equally to everyone else.

I thought he was talking about secular people.

It is true that secular countries seems to be more fair and open-minded. That is not called "secularism" thought, that is called "tolerance" or "Acceptance" and even a religious person can have that.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Originally posted by wildtimes
The Dalai Lama's point is that in "secular" countries (such as the USA), people are free to have their own beliefs and are treated equally to everyone else.

I thought he was talking about secular people.

It is true that secular countries seems to be more fair and open-minded. That is not called "secularism" thought, that is called "tolerance" or "Acceptance" and even a religious person can have that.

I call it humanism. A religious person can have that; a religious humanist. Conversely a secular person can have fundamentalism.

reply to post by BlueMule


Some would call it Universalism, as well. They are the one group besides Baha'i that seem to have their ducks in a row as well as Buddhism and Taoist thinking. In my opinion.

reply to post by arpgme


No doubt the nuances of the word "secular" are a big issue today. Perhaps it is a translation problem. Often happens - PARTICULARLY in religious texts and translations.

Excellent thread and excellent opening post.
The Dalai Lama is correct. Secular governments protect religious freedom.

India has always been the proof that different religions can co-exist without conflict.

Hmmm ...

Religious Conflicts in India

1 Muslim-Hindu conflict
2 Muslim-Sikh conflict
3 Hindu–Christian conflict
4 Muslim-Christian conflict
5 Muslim-Buddhist conflict

It's when the religious extremists work outside the secular stream of things that problems happen.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Thanks, and thanks for the link. Yes, as I said, it seems to me that India is way behind 'the West' in tolerance for religions - the secular (being NON-RELIGIOUS political) nations seem more advanced than India does.

I wonder if our pal will speak up about it, being in India and all - cause, I'm not seein' it so much that India is so peaceable.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by wildtimes

 

Atheism means "not believing in God".

Secularism means "not having to do with God"...Secularism is not about respecting and religion or God. Secularism is about not MENTIONING it and letting it be personal to each person.

Acceptance is about respecting each person's beliefs.

I have zero respect for religions regardless of their geographical reference, peoples that are dominated by them or their belief systems.

I do allow that the irreligious state is not for most people if for no other reason that the state of propaganda which envelops and chokes the world, created and perpetuated by the major religions, is psychologically near impossible to eradicate from one's personal existence. I continually fight a RomCath upbringing.

WTS, to sit still and not protest the convolution of spirituality, the purposeful distortion of the continuity of life, the Redeemerless reality of spiritual ascension, well, personally, I can't relax on the vileness of it all.

Other's MMV

I think that by "secular", what he (the Dalai Lama) meant a secular government.
That means not having an official state religion that gets support from the government over other religions.
I don't think that he meant a personal secularism, but for people to go on having whatever religion they choose and not worrying about what religion someone else might have.

Depends on what kind of secularism you are talking about. There is a difference between secularism (not playing any favourites with regards to religions- no state religions, no religious laws, etc.) and anti-religiousness (not allowing praying in public, not allowing any public displays of religion, and banning religious foods). France, (now going the second way), seems to be getting a bit rabid in their "secularism".

And yeah, India was a model of secularism, or perhaps more accurate to call it religious tolerance (or perhaps MOST accurately cultural and racial tolerance), before Western Civilisation was even a thing- India is home to almost 2000 unique ethnolinguistic cultures and dozens of religions. People seem to conflate all the indian religions into one, but aside from Jainism, Sikhism, even what is usually put under the umbrella term "Hinduism" is made up of a huge array of vastly differing (and sometimes conflicting) belief sets.
Unfortunately, these days, nationalistic (which usually ends up meaning hindu) political parties have caused resentment in many of the minority religion adherents. I wouldn't judge the entire history and geography of India by what's happened in the last 50 years in specific parts of the country, though.

reply to post by babloyi

I wouldn't judge the entire history and geography of India by what's happened in the last 50 years in specific parts of the country, though.

Neither would I, babloyi. What I'm concerned about is what's happening NOW, though, and has been for the last 50 years ALL OVER THE WORLD. Obviously understanding the history that has led to where humanity is today is very important - but I'm afraid we don't have the luxury of sitting in libraries digging into it for much longer if we don't STOP what's happening now --- which appears to be leading to more death and destruction by the day.

Stop? Stop what? Secularism? Anti-secularism? Which death and destruction? I don't believe the world is any significant amount of danger from either side at the moment.

What I said is basic knowledge. Shouldn't take digging into any sort of library to figure it out, just requires people to step out of the bubble they've built around themselves, self-inflating and insulating themselves from the outside world. I'm not indian, I never did a research paper on India or anything. I knew it.

reply to post by babloyi

Stop? Stop what? Secularism? Anti-secularism? Which death and destruction? I don't believe the world is any significant amount of danger from either side at the moment.

"Which death and destruction? "

"No significant amount of danger", when embassies are being closed? Not just by the U.S. (promulgators of the ongoing violence), but the UK, Germany, and France - at least in Yemen.

Do you know the history of 'diplomatic' (read: bribes and betrayal) between Yemen and the U.S.? Just in the last couple of decades?

Babloyi, does Al-Awlaki ring a bell?

I don't mean to sound flippant, you have always been kind and open with me, but, I pray that you will look into the last 50 years of history to see what is really happening.

Also, see this: Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill, copyright 2013.

reply to post by wildtimes


So...death and destruction at the hands of the US?
What has that got to do with Secularism?

reply to post by babloyi


sigh.
Okay,
Oh dear, I didn't make myself clear.

So...death and destruction at the hands of the US?
What has that got to do with Secularism?

The Islamist jihadists believe that secularism (as in Egypt) is wrong and dangerous. So does the Taliban, and Saudi Arabia......

The U.S. drone program and 'war on terror' is exacerbating already strained relations.
People are dying in Egypt over the "Muslim Brotherhood" vs "secularism." Things are bad, babs.

reply to post by wildtimes


Okay...so you mention Egypt. Since June, when the recent troubles started getting violent, what with Morsi assigning himself sweeping powers, as well as his picking personally people for specific posts in government (and other mishandlings such as statements on Syria) till now, I believe the statistics have less than 20 people dead. 6 Morsi supporters, 2 reporters, 5 Coptic christians, a student and 2 children. A couple of muslim brotherhood offices were damaged and looted, and houses in a coptic christian village were also burnt down.

A very depressing and sad thing, but certainly not the end of the world, or anything near it, and I'd question the role "Secularism vs Muslim Brotherhood" played in all of this on anything but a superficial level. Morsi was deposed by a military coup d'etat, new elections will be held, some new guy will be elected. Very important for Egyptians! Soon someone will come, and the laws in Egypt relating to Muslims and Christians will probably not change at all. Whoever is elected will hopefully not be stupid enough to try and fill important government positions by hand-picked cronies from their own team.

The world isn't ending, and no grand conspiracy has been thwarted (or assisted).

In other news, over 3000 people died during the same time period due to traffic related accidents in the US, a third of them probably due to alcohol-impairment. Statistically, about the same number of gun-related deaths (suicides, homicides, accidents, etc.).
But people don't care the least about that stuff. They seem to for some reason consider it unimportant. They seem to consider efforts to bring attention to it somehow an attack on their rights.

Closer to the area you were talking about, Africa statistically had almost 50,000 malaria deaths during that time. Had over 100,000 children die of starvation.

A philosophically debatable question, perhaps, but which are more "important" to you? Which matter more? Which is it more important to find a solution for? Which involves REAL, undeniable, serious problems with real solutions that can be implemented? Which do you think will affect you more?