Topic: THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF RELIGION IN THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

Transcript IFD 2002

Tomáš Halík
Your Holiness, distinguished speakers, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to take this opportunity to greet you, and also to greet all the rest of you who are participating in our gathering through the Internet. It occurred to me that today, my own spiritual family, the Catholic Church, is celebrating St. Thomas's Day. He is called the Doubting Thomas, because according to a biblical story, he proclaimed: "I shall not believe until I touch the wounds of Christ." Several years ago, I visited his grave in Madras and saw the poverty of the Indian people. At that moment, this story opened up in front of me in an entirely new light. I said to myself: "I cannot believe, I cannot worship God unless I touch the wounds of our world." A religion that ignores the aching wounds of our contemporary world would be a mere illusion. Can religions unite their powers in order to heal the wounds of contemporary world? This is the question that brought us together, people of different traditions and from different corners of the world, so that we may contemplate it here today. Over the course of the past five years, the Forum 2000 conferences have dealt with the wounds, aches, and hopes of humankind on the verge of a new millennium. Representatives of various world religions have always been one of the participants in the dialogue, and always gathered for an ecumenical meditation in St. Vitus Cathedral. Today, representatives of the world's greatest religions are meeting at this table to continue the dialogue in its new form. Since Enlightenment, until approximately the middle of the 20th century, many people believed that religion was simply the childhood of humankind, a transient historical form, a step that will be overcome by the advancements of the industrial society. This expectation turned out to be an illusion, as the authors of this theory were only looking at a small part of the world. They believed that whatever was occurring in Europe at the time was bound to spread to the rest of the world. They were looking at only one of the countless forms of religion that exist in the world. Of course, traditional forms of religious institutions have a different status and play a different role in Europe today than they did in the past, however this does not mean that religion around the world is on the decline. Religion guides and probably always will guide humans throughout history. Its historical forms vary, and decline alternates with renewal. One process occurring worldwide is the greater presence of religion in public life, including politics, than fifty or a hundred years ago. The media, sometimes operating under the slogan 'no news, good news,' emphasize the negative role that religions may play; religious ideas, convictions, and symbols can be and are misused in order to escalate conflict among people. As last year's events have convincingly shown us, we cannot trivialize this negative side. In the name of justice, however, we must not forget the positive side either; thousands of women and men all over the world-individuals as well as groups-are inspired by their religious faith to work, to fight for human rights, for social justice, to promote ethical issues in science, politics, in the economy. They strive for the amelioration of poverty and violence, for the respect of life and the protection of nature as God's creation. Yes, many paradoxes and surprises happen: the Catholic Church, for example, which has always been seen as the enemy of progress and democracy, played an important role in the peaceful transition of many countries from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one at the end of the 20th century-for example in Chile, in the Philippines, in Spain, or in Poland. For millions of people, the highest authority of Tibetan Buddhism-a movement seen in the West as an esoteric religion focused on the peace of mind, isolated from the problems of the world-has become a symbol of not just spiritual freedom, but also of struggle for political freedom and human rights. One of the noticeable phenomena of our time is that wherever religious leaders such as His Holiness the Dalai Lama or His Holiness the Pope John Paul II arrive, there are always thousands of young people who gather to listen carefully to what they have to say. When politicians and statesmen arrive, the cameras of the media pay much attention to them, but young people are rarely interested in what they have to say. May I say this in front of a statesman who is an exception to the rule? He has not only attracted the attention of the whole world, he also did so largely because he tries to combine politics with a spiritual and moral dimension. I would like to remind our foreign guests here that this has a deep tradition in our political culture. Tomáš Garrique Masaryk, the founder of our modern democracy and the first president of our country, considered it a large part of his role as president to attempt to interpret the situation and the goals of Czech society in the larger context of the deep spiritual and cultural transformation of Europe and the rest of the world. At last year's Forum 2000 conference, President Havel addressed the representatives of great world religions in a similar vein, calling for a great spiritual coalition-a coalition that would lead to a deeper understanding of religion, a deeper joint effort to prevent the misuse of religion in conflicts and violent disputes, but not only that. He also called for a deeper dialogue between religious thinkers and between the architects of the contemporary world in the political, economical, and scientific sense. This appeal was very well received, and many religious leaders have responded very positively. If our meeting today makes but a small step toward such a coalition, we have not gathered in vain.

Let me welcome once more and introduce the participants in today's panel: Mr. President Václav Havel, president of the Czech Republic; His Holiness the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet and a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize; Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali, an Islamic scholar, scientist and politician, who is one of the founders and leaders of the Iraqi National Congress based in London; His Eminence Kakuhan Enami, Archabbot of Enryaku-ji Monastery on the Hiei Mountain near Kyoto, a representative of the Tendai Buddhist School; Efraim Karol Sidon, Chief Rabbi of the Czech lands; and Reverend Hans Ucko, Swedish clergyman and Acting Secretary of the Office on Inter-religious Relations and Dialogue at the World Council of Churches based in Geneva.

Let me welcome you all here in Prague. I would like to ask Mr. President for an introductory remark.

Václav Havel
Ladies and gentlemen, dear delegates,

I thank you for having come in such large numbers, and let me welcome you here on the premises of the Prague Castle. Above all, however, let me welcome our dear guests from abroad, who accepted our invitation and arrived. To begin, allow me to provide a certain context for this debate. When I became president several years ago and started undertaking official visits to various countries of the world, I kept realizing again and again the uniqueness of different cultures, civilizations, religious worlds, their self-confidence and their originality, while at the same time I also kept realizing how our so-called Euro-Atlantic space, however unwittingly and with a seemingly understanding face, continues to consider itself different and better than these other cultures and civilizations. I contemplated this and decided to provide impetus for the establishment of Forum 2000. This Forum consisted of conferences which, over the course of five years, took place here at the Prague Castle. They always took approximately three days; former politicians, current politicians, theologians, philosophers, as well as various public figures took part in them. Many very interesting debates took place and when, after five years, the series of conferences at the Castle was concluded, it turned out that our work is ongoing, that it is interesting and important, and that there exists a shared interest in having such debates. This is why it was decided that Forum 2000 would continue to exist, although it now functions a little differently. It no longer organizes one large annual conference at the Castle, but rather it organizes smaller, more frequent and modest events. This gathering is one, or perhaps the first one, of such events, and you are its witnesses and its participants. As Tomáš Halík mentioned, this gathering partially comes out of a call for a spiritual coalition that I was privileged to deliver here in the cathedral during an interfaith meditation that traditionally accompanied Forum 2000. This was during the last Forum 2000 conference in the fall of last year, which took place immediately in the aftermath of the attack on New York and Washington, D.C. This fact, of course, provided a strange, fresh stimulus for a reflection on the contemporary world, its problems, and its future. So much for the external, technical context.

Now I should like to say a few words about the very meaning of these gatherings. I think that we live in a world of a strange stampede of one part of the human ahead, and a tragic lagging of the other part behind the first. We live in an era of enormous technological progress, of modern science and technology. Again and again, we are surprised by everything that the human mind has recently achieved; but it is as if human responsibility was not evolving at the same rate. Something that would handle all the discoveries and inventions in a way that would effectively benefit the human race, its quality of life, so that they would not turn against humans and enslave them. Thanks to this progress, the contemporary world is, as we know, exceptionally interconnected, so that the planet is effectively covered by one civilization; this is called globalization. For this reason, the contact of the individual parts of this civilization, of the various cultures and civilizations, is all the more important, not the least because its main point should be the very awakening of the lagging part of human responsibility, of the lagging part of human development and that of his or her conscience and knowledge, that is to say, of human responsibility. This is because whatever problem of contemporary world we look at, we always come to the realization that it is a problem of the human being, of his or her behavior, of the moral code that he or she follows or does not follow, that in the end it is a question of a metaphysical order or of the values that he or she respects, and from which he or she derives the moral code, and also that it is a question of humility or pride with which one approaches the gift of life and this planet. The terrorist attacks have, in a very unusual, cruel, and strange way, made all these themes much more current. It was not the terrorists who invented airplanes, radar, or biological and chemical weapons. They are our inventions, those of modern people, they are the products of our stampeding parts. The terrorists simply demonstrated how terribly all this can be misused against humans, against human life. I believe that this is a appeal for a reflection about the contemporary world, for thoughts about existential, moral, metaphysical dimensions of our coexistence, our life, our existence, our cooperation in this world. I would be happy if the discussion that is about to begin here humbly contributed to this new human self-awareness of sorts, to this search for ways to mutual understanding, mutual respect, mutual cooperation.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Mr. President, for your inspiring words.

And now we shall begin the discussion itself. We have sent a list of questions to our guests, and I would like to ask them to briefly express their opinion on these. These are the questions we asked:

How does the process of globalization functions as a religion? Much has been said about globalization at Forum 2000. A Sri Lankan theologian recently said a beautiful sentence to me: "Globalisation itself became a religion, religion of moneytomoneyteism." Globalization itself has become a religion of sorts, a religion of moneyteism, a religion of money. Is it thus a religion competing with other world religions, or is it a space where religions may meet and enrich one another more deeply?

How can we prevent, if it is at all possible, the misuse of religious symbols, ideas and convictions for the purpose of arousing enmity between groups of humans?

Where can we find the basis for the meeting of individual religious traditions?

And since negative experiences are so widely discussed, what are the positive experiences that arise from the meeting of religions?

Last but not least, is it possible to formulate a common ethical minimum that would derive from the experiences of world religions? If so, is it possible to advocate and enforce its incorporation into the legal system and life of contemporary humankind?

We have left it up to each participant to seize these themes from any angle they desire, and we'd like to ask them for a brief statement. First let me ask His Eminence, Archabbot Kakuhan Enami from the Tendai Buddhist denomination.

Kakuhan Enami
For the first time I had a possibility to attend the Forum 2000 conference in its third year, in 1999, when I came to Prague as a representative of His Holiness Tendai Buddhist Patriarch, Eshin Watanabe. It is a great honour for me to be invited once again by President Václav Havel and to have the possibility to take part in this discussion.
When speaking about the teaching of Buddha Shakyamuni, Dengyo Daishi (767 - 822), founder of the Enryaku-ji Monastery of Mt. Hiei, used to employ a parable "No bird can be trapped by a net of a single mesh" - the spirit of openness and all-embracing tolerance represented to him one of the key attributes of Buddhism. Dengyo Daishi was also convicted, that the monks education has to be based on a mahayana principle "to give up one's own self in favour of the other is the summit of compassion". Such an education should develop a bodhisattva-like attitude: To relate every evil to oneself and to pass over any merit to others.
The most important canonical foundation of his teaching was so called Lotus sutra, Myoho renge-kyo in Japanese. First of the five characters in the scripture title, "myo", means wonderful, beyond understanding. Second character, "ho", stands for all phenomena of the world. "Renge" or white lotus is a plant growing up of a mud yet bearing an untainted flower on its top. Even a man in the world of defilement can blossom out into a snow-white flower. The teaching of Lotus sutra overcomes the conception of divergent dispositions of people - according to it the Buddha nature can be realised by anybody. It teaches also, that the truth concerning single beings has a character of interdependent origination - no being exists of its self, but it originates from the mutual interdependence of all beings in the universe.
In the chapter "On All-Encompassing Mercy of bodhisattva Avalokiteshvara" (25th chapter of the Lotus sutra) it says, that the bodhisattva incarnates in 33 different ways to preach the teachings. 33 is a symbolic number implying, that the true of the teaching can be revealed in countless different ways, including plants, trees or sunshine. From here originates also the thought, that "mountains, rivers, grass and trees, all attains buddhahood".
Dengyo Daishi produced a comprehensive teaching system connecting philosophy of the Lotus sutra with meditation, esoteric teachings, monastic discipline, etc. Many distinctive layers and aspects, present in his teaching from the very beginning, were separated during the Middle Ages and so called single practice schools developed around them. Because all of these schools are connected to Mt. Hiei, the mountain is called "the mother of Japanese Buddhism". Meiji Restoration (1868) and opening of the modern era involved criticism of the eclectic spirit of Japanese Buddhism, anti-Buddhist movement occurred and laws were promulgated urging strict separation of "reactionary" teaching of Buddhism from the "pure national spirit" of Shinto. In spite of that, Mt. Hiei managed to preserve its devotion to the founder's teaching and continuity with traditional notion of essential unity of divine and Buddha's power.
In 1986 in response to appeal by The Holy Father John Paul 2nd a peace prayer meeting of the representatives of the world religions took place in Assisi, Italy. Next year (1987), on the occasion of celebrating 1200th anniversary of the foundation of Enryaku-ji Monastery, an analogous meeting was held on Mt. Hiei. From that time on, representatives of all Japanese spiritual currents as well as foreign religious denominations join each other in common prayer. This august meeting will be the fifteenth one and except of traditional prayer for peace, it will be specially focused on the dialogue with representatives of Islam. On the other hand, at the beginning of September the representatives of Tendai Buddhism are supposed to attain peace prayer meeting in Palermo. In Japanese it is said "perseverance means force". I believe that if such a determination toward an accommodating dialogue would continue and the strength of prayer - which is essential part of any religion - in East and West of the Great Ocean would be unified, good results would not rest unachieved. But in the meantime, it is necessary to hold in respect the identity of any single tradition and make our best to comprehend why the misuse of religious symbols as a pretext for violence and destruction is so dangerous.
The present Tendai Buddhist Denomination considers the words of Dengyo Daishi "That one is the treasure of the realm, who illuminates even the darkest corner of the world" to be one of the most comprehensible expressions of bodhisattva spirit. Young people are the main acting power of a movement called "bringing light to every corner" (Ichigu wo terasu), which tries to help specially to the people of Southeast Asian countries which came into precarious situation because of political and economic occurrences of past decades. One of the outstanding personalities of this movement in recent time is a monk of Indian origin, who spent 15 years studying at Mt. Hiei and than returned back to his country, where he strives not only for revival of the Buddhist tradition, but first of all for harmonious coexistence of different spiritual communities - see his initiative "Compassion and Wisdom".
In Mahayana sutra "Meditation on Mind as Mother Earth" it is described how a mother feeds a child in her womb and what an enormous amount of milk (sutra speaks about 18 thousand litres) she produces to satisfy her child as long as it requests it. This is true not only about human individual but also about the whole mankind, which is tenderly fed by the milk of its mother Earth. Injury caused to the Earth should be comprehended not only as a price to be paid for a progress but also as a serious spiritual misdeed. Pollution of and a threat to Earth is a transformation of pollution of and a threat to our mind. In the meantime the questions of approach toward population explosion, genetic manipulation, etc. show us once again, that science itself can not substitute for spiritual dimension of human conduct. So it is necessary to give up notion of religion as an isolated sphere, to recognise in it an area in which all efforts for fundamental sympathetic understanding, reconciliation and world peace are based. We, people, are born out of unification of man and woman, we grow up through our parents' love. The most eloquent materialisation of this love as well as of perfect true is a face of a small child. I believe that it is hard to find anybody who could resist its eloquence because peace and love, values which it manifests, are fundamentally universal values. It seems that love for mother Earth and respect toward child's face represent two of possible ties between all spiritual traditions.
While concluding my speech, let me pray for the efforts of Mr. President to bear their fruits, and to be able to achieve unity among all of us in strife for peace and harmony of our common world. Thank you.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Your Eminence Abbot Enami. I am glad that there already exists a connection between the monastery on the Hiei mountain and the Christian and student circles in Prague, and I hope that it shall continue. In fact, we will continue this Thursday-and you are all cordially invited-in the former Church of St. Anna, where the Dagmar and Václav Havel Foundation is preparing an important center for the meeting of cultures and religions. This Thursday, there will be an joint meditation for Christians and Buddhists, in which Mr. Enami will participate.

Now I would like to ask Rabbi Sidon to contribute to our discussion.

Karol Sidon
Globalization is the unforeseen delta of the development process of Western civilization. It spreads a particular value system around the world, the center of which is occupied by an individual person with his or her own individual interests and needs, including material and spiritual culture that is capable of satisfying these needs and interests. Islam has resisted globalization primarily because the dissemination of these arguable values fatally endangers traditional positive values that are still common in the world of Islam. In addition, however, globalization reminded Islam that its goals are also global and that it is the only alternative for all humankind. This is how, as it has already been said, the world found itself literally at war. The effort to appease religion or stop the current conflict is a pragmatic rather than an honest wish. Because the motor of globalization is not Christianity, but rather a momentous cultural and technical and economic progress of the Western civilization, the hindering role of Christian clergy is limited. But given the societal commission that awaits, I personally can hardly imagine that the Christian Church would not once again like to become the unifying factor for the endangered Christian world. The question of what should be the basis of the relationship between Islam and Christianity in contemporary world thus seems illusory to me. For how can we stop two fully loaded trains rushing against each other on the same track out of momentum? And which contemporary human institution is capable of stopping the inevitable crash? Jews consider life and peace to be the basic values. This is why Judaism has always understood the concept of coexistence with members of different value systems. The global concept of Judaism does not expect that all humans will become Jews, but that after the coming of the Messiah all will worship one Creator, whose earthly residence is the Jerusalem Temple. The improvement of the world is entrusted in the hands of the most qualified, especially at the end. Until then, darkhei shalom, or the ways of peace that regulate the relationship to differently minded people with a prohibition of a gratuitous damage of the persons, their integrity and property, are valid. If the conductor and passengers of the aforementioned trains were capable of reflecting on this basic rule of coexistence, there would be some hope that they will slow down the trains in order to at least mitigate the collision of the two trains. But this is not happening. What remains are cultures that are forced into participating in this conflict only because they happen to inhabit one world with these two titans. We cannot expect that they will try to prevent the collision with their own bodies, but they cannot even run away from the place of the expected collision. There is no place to run away to. Together with those who managed to jump off the train, these people should, however, attempt to establish the moral minimum in international and interpersonal relationships, even without the hope that this will ever be incorporated into politics. We know from experience that it is possible to build a provisional bond to the future, and that it will come handy one day. Jews have been obliged to operate this way since the beginning of their national existence, and they have always embraced a serious and well-intended offer of a concrete and sober cooperation.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Rabbi Sidon, for your sincere words. I believe that we are heading toward a symphony, not a unison, so it is all the more valuable to hear skepticism and questions. Now I would like to ask Reverend Ucko to speak.

Hans Ucko
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, I bring you greetings, first of all, from the World Council of Churches, and from its General Secretary Dr. Konrad Reiser. The World Council of Churches is a body that brings together Christians of various denominations searching for some kind of unity and trying to work together for peace and understanding. It also has, as a major priority, an aim to foster good inter-religious relations and understanding between people of different religions. No religion is an island. I think that this is even more important to remember today in the age of globalisation, for through globalisation we are discovering this more and more. Globalisation is, as we know, not one thing but several things, it can be economic, it can be understood as facilitating worldwide communication, but it also has the connotation of a universal value system. This is, I think, an important dimension to consider for religious people, for religious communities. Because we need to ask ourselves whose values they are. And we must, as the Rabbi also said, as both Christians and Muslims remember in particular, that within our histories there is a tendency towards globalisation, and that the first 'globaliser' in the world was perhaps Christianity. And that today, many people are perceiving the so-called globalisation as yet another Christian, western attempt to conquer the world. This should make us reflect on the new role and responsibility of religious communities in the era of globalisation. In this era, there is a particular risk of looking at religions as blocks-it was strangely attempted by Osama bin Laden and has been described by the American scholar Samuel Huntington as the "clash of civilisations,"-and of looking upon Islam or Christianity as if they were two separate blocks but identical; one Islam, one Christianity. I think it is important for us today to prevent polarisation between religious communities, because through the media people tend to perceive conflict in one place as part of a conflict in another, causing enmities in one part of the world to spill over to another region. An act of violence in one place is used to confirm the stereotype of the enemy in another place, or even to provoke revenge attacks elsewhere in the world. There is, therefore, I think, the particular need to de-globalise situations of conflicts and to analyse each one within its own context. The emphasis on the specificity of every context should not prevent people of faith in another parts of the world from being both concerned and involved.
A reaction of globalisation today when it reaches religious communities is their fragmentation. In such situations, religion becomes identified with a necessity. In some cases, religion becomes identified with the need for conflict and violence. In some parts of the world, religion is increasingly identified with this necessity, giving religion overtones of ethnic conflicts. In other cases, religious identity becomes so closely related to power that the communities without power or those that are discriminated against look to their religion as the force of mobilisation of their protest. These conflicts appear to us to be conflicts between religious communities, polarizing them along community lines. Religious communities often inherit deep divisions, hatreds and enmities that are passed down from one generation to another. When communities identify themselves or are identified exclusively by their religion, the situation may become explosive. It may even be able to tear apart communities that have lived in peace for centuries. The task of religion in today's globalised world is to start looking upon the other as the significant other, and to begin working through education. First of all, we must learn the virtue of tolerance, not a tolerance in the sense that we will merely endure the presence of the other, but in the sense that we begin working towards appreciation of the other. This has historically not been the case-religions have focused on themselves and have looked upon the other, the stranger, in a margin. Today, I think, it is important to include the other as part of our own religious self-understanding, so as not to have the other only in the margin but as someone who is helping us understand ourselves. But for this we need self-criticism. And I think one of the most important lessons for us today, as we come close to each other, is to allow self-criticism to play a role in our religious communities and in our religious education. Often in inter-religious interactions, we are used to presenting our ideals, and the slogans of our religious traditions. Today maybe we need to also take a look, and a deep look into our history, as religious communities, and have this plan to interaction with each other. It is true that Islam has given world the understanding of salaam, the Judaism introduced to the world shalom, Buddhism appreciates ahimsa and that Christianity is the religion, where Jesus says: "peace I bring onto you" where Hinduism begins every prayer with om shanti shanti, peace is given to you. But we know that in the core of religious traditions, there also lie the dark pages, dark situations and dark dimensions that we need to address openly. We need to see that although Christianity or some other religion may not be the cause of a religious or political conflict, it is often an intensifier of the conflict. We need to see that unfortunately, religions are often a part of the problem rather than its solution. A good friend of mine, a rabbi, said in an inter-religious gathering: "I don't have anything against where you are coming from as long as you are ashamed of it". That is to say, we should carry within ourselves this realisation of self-criticism as one important dimension. Inter-religious dialogue has often been conducted because one needed to find the way of addressing a particular situation. In South Africa, apartheid brought together people of different religions to stand up against the apartheid, which was a good thing. But we need to find more than extrinsic reasons to engage inter-religious dialogue. We need to begin thinking of inter-secularism in the sense that the other becomes a part of our own self-understanding. I am fascinated and deeply appreciative of President Havel for the idea of a grand spiritual coalition. I think it is important that this finds root in religious traditions. It echoes something that is part of the ecumenical history which, although it is a particular principle that once applied only to Christian churches, should perhaps become a principle that would rule our life as religious communities in interfaith dialogue. This principle goes like this: "That which we can do together, we should not do separately."
There is today, in so many parts of the world, a longing for one voice of people of religion, people of good will, people of politics, of intellectual discourse, people in civil society, wanting to find one voice that expresses our need and longing for peace and justice. It comes across to us in many forms, in inter-religious organisations, the longing for peace, search for global ethics, and in support of the work of United Nations. Some of it is good, some maybe less good, but we need to take it seriously and continue working on it. In this context, it is important that religions are not only a decoration, that religions are not there in fancy clothes and costumes, but that religion and religious people are involved with politicians, with intellectuals, with scientists, with people of business, that they discuss what kind of moral ethical fibre should run and govern our lives together. This is, I think, something that calls for a continued discourse, a continued reflection that goes beyond the grand interfaith gatherings, but focuses on particular issues, bringing together people from different walks of life. It should not perhaps rely on declarations, but rather on developing our education in our madrassas, in our synagogues, in our churches, in our temples so that we begin to take the religious plurality as something God-given and as something to appreciate. And, I think that it calls for some kind of understanding of the impact of our symbolic action and presence together. Thank you very much.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Reverend, for a plethora of ideas. Recently I have often thought about the distinction made by Mr. Bonhöffer, an evangelical theologian between a cheap grace and costly grace, which we should apply to the idea of tolerance. There is a certain type of cheap tolerance, one that is indifferent to the truth, indifferent to others, one that is a mere dietan. Then there is the second tolerance, which begins when the otherness of the other inspires me to think more deeply about my own identity.
I'd kindly ask His Eminency Sheikh Mohammed Ali for his contribution to our debate.

Mohammed Mohammed Ali
Thank you very much. In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Mr. President, dear scholars, ladies and gentlemen, the board of Forum 2000, good morning. Salaam aleicum, peace upon you.
I will begin my topic, which is the role of religion in the globalisation forces on Islamic perspective, by reading some text from the Holy Quran and the Sura 41:13.
All Mankind surely we have created you of male and female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other. Surely the most honorable of you and decide of God or Allah is the most lightest of you surely Allah is knowing.
As I said, my topic is of course the Islamic perspective on the role of religion in the globalisation process. I am sure that you understand that this is a very broad topic that is relatively difficult to cover in the time I have. The globalisation process or globalisation is a rather amorphous concept that is hard to define. I will speak, however, about three aspects of this concept. One, increased exposure to other cultures and religions; two, the creation of a global community, in the cultural and economic sense; three, the role of religion and the state.
The first subject is the increased exposure to other cultures and religions. Developments in communication technologies such as the Internet, satellite television, as Mr. President mentioned, enable us to have a far quicker access and exposure to developments around the world. One would think that this should lead to greater understanding and therefore sympathy for other cultures and religions. But at a certain level, the opposite has been the case. I will try to explain here why this may be the case, and how religion, including Islam, can play a role in overcoming these difficulties.
In looking at world events that have come to the fore in the last two years, one cannot but notice that religion has been at the core of some of the events. Obviously, there are some events that have tested the moral resolve of the international community, such as the AIDS crisis in Africa, where religion has not played a role. But September 11th, the Pakistani crisis, the troubles of Northern Ireland, East Timor, the war in Bosnia and Kosovo all had a religious component to them. At least for me, this raises a question: Why is it that at the time of increased exposure and attempted understanding of other cultures, religious extremism is playing a potentially negative role and creating problems. Religion has been a source, an order to form conflicts. The Hindus in India, the Muslims in Kashmir, Osama bin Laden, the Catholics in Northern Ireland, the Orthodox Church in Serbia, have all to a degree usurped religion to legitimise political ends. From our Islamic perspective, I see that the usurpation of religion runs counter to much of Islamic faith and Islamic thought. I will try to briefly lay out how Islam, along with other faiths, may play a role in increasing interaction and in interfaith dialogue. Indeed, the roots of Islam, and the teachings of the Holy Quran, provide for interfaith dialogue, increased interaction, and respect for other faiths.
The Quran specifically discusses the broad nature of the human species, the need to recognize different sources of knowledge, the need to increase dialogue and mutual understanding, and the need to respect others. With roots like these, we as Muslims have a religious and theological basis to support interfaith dialogue. Indeed, in May 1991, the Organisation of Islamic States held a meeting in Teheran to develop an Islamic approach to interfaith dialogue. The interfaith dialogue-immersed in Islamic law, religion, and practices-is based on the following understanding of Islam. Namely, that the Islamic law is based on two specific and somewhat interconnected aspects. The first, which we all call ibadat, governs the relationship between human beings and God, and addresses matters such as prayer and belief. The second, which we call mu'ammalat, governs the relationships among human beings, and addresses matters such as ethics and interaction of human beings amongst themselves. Indeed, by focusing on the ethical and moral dimensions of religion, we as Muslims would also be able to engage in interfaith dialogue with other religions that are not of the Book-Buddhism and Hinduism, among others-for I am of the firm belief that this is the case of all religions-contains a strong and shared ethical component, and through focusing on this ethical component these religions would be able to build the bridges to each other. I bring to light one example, from the 1960s in the United States, from southern churches led by reverend Martin Luther King, a hero of the Civil Rights Movement. Both the nation of Islam and reformed Judaism strongly supported this movement. I believe that all three faiths took up this struggle because of the common belief, among all three faiths, of the injustice of discrimination based on color. In all three faiths, some very difficult questions that are identified with religion need to be addressed. For example, the problems in Kashmir or in Palestine are so closely affiliated with religion that I do not believe they can be resolved purely through interfaith dialogues. Simultaneous advances need to occur on the political front.
Another common dimension of religions lies in the spiritual and mystical spheres. Judaism has the Kaballah, Christianity has a number of monastic orders, Islam has Sufism, Buddhism and Hinduism have strong spiritual tendencies. Each of these inward-looking tendencies and religions has a common goal-through looking at oneself, one can improve one's life and treat others with respect. Therefore, interfaith dialogue can and should attempt to embody these common spiritual and mystical tendencies.
I would like to demonstrate this point with an example from Shi'ite Islam, my own religion which has a doctrine known as Irfan, or religious mysticism. Irfan, which incorporates many ideas of Sufism, attempts to bring out and understand the inner, esoteric meaning of the Quran and the traditions ascribed to the Shi'ite imams or the descendants of the Prophet. Indeed, in many ways, the teachings of Irfan run parallel to the Kaballah teachings in Judaism, and also have Neo-Platonic and Zoroastrian influences evident in other faiths.
Regarding religion and the creation of a global community. My experience, especially within the United States, is that there is a common belief that the world, the global human community, is converging into one, led by Western economic powers, including certain western organisations such as the G-8. Examples are cited such as the increasing presence of multinational corporations in all corners of the world. One goes to Budapest and can easily have lunch at a McDonalds, a restaurant chain based in Chicago. This view may be accurate if you view the world from a particularly Western perspective. The technological advances end up further cementing this world view. I do not understand how a 2 minute special can provide a true understanding of a complicated event such as the civil war currently going on in the Congo.
This issue brings me back to the issue of world religions and their ethical components. The convergence of the global economy may be taking place, but from certain viewpoint it is not a positive thing. Indeed, it is a very negative thing. A villager living in Mexico sees the world eating away at his livelihood. Conglomerates buy huge tracks of land to grow coffee, forcing local farmers to sell their coffee to conglomerates at cheaper and cheaper prices. My point here is that, through the religious dialogue that is based on common ethical and moral dimensions of the religions represented here, religion can play a role in implementing certain ethical standards to regulate the globalisation process and to insure that its progress occurs within ethical boundaries, and that it, for example, does not overrun particular communities and leave them in ruins.
The third issue is the role of religion and the state. The religion of Islam, unlike Judaism and Christianity, has had a more direct relationship with the state. There was no enlightenment movement in Islam, no church state conflict, as there was in medieval Europe. Indeed, until 1924 much of the core Islamic tribes still looked to the Ottoman Sultan as both a religious and political leader. In many ways there are similarities here with Tibetan Buddhism and the role the Dalai Lama played in traditional Tibetan Buddhism before the structure of the state was the dismantled following the Chinese takeover in 1951. I raise this point because as a Muslim, I believe that religion has a political role to play. It cannot play a purely spiritual and advisory role. Accordingly, if the development of interfaith dialogue can begin in earnest and if religion is to play a positive role in regulating the globalisation process, any announcements made must have some element of enforceability in order to succeed. To me, this is a debate that needs to be carried out. Perhaps international organisations such as the United Nations could influence the acceptance and implementation of certain principles agreed upon during the interfaith dialogue process.
Ladies and gentlemen, I should like to end my speech, and I think we should all call for the support of the democratic movement and reforms in the whole world, especially in the Islamic world, or in any other dictator-ruled countries. I think that civil society institutions should be encouraged; the rule of law and respect for human rights are all religious Islamic values. I call for Western countries, Europe and America, to cut relations with dictatorial regimes. I think we should eliminate the countries that harbour terrorism, and because I am from Iraq, I call for the support of the Iraqi people in their fight to end the most brutal and terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein, so that we may end the mass destruction of the world. Thank you for your patience.

Tomáš Halík
Thank you, Your Eminency. We all certainly feel sympathetic to the struggle of Iraqi opposition for democracy and human rights, motivated by the belief in Islam. And I would like to thank you especially for mentioning the spiritual and the mystical side of religion in addition to its more frequently discussed ethical. Ethics without spirituality would be cold, and in fact, ethics has been more or less absorbed by the secular society. But what the contemporary world is longing for is the spiritual dimension. I thought of the words of G Mann, a German historian and a son of Thomas Mann, who said that secular humanism is like a flower that is beautiful, but that quickly wilts because what it needs is a spiritual root.
And now, to conclude, I would like to ask His Holiness the Dalai Lama for a contribution.

Dalai Lama
His Excellence, the president, speakers representing different religious faiths and friends. I am extremely pleased for the opportunity to speak to you.
I will try to speak with my own broken English. I know that there is not much time now. First of all, I am very, very happy to be here at the presence of my old friend, whom I always admire so I am very happy to speak in front of him. So then, also, I enriched my knowledge by those speakers. I have not prepared a paper but simply I feel one of ideas and views came in my mind just to express, so in a way I would like to apologise.
And then secondly, my English is very poor, so please listen to my broken English very carefully. Otherwise you might get the wrong idea.
So maybe one day the word you use is religious coalition, and I will use the right word. Now reason I feel today is 2002, the 21st century, there is a lot of technology, science development. And I think generally, the world always put a lot of hope in technology and science. And in the meantime, I think that many people are forgetting value of religion. That is also in fact, in spite that, we are talking here about the value of religion and the importance of unity of different religious traditions. Because I feel in spite a lot of material development, I think human beliefs still have a very important role to play among human beings. Obviously, some regimes that lasted several decades deliberately tried to eliminate religious belief. But now, once freedom has come, religious interest is sort of growing. So that shows for as long as we human beings have remained on this planet. Religious belief will continue to play an important role among human beings. And that is one fact.
Then another thing. Since our last meeting some sad events has happened, one particularly, I think everyone knows, I feel very much impressed for the reciprocity, I was shocked by the events in New York. My feeling is that using civilian airplanes with many passengers, the ethics of it, calculating that the plane will be full of fuel because of a long flight, using such an airplane as a missile, as a bomb, there is something really terrible about that. I cannot imagine this. This shows that the impact of modern technology and of intelligent human beings guided by negative emotions such as hatred is unimaginable. So therefore the events show us although in modern time I think we have to pay sufficient attention to material progress and to education. There has bee, I think, a lot of improvement there, and a lot of further development will take place. But it seems that we do not pay enough attention to taking care of our basic human moral ethics, our true heart. So we need more of an effort to promote basic human values such as human compassion, a sense of care for one another and respect, or to recognize other human beings as brothers and sisters. All have the right to achieve happiness and to overcome suffering, so the realization of peace for humanity is very crucial, very important. Then also sharing one another, these are, I believe, good human qualities. Whether we are believers or non-believers, these basic human values are very relevant in our life. So we need more effort to promote these human values. I think we learn from human values, as one speaker has mentioned, we experience how valuable these basic human values are, when we are born, even before we are born. While we are in our mother's womb, the mother is caring for the unborn child, and so the mother's peace of mind is something very positive, a positive fact for the unborn child. So after birth, we grow up under the love and care of the mother. Without good human qualities, these human values or affections, we cannot survive. So from the viewpoint of physical health, again, according to some modern medical scientists, we now clearly realize that peace of mind and compassionate environment are very important for our health. So, on this basis, without a touch of religion, we can educate humanity that we need human good qualities.
Religious traditions have the important role of promoting human values such as human affection, tolerance, and the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood. All religions play an important role in the promotion of human values. Not necessarily to promote religious beliefs, but simply to help promote human values. Not converting, not separating one kind of follower, but simply trying to educate and promote the values. Then, as religions have various beliefs, it still plays an important role and secondly many problems we are facing today. There is virtually a lack of human affection, of human value. Therefore now, since the religious belief is something very, very important in today's world, the next question is, how can religion make a contribution to the welfare of human beings? Whether he or she accepts religion or not, it is up to the individual. It is an individual right. Some religions good--some no problem. But once we accept the religion, we should look at the religion sincerely and seriously. And we should implement what we believe in our life. Through this, we will get a genuine deeper, spiritual experience. Once he or she gains some spiritual experience, that person, I think, generally speaking, more easily accepts the values of other traditions. In ancient times, different religions remained in different places, therefore more or less isolated. Today, because of globalisation, everyday, everywhere, there is some kind of contact with followers of other religions, and also with information about other religions. Harmony among different religions is very, very essential now.
The concept of one religion, one truth and a concept of several religions, several truths, this is a contradiction. Now here I feel the concept of one religion is very important in the case of one individual, one single person. One religion, that is very important. In my case, I am a Buddhist, my belief is one truth, one religion, because that strengthens my faith. This is a simple formula. But there are several religions, and several truths are relevant: Christian, one my fellow Buddhist, then Islam, then Judaism, are already on this platform, simply there is no room to believe in one truth or religion. The concept of several religions is relevant for society. In terms of one individual, one truth is relevant. So this is no contradiction. But these are different situations, so the two concepts are not in contradiction.
Now the question: Why do we have so many religions? Is it necessary? I believe that yes, it is necessary, because among human beings there are so many different mental dispositions, therefore one religion, one philosophy simply cannot satisfy or cannot serve the variety of people. Therefore, we need a variety of religions, a variety of traditions. It is just like food, there is a variety of tastes, so the variety of food is much better. Therefore the food for mind, food for human emotions, it is religion, so there are different emotions, different mental dispositions, therefore different approaches to tackle these emotions, therefore people need a variety of religions.
And then the next question, that is why there are so many differences among the different traditions. If I think hard about this, I think that there are two reasons for the various religious traditions. One is spirituality, the task for emotion in a world.
The second is theory, or views. Now, the message of spirituality is important. All religious traditions have the same message of love, of compassion , message of tolerance, message of contentment, message of discipline. Yes there are big differences. Basically, in the ancient times, two thousand years ago in India, there were already two major divisions. One division were the theist religions, theist philosophy, such as Hindus, who believe in the Creator. There is another, a non-theist group, such as Buddhism and Zenism, and also in parts of Punjab, these do not believe that there was a creator. There are also different philosophies, there are many different sorts of divisions, different views. There are many differences because we need them, it is the flame in people. We tend to follow Buddha, but because there are many different mental dispositions, the Buddha our teacher has come to speak different kinds of philosophy. Take Buddhism such as the jitta mantra philosophy, and another philosophy. There is a big difference between them. They are contradictory philosophies. Both are taught by Buddha. Why? Because his followers have different mental dispositions and interests, therefore Buddha taught different philosophy. The point of all of them is the transformation of negative emotions. So now when we look at the aspects of spirituality, all have the same messages, which is to work together, we can learn from each other. In philosophical aspects, there are big differences but there is no need to create similarities. Leave it, let the differences live. We need these different approaches. So when we see the different approaches of different traditions, we increase somewhat our admiration of all the unique philosophies. Now one example. I am a Buddhist, in my upbringing there is no room for a Creator, but at the same time I very much admire and appreciate the cause of the Creator. Once you accept the Creator and if you truly believe that the Creator is the same source for all beings, there is no ground to fight, to kill each other. So therefore it is very beautiful, this very life created by a Creator, that creates some sort of feeling of intimacy with God, with the Creator, more intimate feelings, more feelings towards God-creator, then you have more tendency to listen to his wish and to fulfill his wish. What is his wish? Happiness. God is full of mercy, full of compassion, so God wants everyone to be happy. Therefore, in order to fulfill God's wish, we show our love toward fellow human beings. It is an indication of our love to God. Why, then, are we killing each other? Why are we competing each other? Aggressively? Negatively? Then bring it to God, it is like a hypocrisy. The concept of a Creator is a unique, beautiful, a very powerful method to transform human negative emotions. So once you know, once you have a personal contact with a practitioner of different religions, then if you remain open-minded, you will have to appreciate the other religions and traditions. Similarly, from the viewpoint of some Christian brothers and sisters, Buddhism is nihilism in their eyes, for it does not recognize a Creator, but they appreciate some Buddhist things, which are useful and very helpful. Some Christian brothers and sisters practice some Buddhist techniques in order to develop, in order to increase the practise of love, compassion, forgiveness, and simply things like that. Obviously, now we can see we need the variety of different traditions, philosophies, just as we need good human beings. For a happy world. On this basis, I suggest meetings of people of different traditions to talk about similarities and differences, about the purpose of these different philosophies, more or less on academic level. Secondly, meeting with practitioners to exchange deep spiritual experiences. For me, it is very helpful. For example, in my attitude towards Christianity. Before my meeting with one American monk, and after my meeting with him, two days and several hours, I really changed some of my attitude and outlook on Christianity. I appreciated it. And look at Mother Theresa. Therefore, meeting personally with a practitioner of a different tradition, then exchanging deeper spiritual experience, can be very helpful to open one's mind.
The third group, different people from different traditions work together. We already practised that, I think on two occasions. One group of people from different traditions, some occults, some Jews, some Muslims, some Christians, some Hindus. Then also Buddhists. We worked together, walked together, not as tourists, and debated our devotions, respect towards traditions. So that also gives very good experiences.
Fourthly, an assessment meeting of sorts. Leaders of different traditions come together and speak a message of peace from the same platform. I think that millions of followers of different traditions giving the message of peace from the same platform, this is very good.
So these are four formulae to promote religious harmony. So that is all; thank you.