Ran across an interesting interview with the Dalai Lama by James Beverley (courtesy of Brent Simon). The interview was quite interesting, and primarily focused his views of Christianity. After saying that Buddhism was the best choice for himself, he states:

“This does not mean Buddhism is best for everyone. No,” he said when pushed further. “Now, for my Christian brother or sister, Christianity is best for him or for her.” But Christianity, he said, is not the best for him. “Here, the concept of one religion, one truth, is very relevant for the individual,” he said, qualifying his other statements about one religion. “But for the community it must be several truths, several religions.”

I also appreciated this quote from the interview:

He believes that people from different areas should keep their own faith. “Changing religion is not easy,” he said. “Sometimes it creates more confusion.” If someone in the West finds Buddhism more suitable, “It is their individual right, but it is extremely important to keep their respect towards their own traditional religion.”

But what intrigued me most about the interview has also disturbed me. Previously, the Dalai Lama has said that Jesus Christ was a fully enlightened being, and Beverley basically calls him on it. He states:

If Jesus is fully enlightened, wouldn’t he be teaching the truth about himself? Therefore, if he is teaching the truth, then he is the Son of God, and there is a God, and Jesus is the Savior. If he is fully enlightened, he should teach the truth. If he is not teaching the truth, he is not that enlightened.

Beverley was not pleased with his response (yes, at this point, you better read the interview yourself), for in his conclusions he says:

Claims that Jesus is really a Buddha in disguise are no compliment to Jesus or Buddha. How would Buddhists feel if Christians claimed that Gautama was really a Christian figure ahead of his time?

From my background, this is exactly how Mormons view the Buddha… as another truth-speaker who was helping his people out and giving them as much knowledge as they could handle. In fact, Mormon leaders and the Dalai Lama basically say the same thing.

Now perhaps the Dalai Lama made this statement without fully understanding the significance of this statement. He certainly is aware of the hostility given him by certain narrow-minded Christian leaders who are feeling threatened by his popularity. And perhaps he is showing a sign of respect towards Christianity. This is certainly not the first of these cross-paths.

Islam, for instance, accepts Jesus, but “downgrades” his status to prophet, in keeping with their perspective, and Mormons, while trying to maintain respect for other religions, couldn’t accept all of the Buddha’s teachings, except for “the message of compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, simplicity, then self-discipline.”

But this entire argument may be just another failure of understanding between East and West due to different perspectives inherit in our cultures. Or it might really be an outcry from our craving for some sort of absolute, universal truths… and perhaps there just isn’t any.

As stated by a Jewish Rabbi, “God saves Jewish people without Jesus, and he saves Christian people through Jesus. God has multiple covenants with multiple religions.” So perhaps, the absolute truths our religious leaders speak, are only absolutes for their respective path or tradition. Or just perhaps, a religious leader can speak the “truth” without speaking any “absolute truths.”

Sure, you can follow that line of reasoning right down that rabbit hole. Go for it, you just might find what your looking for down there.