8 - 9 MAY 2000
BERLIN, GERMANY
Religions and Tolerance
On 8 and 9 May 2000, the symposium 'Religions and Tolerance' was held in Potsdam and Berlin. It was convened in the framework of the Year of Japan in Germany by the Japanese-German Centre Berlin in co-operation with the Centre of the Modern Orient, the Moses Mendelssohn Centre Potsdam, the Urasenke Foundation, and the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin. All the speakers were specially invited.
By MARTIN RAMSTEDT
In recent years, the Japanese-German Centre Berlin (JGCB), has established itself as a major promoter of a more profound intercultural dialogue which transcends the boundaries of straightforward Japanese-German dialogue. The symposium 'Religions and Tolerance' was convened in order to discuss from an emic point of view the potentials for and limits to tolerance in each world religion as well as in Shintoism, which served as a representative of 'animist' religions.The papers were presented in German, Japanese, or English and were simultaneously translated into all the three languages. The symposium was opened in the state chancellery of Potsdam by the Leader of the Federal German State of Brandenburg, Dr Manfred Stolpe, and the Japanese Ambassador, Kume Kunisada. Dr Stolpe recalled the spirit of tolerance which crystallized in the history of Prussia during the reign of Friedrich-Wilhelm I (1640-1688) and Friedrich II (1740-1786). Friedrich-Wilhem I invited the French Huguenots who were being persecuted in their home country to settle down in his realm, thereby allowing the country to profit greatly profiting from their skills. Pointing out the economic gain resulting from the Great Elector's tolerant act, Stolpe may have been alluding to the current plans for the introduction of a German 'green card', e.g. for Indian computer specialists, which has re-ignited xenophobia in Germany. Friedrich II instituted freedom of conscience, mediated between the various Christian churches in the interests of the state, and even allowed more scope to the large Roman Catholic minority. His royal tolerance, however, did not include the Jews. The definition of tolerance offered by Ambassador Kume met with general enthusiasm: in Japan, he said, tolerance is understood to be a combination of openness and generosity. The programme in Potsdam was concluded by the demonstration of a Japanese tea ceremony led by Dr Sen Soshitsu XV, the Grand Master of the Urasenke Chado tradition, offering the four virtues Wa (harmony), Kei (respect), Sei (purity), and Jaku (quietude) as universal principles for inter-personal, inter-cultural, and inter-religious communication. Dr Sen had been a kamikaze-pilot during World War II, whose life had been spared by the 'timely' Japanese capitulation. The moral value of the virtues of his chado school notwithstanding, it was a pity that Dr Sen could only find words of sorrow for his dead comrades and not for the victims of the intolerance of the former Japanese regime.
The paper sessions, hosted by the JGCB in Berlin, were opened by the General Secretary, Volker Klein, a lawyer. He pointed out the limits of tolerance in the German Constitution which grants every citizen absolute freedom of conscience and belief, but restricts the freedom to express an opinion when this might violate the principles of democracy. The subsequent speaker, the former Japanese ambassador, Cato Tisati, expressed his sorrow regarding the inhumanity of World War II as well as the recent atrocities in Southeast Europe caused by national chauvinism. In order to overcome the increasing threat to world peace caused by the growing distance between the different cultures, he suggested looking for a common ground where each culture can retain its identity while respecting that of the Other. This symposium would be a valuable opportunity to assess how the exploration of avenues of tolerance within each religious tradition can help to reach this goal. This cautious expression of hope was underscored by Prof. Wolf Lepenies, the director of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, who warned against leaving out the important zones of conflict between the various traditions.
Shared ideas
The first session was devoted to reflection on avenues of tolerance within Christianity. Prof. Wolfgang Huber, Bishop of the Lutheran Church of Berlin-Brandenburg, began with the observation that the need for tolerance is born from intolerance. He then turned to the present rise in Hindu fundamentalism in contemporary India which endangers the co-existence of Hinduism and Islam and restrains the development of local Christianity. Within the history of Christianity itself, he said, concepts of tolerance only developed after the emergence of Protestant sects. This view was contested by the Lutheran theologian Prof. Christoph Markschies (University of Jena) who indicated earlier concepts of tolerance which had evolved out of medieval scholasticism. Most valuable of these was Huber's distinction between active and passive tolerance. The first would entail acknowledgement of the dignity of every human being instead of the mere sufferance of other people.
The second session explored instances of tolerance within Islam. The speaker, Prof. Muhammad Khalid Masud, a Muslim scholar from Pakistan who is currently Academic Director of the International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World in Leiden, the Netherlands, introduced himself as a believing Muslim who considers the Koran to be a historical rather than a normative text. Having attributed dogmatic absolutism to sectarian developments within Islam, he emphasized the fact that Muslims have displayed intolerant or violent behaviour towards adherents of deviant beliefs in situations in which they have had to struggle for political or economic power. He then introduced the audience to a wide range of contemporary Muslim intellectuals who have argued in favour of political pluralism on the basis of religious pluralism. Masud himself recommended that shared ideas among religions can be stressed in order to overcome the violence between religions. When delicately defining the limits of tolerance in the contemporary Muslim world, Prof. Gudrun Krämer (Free University Berlin) was careful to emphasize the fact that during its history Islam has exhibited a much higher rate of tolerance than Christianity.
The first day of the symposium concluded with words of appreciation and encouragement by Germany's former president, Dr Richard von Weizsäcker, who is renowned for his promotion of inter-cultural dialogue, ethical awareness, and tolerance.
'Thin Hinduism'
The second day of the symposium commenced with the session on Judaism. Prof. Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich, the Honorary Vice-President of B'nai B'rith in Europe (Switzerland), reminded the audience that Jews have not had much chance to behave intolerantly towards people of other convictions because, until recently, they did not have their own state and hence not enough political power to pursue such behaviour effectively. Side-stepping problems of tolerance in contemporary Israel, Ehrlich said that the issue of tolerance has generally presented itself to Jews in such a way that it is they who have been in need of it. The lower echelons of the Lutheran Church, for instance, still continue their discriminatory rhetoric against Judaism in spite of the new rhetoric of tolerance promoted by their superiors. When contemplating the possibilities for tolerance within the doctrine of Judaism, Ehrlich concluded that the concept of monotheism would clearly set a limit. This would, of course, also apply to the other two monotheistic religions, Islam and Christianity. When Prof. Masud asked how religious Jews deal with the problem of atheism, Prof. Ehrlich replied that because of the common stigmatization of Jewish people by their environment, even atheist Jews could not escape their Jewish identity. Hence, there is a strong sense for the necessity of at least a minimum of solidarity among both religious and atheist Jews.
The task of assessing Hinduism was assigned to Prof. Sudipta Kaviraj (School for Oriental and African Studies, London), a political scientist. Looking at the rise of Hindu fundamentalism, he stated that Hindu reform movements like the Brahmo Samaj and its like were instrumental in homogenizing the plethora of caste and tribe specific orthopraxies of India. In doing so they prepared the way for the evolution of a kind of 'thin religion' which could then be used by Hindu fundamentalists as a 'national' ideology that supposedly transcends caste and ethnic boundaries. Therefore we have the seeming paradox that there is now a depletion of religion (i.e. the traditional orthopraxies) in private life, while the importance of religion (i.e. 'thin Hinduism') in public life is increasing. Prof. Kaviraj's explanation was competently complemented by Prof. Em. Heinrich von Stietencron (Institute of Indology and Comparative Studies of Religion, Tübingen).
The fifth session was dedicated to Shintoism which was represented by two Shinto priests: Prof. Sonoda Minoru (Kyoto University), priest of the Chichibu Shrine, and Katayama Fumihiko MD (Medical University Tokyo), priest of the Shinjuku Shrine. In pre-Meji Japan, they stated, indigenous Shintoism and the foreign religion of Buddhism co-existed in a kind of ritual and spiritual symbiosis. This was possible, they argued, because Mahayana-Buddhism actively promotes syncretism. The crunch came with the Meji restoration in 1868 which dissolved the symbiosis of Buddhism and Shintoism and the powers-that-be turned the latter into a national cult. After World War II, Shintoism was finally freed from state control. Since then, Buddhism and Shintoism have partly re-established their former relationship. Today, approximately sixty per cent of the Japanese population participates in the rites at the Shinto shrines of their local guardian deities, while relying on the Buddhist temples for the funeral arrangements for their deceased.
Passive tolerance
The last session explored three different modes of active tolerance in the dialogue between Buddhism and Christianity. Prof. Yagi Seiichi (Toin University,Yokohama), a Christian theologian who has renounced the claim of Christianity to absolute truth and who has also practised Buddhist meditation, introduced his syncretistic approach which he has derived from what he calls the interface or intersection between Buddhism and Christianity. He claims that the intersection between Christianity and Buddhism lies in what Buddhists call 'realized Buddha-nature' and Christians 'Christ who lives in me'. Yagi defined both experiences as being essentially one. His own term for them was 'Self-ego' which he equated with both Master Ryomin Akizuki's term 'individuum qua transindividuum' and Master Eckhart's concept of 'the unity between God and man in action (and not in essence)' (Wirkenseinheit).
Prof. Ueda Shizuteru (University of Kyoto), the representative of Buddhism, was much more cautious in his own approach. Stating that Christianity focuses upon the personality of Christ as the link to transcendentalism, whereas Buddhism concentrates on the all-encompassing, open space. Ueda then suggested defining common tasks to be used as stepping-stones for bridging the differences between Buddhism and Christianity.
An intermediate position was taken by the Lutheran theologian Prof. Theo Sundermeier (University of Heidelberg) who has contributed to the field of intercultural hermeneutics. Starting out with an assessment of the potential for dialogue in the different schools of Buddhism, he criticized Hinayana Buddhists for only discussing the issue of religious truth with those non-Buddhists who are dissatisfied with their own religion. They would never question their own religious tenets nor would they formulate them in such a way that a common ground could be established between themselves and Christians. Forgetting to mention the aggressive Christian attempts to convert Hinayana Buddhists, for instance, in Sri Lanka in colonial times, he then lauded the relatively open attitude of many Mahayana Buddhists. He did find fault with what he called their inclusive approach towards other religions, the soteriological value of which would be acknowledged only on the basis of parallels between them and Mahayana Buddhism. Sundermeier himself has studied Buddhist meditation which he recommends as a means to deepen one's own faith.
Prof. Zwi Werblowsky (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) a renowned scholar of comparative religion, was given the difficult task of drawing the strands together to conclude the symposium. In view of the persistent instances of intolerance, especially among adherents of the monotheistic religions, in Israel as well, and the enormous difficulties to be faced in reconciling monotheism with other forms of spirituality, let alone atheism, he proceeded to rehabilitate 'passive tolerance', i.e. the mere sufferance of difference, as a more realistic goal on the path towards achieving tolerance. *
Dr Martin Ramstedt is an ESF / Alliance fellow and is stationed at the IIAS in Leiden.
E-mail: mramstedt@let.leidenuniv.nl