PEA DE LA REGIÓN AREQUIPA, PERÍODO 2009 2013

This new method is based on four basic assumptions, which may be called the Four Truths of TIR because each of them leads to the other and, at the same time, nothing falls outside of these four. It is well known in Buddhism that the Four Noble Truths constitute the core of the Middle Way teachings on the eradication of suffering, as this was the first teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha to his first five followers in Benares. If

433 R. Scott Appleby, ‘Serving Two Masters? Affirming Religious Belief and Human Rights in a Pluralistic World,’ in The Sacred and the Sovereign, 190.

434 Willliam Schweiker, ‘On the Future of Religious Ethics: Keeping Religious Ethics Religious and Ethical’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion 74, no. 1 (March 2006): 139.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_american_academy_of_religion/v074/74.1schweiker02.pdf (accessed 7 November 2007).

189 one wants to understand Buddhism, one must read, analyse and comprehend the Four Truths first. Accordingly, in order to understand how the TIR works it is necessary to know what claims constitute and produces its existence: the Truth of Individuality; the

Truth of Intersubjectivity; the Truth of Congeniality; and the Truth of Internationality.

Truth of Individuality

This refers to the main unit of analysis, individuals. It is important to state that this truth does not rely on the conventional Western interpretation of the individual as a separate self but rather on the Buddhist idea of the interdependent non-self that acts as an individual in a relative world. This Buddhist interpretation of the individual, rooted in the theory of anatman (no-self), means that ‘some westerners have surmised, that he human person is unimportant in Buddhism and therefore society and its demands must be dominant’.435 However, the true Buddhist conception of the individual is a more integrative approach, where individual and society are not adversarial but mutually constitutive and interdependent. As Sally B. King explains,

As Thich Nhat Hanh characteristically put it, anatman means that the ‘self’ is constructed of non-self parts. In other words, a given person in the present moment is constructed not only of memories and dispositions built up from her past, but also of many physical parts incorporated into her body from the environment, and many dispositions, attitudes, etc. incorporated from society.436

Following this understanding, this first truth refers to how an individual constructs reality as the result of a series of factors that are in constant relation both within and without himself/herself and that will set the basis for the second truth of TIR. For example, in the environment where the individual was born, what kind of social roles are given and which are forbidden? The person receives from the outside a series of beliefs, traditions and explanations about the world and the self as well as instructions on how to behave in the face of difficulties in life. Nevertheless, each individual has his or her own process of giving meanings to reality, and so the individual develops his or her own set of beliefs that construct interests and motivations. This process is produced by a complex net of symbols, aims and questions that are

435 Sallie B. King, ‘Human Rights in Engaged Buddhism,’ in Buddhist Theology, 297. 436 Sallie B. King, ‘Human Rights in Engaged Buddhism,’ in Buddhist Theology, 297.

190 important for that particular person. As Mircea Eliade points out, ‘since man has a ‘symbol-forming power’, all that he produces is symbolic’437 and ‘the religious symbol not only unveils a structure of reality of a dimension of existence; by the same stroke it brings a meaning into human existence.’438 Therefore, every individual action has a repercussion in the overall societal arrangements which, in turn, will affect institutional and global spheres. Thus, ‘small acts of no apparent consequence are capable of catalysing enormously significant changes, thereby making passivity and non-action highly irresponsible.’439

Therefore, the individual is the architect of his or her own reality in an interdependent relation with other individuals, causes and conditions, and the way he or she wants to deal with them will come as a consequence of his or her interpretation of reality, including his or her conception of the sacred. Even when facing differences in context and interpretation, we may find a common source for a divine conception in every person. On this matter, Pettazzoni argues,

Existential anxiety is the common root in the structure of the Supreme Being, but this structure is expressed in different forms: the Lord of Animals, the Mother Earth, and the Heavenly Father. All these structures have profound relations with different cultural realities which have conditioned them and of which the various Supreme Beings are expressions.440

Accordingly, Falk argues that the commitment of individuals to constructing global civil societies redirects loyalties from the primacy of space toward the primacy of time or future normative order that engages their reconstructive energies441. Thus, focused more on the common good regardless of their nationality and guided by a shared recognition of our nature as human beings, compassionate actions on part of individual leaders and followers can lead to overcoming violence.

437 Mircea Eliade, ‘Methodological Remarks on the Study of Religious Symbolism’, in The History of Religions, 87.

438 Eliade, ‘Methodological Remarks on the Study of Religious Symbolism’, 102. 439 Falk, Humane Global Governance, 115.

440 R. Pettazzoni, ‘The Supreme Being: Phenomenological Structure and Historical Development’, in

The History of Religions, 66.

191

Truth of Intersubjectivity

The second truth refers to the shared interpretations of reality among individuals. Having noticed that each person creates his or her own world, when he or she relates to others in society a new and complex process of sharing interpretative understandings of the self and others begins. In doing so, individuals make a connection, and mutual affectation will result in a new intersubjective construction of reality. Each one makes the decision to be part of this social consensus or not; moreover, there can be several intersubjective understandings that sometimes lead to confrontations when one side wants to impose its own interpretation, as the history of humankind in general, and the history of religions in particular, has shown. Peter Berger states that ‘society is a dialectic phenomenon in that it is a human product, and nothing but a human product, that yet continuously acts back upon its producer. Society is a product of man... yet it may also be stated that man is a product of society’.442

Hence, scholars in social sciences should never dismiss the importance of individuals for every social phenomenon, even when it appears that society acts as a single unit. This is a new challenge that the modern world is facing to have a better understanding of the internal processes in societies. One must recognize that society is formed by individuals who have set of beliefs and motivations that they agree to share in community, and not as a monolithic, independently originated society. Therefore, intersubjectivity recalls the concept of interdependence among individuals, who affect and are affected by other individuals, the environment, new experiences and new challenges that reality presents. Nicholas Onuf, one of the leaders of constructivist thought in international relations, argues about this interdependence as follows:

By our social relations we construct ourselves into the persons we are, and ‘we make the world what it is, from the raw materials that nature provides, by doing what we do with each other and saying what we say to each other’. What we have, Onuf asserts, is a continuous ‘two way process’ in which ‘people make society, and society makes people’. In and from such interaction, we develop rules of behaviour within institutions.443

442 Peter Berger, The Sacred Canopy, 3.

192 Thus, the interdependent quality of relative truth, brings out the challenge of being aware of our interconnectedness as individuals, society and global community. R. Falk affirms that the ‘first calling of a citizen is engagement at points of interest and concern in improving the quality of life within the self, among the family members, in the immediate community, in the wider social order, and in the global village’.444 From here, further developments can be achieved in accordance with a compassionate view of reality and awareness of its social construction through the sum of individuals’ thoughts and actions.

Truth of Congeniality

This third truth is about the capacity of intersubjective truth to bring peace and not war. Most studies of religion in international relations and history refer to religion as a source of social disruption and violence. Although it is an undeniable fact that if we study the history of humanity we can find many examples of wars and violent social mobilizations in the name of religion, we should never forget that these are not religion itself. All religions share a common appreciation and idealization of peace and justice, but the problem arises when one single religion (or intersubjective understanding of the world) claims to have the only truth and insists that the ‘others’ must find salvation by sharing, by force if necessary, their particular view of the world and God. However, the

TIR stresses that religion can also be a source of social cohesion and peace, with a high capacity to build communication channels between and within religions as well as a harmonious dialogue with other social forces and institutions.

We all have the opportunity to decide whether to use religious beliefs and motivations to find peace and justice or to seek vengeance and violence. Religion is not inherently violent, but it has been a source of legitimation for war and death. We must recognize that religions share an ideal of peace and harmony, and that ideal has also been a source of justice, as witnessed in the twentieth century with great religious leaders such as: Mahatma Gandhi, John Paul II, Mother Teresa, Goshananda, Aung San Suu Kyi, Archbishop Tutu and His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, among others. Scholars must also be aware of this positive side of religion and count on it as a source for understanding, dialogue and peace; otherwise, they become part of the tendency to

193 demonize religion, which will create a consensus that religion equals violence. Therefore, religion of any denomination has the power to enhance the possibility of finding peace, because while under its name there may have been many wars, yet under its divine umbrella it can provide a source for dialogue, peace and tolerance among individuals and societies. As R. Falk affirms ‘religion provides the foundation for a more compassionate and empathetic approach to suffering than is provided by economistic thinking which is single-mindedly dedicated to efficiency, profits, growth, and ultra-individualism’.445 This is possible by bridging the gap between the sacred and the mundane, uniting the ‘other-worldly’ experience with ‘this-worldly’ reality and thus realizing our interconnectedness with each other and the divine through compassion and loving-kindness.

Truth of Internationality

This truth opens the border of theological studies, by connecting religion to contemporary international affairs. . Even though traditional theological studies are very important, they are lacking of proper understanding about the international dynamics between individuals, societies and states which are directly related to religion. In a broader sense, we may identify this shared characteristic by saying that religious beliefs affect the behaviour of both policy-makers and citizens; it is a logical consequence that state and social mobilizations will also be affected by them. Furthermore, states tend to use the force of religion in order to obtain legitimation for their policies, and one can also find that some religiously inspired groups are under state control as part of its strategy to obtain power.

Thus, religion transcends the private sphere of action within individual consciousness and manifests its power on the societal and institutional level whether in domestic or international affairs. One cannot underestimate the power of religious organizations in the modern world because they are not only sources of radicalism tending toward violence, but there are also many which take actions to benefit societies around the world, some sponsored by specific churches and others as independent civil movements with a religious basis. This important role of religion in international politics is highlighted by Carlson and Owens, who argue that ‘international politics

194 cannot be fully or properly fathomed without addressing its embedded religious and moral dimensions’.446 For example, the worldwide movement for the protection of human rights is deeply related to religious allegiance for the respect of human beings by individuals and institutions as well. It is said that

progressive leaders and activists from different religious traditions and communities found similar ways to sacralise human rights. They celebrated the memory of virtuous and holy ‘progressives’ from the religion’s past, their lives interpreted and projected as embodiments of the tradition’s core human rights values.447

Therefore, religious actors ‘offer irreplaceable and effective remedies to the ills that beset societies mired in social inequalities and vulnerable to systemic or random violence’448 thus affecting individuals’ lives and consequently society on local and global levels. Thus, ‘by integrating the entire truth about religion into our thinking about conflict, we might better be able to imagine and work toward peace, realized as ‘sustainable reconciliation’ in societies divided along ethnic and religious lines’.449