Globalization and religion in Asia: is religion an equal competitor?

Author: Prof. Asanga Tilakaratne

Introduction

Globalization has never been felt in this intensity before. Every aspect of life is being influenced by constant flow of endless information, rapid growth of modes of transport and communication and the resultant reduction of time and space. Like any other institution in society religion too has been caught up in the process and doubts are prone to arise, at times, whether religion itself has become an equal competitor in the process. The purpose of this paper is to examine how religion, particularly in Asia, is being affected by the processes of globalization and also how religion can equip itself to face challenges prompted by globalization.

Globalization and Religion in Asia1

A glance at history will show that most countries in Asia started feeling the impact of globalization around the 15-16 centuries when the first Europeans, fortified with advanced naval technology and gun power landed in their countries. For instance, the first Portuguese ship came to Sri Lanka at the beginning of the sixteenth century (1505 to be exact) and that marked the beginning of several centuries of colonial domination, partial under Portuguese and Dutch and total under British. Religiously speaking, up to the point of the arrival of Portuguese in Sri Lanka the ethnic Sinhala were Buddhist and the ethnic Tamil were Hindu. This equation started changing when Christianity was introduced for the first time. I start with this story of Sri Lanka for that is the most familiar to me. But this is the experience more or less with many other Asian countries including Korea. The arrival of western religion was simultaneous with the arrival of the western political powers. Thus it is interesting to see that the very first waves of globalization in the region of Asia are heavily connected with religion. In most of the Asian countries the newly arrived religion had to deal with already existing developed religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. A current picture of religious landscape in these countries will show how this encounter of the new with the old or vice versa has taken place over several centuries.

During the past one hundred years or so globalization has been happening at a faster speed, and science, technology, culture, literature and politics, and more than any one of these things, economics of the world, have come under global influence. Religion, one would say, has not been among the key factors discussed under globalization today compared to these other areas of human interest. This, however, does not mean that nothing has been happening in the sphere of religion. I see two important areas where the impact of globalization on religion has to be assessed, namely, how religions have adapted or not adapted themselves to globalization and how religions need to redefine their role as a viable factor in human individual and social behaviour in the 21st century.

By the first what I basically mean is how religions have fared or survived globalization which is marked by rapid growth of science and technology and resultant new modes of thinking and behaviour. This question become particularly significant in the context of widespread belief that religion, with its 'irrational doctrines resulting from ignorance and superstition' would be a thing of past in the face the modern scientific and technological advancements. This attitude to religion by the early modern sociologists, for example, has been articulated by a recent writer in the following words:

The nineteenth century rationalism or positivism questioned and rejected religious notions as illusory. They were thought to be irrational and superfluous in a modern society in which science as a mode of understanding of reality would predominate. Religion was seen as a natural phenomenon to be studied objectively and scientifically and explained like any other natural phenomenon in terms of its underlying causes. In this reductionist, positivist approach religion was 'reduced' to the underlying factors that produced it, so that the reality of religious entities, experiences and so on were denied. The attempt to explain it in such a way resulted largely in explaining religion away. 2

The Marxian and Freudian analyses of religion are relevant examples among others. It looks that, in spite of the predictions to the contrary, religion has come in full force to the 21st century. Technology has been made to serve religion, a good example for which is how the information technology is being used by religious organizations to reach millions all over the world, a phenomenon which would have been unimaginable a few decades ago.

As we saw earlier in the discussion, Christianity came to Asian countries with early globalization of political and commercial power of the west. Islam came to Asia even earlier with expanding Islamic political and commercial power. By the time of the 20th century these two religions already have had several centuries of history in these countries. The 20th century however, witnessed a different trend in the spread of religion, namely, the spread of Asian religions in the west. This process started taking place due to various social and political factors. How Buddhism started spreading out from Sri Lanka starting from the late nineteenth century provides an interesting example. Up to the 19th century the Theravada Buddhism in South and South East Asia was basically confined to those countries with occasional sporadic contacts with the West. It is interesting to see how the very globalization process that brought Christianity to Sri Lanka was later instrumental in taking back Buddhism to the west.

Starting of the Pali Text Society (PTS) by Rhys Davids (1843-1922) in 1881 in England can be regarded as the most important event that crystallized the beginning of the systematic studies of Buddhism in England in particular and in the west in general. Rhys Davids was a young British civil servant in Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) who developed an interest in the ancient Buddhist literature and studied Pali language from an erudite Sri Lankan Buddhist monk. Gone back to England after his service Rhys Davids started Pali Text Society in order to publish Pali texts in Roman letters and translate them into English 3. By the first quarter of the 20th century all the basic texts of the Pali canon had been published in Roman letters and larger majority had been translated into English. These texts provided the basis for the subsequent Buddhist studies in Europe and America, and also constituted the essential reading material to those early converts from the West to Theravada Buddhism.

Another historically significant event that took place in the British period is what has come to be known as the 'Great Panadura Debate', a face-to-face encounter between a Buddhist monk and a Christian clergy on their respective teachings. The British Christian missionaries who accompanied their country rulers to Sri Lanka were very active in propagating their religion during the nineteenth century in the new colony. It is recorded that at first the Buddhist monks even allowed these clergy to use their monastic preaching halls to address the people. Encouraged by this lack of opposition the Christian clergy challenged the Buddhist monks for public debates 4. It proved hard to beat in this game the Buddhist monks for whom public oratory and the scriptural knowledge were an essential part of their monastic training. The last of such debates was held in 1873 at the township called Panadura, and hence the name of this debate, which aroused lot of interest not only among the native Buddhists but also in the English people themselves. It was widely acknowledged that the monk represented Buddhism won the day. A report of this debate with an account of its content was published in the English news papers. John Capper, the editor of Ceylon Times, published a report of the event under the title "A Full account of the Buddhist controversy held at Panadura in August 1873". One Dr. James Martin Peebles from the USA, who happened to be there witnessing the debate, republished this report in New York under the title "Buddhists and Christianity Face to Face". It is after reading this account that Henry Steel Olcott, along with Madame Blawatsky, a well-known theosophist, came to Sri Lanka in 1880 from the USA and became Buddhist and started working with the local Buddhist leaders. The arrival of these two people from the West marked a new beginning for Buddhism, in particular, it marked the beginning of the western model of education for the Buddhist children and enhancement of the organizational activities of the Buddhists in Sri Lanka.

A young Sinhala Buddhist, who later came to be known as Anagarika Dharmapala (1864-1933), was awakened by the Panadura debate and subsequently served Olcott as his interpreter in his public talks given in various places in the island. Dharmapala himself became a leader of the Buddhist revival movement of the Country following his mentor Olcott. In 1893 Dharmapala was invited to represent Buddhism ("Southern Buddhism") at the World Parliament of Religion held in Chicago and became a prominent participant from Asia along with Swami Vivekananda from India who represented Hinduism. Dharmapala started Maha Bodhi Society (1891) which became the leading Buddhist organization in India which is responsible for the modern revival of Buddhism in the country where the Buddha was born. The first Theravada Buddhist Vihara (monastery) in the West was established by Dharmapala in London in 1926 which still functions and is known under the name: London Buddhist Vihara. Whereas Rhys Davids and the Pali Text Society marked the beginning of the Buddhism's becoming a global religion, the arrival of Henry Steel Olcott and Madame Blavatsky marked the new beginning for the local Buddhism in Sri Lanka, which, through Anagarika Dharmala, was instrumental in wide variety of Buddhist activism in India and the West. Both these events are clearly indirect and unintended results of the globalization of the west in the nineteenth century.

These dynamics of religion shows that from the times of conquerors to colonizers the religion has become an important part of globalization. Either conquerors or colonizers used religion as an instrument of their power game, or religions, in the sense of organized religion, themselves found a good alley in these enterprises for their own power games. In either manner, western religions came to Asia as a part of globalization process. Interestingly the process is far from being over- as globalization is happening in an unprecedented manner, what I would call 'religious globalization' too happening in renewed vigour in many places throughout Asia, the only difference being that the modes of operation have become more subtle and more sophisticated.

Today in Asia we see the second wave of religious globalization. Initially, Islam and Christianity that came with conquerors and colonizers have by now become very much local and traditional that they form a part of Asian religiosity in those respective places. The second wave of globalization associated with religion is a more recent phenomenon. In many parts of Asia, in particular in south and south east Asia new evangelical groups have been active for the last few decades to the extent that in many of these places social and religious harmony has been threatened in a serious manner. For instance, what is known as 'unethical conversions' have aroused so much anxiety and frustration among people in some states of India, the state legislatures have passed 'anti-conversion' bills in their parliaments. There are two such bills awaiting consideration before the parliament of Sri Lanka. Usually these groups are from the west and are funded by local religious organizations in those western countries.

More recently Korea has entered the scene of new evangelism by following its western counterparts and is busy in setting up establishments for spreading Christianity in these regions . Korea provides an interesting example of how religious globalization is intimately linked with economic power. As in many other Asian countries, the history of Christianity in Korea is less than four hundred years old. Nevertheless, the fact that Korea is in a position to propagate its newly adopted religion to the other countries in Asia shows the significant role played by the economic power in this whole process.

More recently there has been considerable amount of discussion on both 'unethical conversions' and the measures adopted by other religionists to counter such efforts. The argument of the groups who do not approve of the new evangelical tactics and procedures, and in particular, targeting of economically deprived groups by offering material gains and thereby using these groups merely as a means of glorifying one's own religion is that to follow such questionable practices is to misuse the misery of these people and to 'bribe' them into accepting a religion which ideally has to happen out of conviction. The other side has been arguing, based on the notions of freedom of religion and freedom of expression, that one has to have liberty to spread one's own belief and that anyone has a right to believe in any religion of one's choice.

The debate could be extended to any length. But the important point to consider is how can we reconcile between a religion's need to educate others on what it thinks to be the right thing le accepting the right other religions have for existence and their own engagement in similar educative activities. Plurality of religion has become a fact mainly as a result of globalization. The problem is how to deal with it.

The phenomenon of religious plurality and the resultant need to be in harmony with those who do not make a part of one's own group are problematic and challenging. Religious plurality ery much a fact of our life today. If I may speak specifically of Sri Lanka, we have had four major religious traditions, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam in the country for long period of time. The former two having a history of more than two millennia and the last two having ing existed for the last five to six centuries. In the globalized context of the present-day world, as many other things, religions too have been drawn close to one another as it has never been before. This situation necessarily prompts us to think seriously of the problems of inter-religious harmony.

Inter-religious harmony and co-existence has never been an easy affair. Usually religions supposed to provide solution and way-out when society is suffering from problems. History, fever, shows that this has not been always the case. For the most part, it is true that religions г been culturing and sobering forces. But time and again we have witnessed in the history, instead of being the solution, religions themselves have been the problem. Instead of being pacifying forces, religions have been the cause of conflict. At the heart of the problem is the belief that holding on to a truth claim in religion and being peaceful and tolerant of opposite belief system is impossible or self-contradictory. Let's examine this belief briefly.

Religious Truth Claims

It is common among religions to claim that each one of them alone has the truth about the world and the human existence. A claim of this sort in any religion is, on the one hand, an assertion of its own position and, on the other, a criticism and a rejection of the religions that preceded it or other than it. The history of religions makes it clear that always a newly arising 'ion is a rejection of its older counterparts. For instance, In India, Buddhism arose as a way of freedom from suffering because Prince Siddhartha was not satisfied with the existing dons of the day, Brahmanism and many forms of non-brahmanic religions such as Jainism Ajivikism. In the like manner, Christianity came into being owing to the dissatisfaction of Jesus of Judaism. Islam came as a rejection of both Judaism and Christianity. If any of the religious leaders were satisfied with what they already had a new religion would not have en. Every religion, in this manner, contains truth claims which exclude the rest.

Truth claims advanced by religions usually come as very strong assertions. This is particularly so when these truths are understood to originate from sources believed to be infallible. For example, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, God, the source of truth or is believed to have revealed the truth, is characterized as omniscient, omnipotent and absolutely good and benevolent. By the very definition this god is infallible and anything that is by such a god cannot be wrong, untrue or bad. Human beings by definition are limited and imperfect whereas God is unlimited and perfect. This makes human beings totally incapable of merely challenging but even understanding God. The end result is unconditional surrender one's own self and acceptance as final what is religiously given.

In such a situation, one's acceptance of these truths has to be understood not as an epistemological but as an emotional act. Once one accepts the possibility of such transcendental source, it automatically follows that one accepts what is claimed to have said by him. The acceptance is an act of faith and faith alone. Faith is basically an emotion. No any amount of rational arguments would dissuade one from believing in such truths. This, in other words, could amount to subscribing to a very strong form of absolutism in religion. Any form of absolutism is a breeding ground for conflict. It is particularly so when it comes to absolute truths in religion. Religion is such a serious affair that one puts one's entire existence at its disposal. Very often, in the believer's eyes, the choice of religion is a choice between eternal hell and everlasting paradise. This explains why some people are ready to sacrifice even their life for this phenomenon.

Absolutism and Relativism Debate in Religion

The dislike of absolutism and resultant fundamentalism has led some to accept a form of relativism which holds that every religion is equally true. The underlying belief, which I think is mistaken, is that religious harmony is impossible so long as one holds to one's own truth-claims for doing so is to hurt the feelings and the sensitivities of the other. Asserting a religious truth-claim, however, does not necessarily need to amount to an absolutism. One may well assert such a truth without holding a dogmatic and fanatic mentality about it. For example, the attitude advocated by the Buddha to his teaching is one of non-grasping based on rational understanding. Religious relativism, in this manner, is very often proposed as a necessary condition of inter-religious harmony. There is no doubt about the desirability of harmony among religions. But it needs to be positioned on a sound basis. Relativism seems to provide hardly any such basis which is intellectually satisfying.

Among different varieties of relativism there is a classical Indian view which holds that all religions are true for they say the same in different languages or in different manners. According to this view, which has been classically expressed as: "ekam hi sat - vipraa hahudhaa vadanti": the truth is one; sages describe it many ways", the apparent differences in different religions have to be explained with reference to regional, cultural or linguistic differences. There are more recent versions of a similar relativism. In his much acclaimed work, An Interpretation of Religion, a leading philosopher of religion, John Hick, says that the ultimate goals of all religions can be classified into two, namely, personal representations and impersonal representations of the Transcendental. Such religious ultimates as Ishvara, Yahweh, Allah and the like are examples for the first category. Atman/Brahman, Nirvana, Tathata and the like are impersonal representations. Al these phenomena are ultimately representations of one and only transcendental entity which he calls 'the Real'. Now this Real is what stands above all these religious goals. What this theory amounts to is that all the religions are ultimately one and the same for the reason that all of them refer to the same transcendental entity. According to this theory, all religions are true because all of them ultimately have the same final point of reference. Both these ancient and modern versions of religious relativism are not really relativist; they allow truthfulness to all religions not because all of them are true as they are but because they ultimately refer to the same Transcendental, though in different languages. This is not really a form of relativism for it ultimately affirms one form of religion as the only valid religion. The relativism proper has to be different in allowing validity to all forms of religion equally. But the epistemological question that it leaves behind is: how could many assertions be Hue simultaneously?

Relativism in religion is not acceptable to anyone who is serious about religion as a way of life leading to a fixed destination. Notwithstanding the fact that religions do share a lot in common, there seem to be certain differences among religions which are quite fundamental and basic. The difference between two theistic religious traditions may be purely on such minor issues as the appropriateness of the names used to call God, the correctness of the epithets used to describe God and the like. But if we contrast a theistic religion with a non-theistic religion such as Buddhism, for example, the differences are not nominal. They involve the very fundamental beliefs of the two religions: whereas one is based on the assumption of the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good God, who created the universe, the other begins by rejecting such a possibility altogether. This fundamental difference accounts for the other equally fundamental differences between the path and the goal accepted by each tradition. If the situation is such, relativism cannot be the right position to adopt. There cannot be a doubt about the necessity and the validity of religious harmony; but it needs to be situated on a different and sustainable basis.

On the other hand, the classical Indian version of relativism with its modern versions cannot be accepted for it is a kind of absolutism leading finally to a type of 'colonialism' in religion. The underlying assumption of this project is the belief that, in order to be acceptable and lovable, the other' needs to be in conformity with 'one's own' categories. So there is a necessity of reshaping and reinterpreting 'the other' so that it suits 'our own' requirements. The real solution, therefore, cannot be either relativism or absolutism however sophisticated or mild it may be. The real solution has to be pluralism based on mutual respect. In a pluralistic religious dimension, one accepts the multiplicity of religion as a fact, although not attributing validity to all, and acts accordingly.

Epistemological and Ethical Challenge

In concluding this part of the discussion let me propose that the real epistemological challenge for this position is to show that a religion can uphold its claim for truth and still practice harmony with other religions, which it believes to be not totally true. The issue is, can religions still hold on to what they consider to be true and still come up with a philosophy and ethics enabling them to live while letting others also to live? The history of religions is full of incidents of destroying the others for the propagation one's own. This is no wonder in a situation where one accepts some belief to be true not for rational reasons but for one's emotional attachment to it. We cannot say that things have changed drastically. It is true that today we do not hear religious wars being fought in order to propagate one religion over the rest. Nevertheless, there are several ongoing conflicts in the world caused solely by historical religious reasons. Also it is true that today people are not being killed for the purpose of conversion, but it equally remains true that they are forced to accept one religion over another by improper means.

Religious fundamentalism is very much a part of today's globalized society. Religious fundamentalists are trying their level best to see that all the other religions are replaced by their own. Established forms of religion too are not without their secret agendas for conversion. Religions seem to have a kind of 'cold-war' going among them still. Mutual distrust and the desire to see that the other is eliminated are the key characteristics of this way of behaviour. It is ironical that most of the aggressive forms of religious conversions are taking place today under the guise of exercising one's freedom of thought, freedom of choice and freedom of expression and other similar human rights and liberties. The kinds of freedom spoken here are not of those who are being converted but of those who are engaged in conversion. Majority of the people who become the victims are those who are deprived of economic well-being and are hence powerless to resist any pressure. Ultimately the question here is: whose freedom of choice and expression do really matter here? The freedom of the converter is being used to undermine the same of the converted. The religion which is expected to be the liberator has itself become the oppressor.

Globalization has been a mixed baggage: it has brought economically and culturally both good and bad, in particular, to developing countries in Asia and elsewhere. Religiously, globalization has made possible for Buddhism to spread practically all over the world making use of sophisticated modes of transport and electronic modes of communication. With the vast advances of information technology and transport the world today is much closer to one another than it was a hundred years back. What this means for religions is that they cannot ignore the existence of the others any longer; nor can they expect their public behaviour to be unknown to others. In such a situation all religions have to be sensitive to the other religions. This situation forces religions to have a well articulated position and attitude toward the rest of the religions. Respect for the other person's views, whether they be acceptable or not, has to be inculcated as a religious virtue.

While we have to admit that a religious person has a duty to tell others what he thinks to be true, right and good, we also need to underscore that this has to be done in the most unoffending manner possible. I think there are a lot of challenges lying before all those who identify themselves with religion in one way or another. Among them a very serious one will be to evolve a set of ethics by which religions themselves behave toward one another. In a world ridden with problems and miseries, there is no need for religions to contribute to the increase of it. Religious fundamentalism has caused a lot of suffering for humanity. We need to find solutions to these problems not by adhering to any fresh form of fundamentalism but by being vigilant and ethically strong.

Globalization, Secularism and Challenge for Religion

Apart from the problem discussed above, in which religions are faced with the challenge of developing right attitudes toward each other, religion in general is faced with equally or even more serious challenge, namely, to continue to make itself meaningful in a world order characterized by globalization and secularism. By this challenge I mean two things: one is for religions to find a unique role to play in modern individual's life. The other is to find ways and means to stay above secular conventions that articulate national and international and individual and social good behaviour.

At the beginning of this discussion I referred to some early sociologists and psychologists who anticipated that religion will be a thing of the past in the face of modernism. To the relief of the religionists this has been proved not true. But still there is a question regarding the manner in which religion exist among us presently. At one point of time, in many societies in the world, religion, in doctrinal as well as organizational sense, provided almost everything for the society. Most of these roles have been undertaken today by other branches of human knowledge and social organizations which fare even more effectively. Consequently, religion mostly has come to us only as a carrier of rites and rituals. It is true that today religious organizations are engaged in many forms of social services, relief activities, measures of poverty alleviation and educational enterprises. But these are not necessarily the exclusive domains of religion, not to mention the fact that questions have been raised at times of the impartiality of how religions are engaged in these services. It is clear that there are secular organizations including governments who fulfill these social needs even more satisfactorily. In such a situation as this it is imperative upon religions to discover their own unique role in individual life and society. This is not to underestimate the meaning of rites and rituals we live by. Since, however, rites and rituals are not exclusively religious there can be tendency for people to find alternative rights and rituals which are more entertaining, more meaningful or more useful or any combination of them.

This, in fact, seems to be the case with a culture like that of Korea where about 46% of people claim that they do not have a religion . This statistics is important compared, for example, to any south Asian country where almost 100% would identify themselves with one religion or another. The large group of people, who does not claim any religious affiliation, is not necessarily detesting any rites or rituals, for in a broader sense, social life is a complex of rites and rituals. It is not my function here to determine what this unique characteristic of religion should be; it is up to each individual religion to determine it for itself. But the point I would wish to make is that religion has to go beyond being a mere carrier of traditional rites and rituals or a mere social service institute, if it needs to continue to be a meaningful and respected institute for individual and society.

The other significant challenge for religion is coming from a very important development of globalization, namely, evolution of institutes like United Nations, which encompass the entire world. The fact that almost all the nations in the world have joined UN shows the willingness of people to submit themselves to a kind of global agreement and consensus. One of the most significant development in this trend was to adopt Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 by the General Assembly of United Nations. Subsequently many other documents specifying civil and political rights, rights of children, conventions against discrimination of women, and the convention against torture and other cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment have been adopted by this world-wide body. It is interesting to see that all the individuals and social organizations, including religious organizations in particular, are seeking the assistance and guidance from these commissions, particularly they seek protection under Human Rights when faced with difficulties. In so far as religion is concerned, this shows that it is under these global conventions which are basically secular and non-religions.

Secularism was initially developed in the context of western society basically as a reaction to the western religion . The history of this development can be traced in the histories of the particular countries starting from late medieval through modern periods, in such documents as Magna Carta [1215: England], Bill of Rights [1689, England], Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen [1789, France] and United States Bill of Rights [1789/1791] and in the movements such as Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment. Although secularism implies rejection of religion in some sense and hence some religions in particular distance themselves from secularist movements, it is interesting to see that all the major world religions have accepted and supported UDHR. This, in a way, shows that the concept and the convention of human rights have been there ingrained in the religious teachings and from that perspective, that UDHR is not something new to religions. Granting this point, still we have to note the organizational structure of the UDHR and its legal power on the nations of the globe which religions seem to lack. Unlike a religious teaching or a belief, UDHR has a legal validity and a mechanism to deal with its violators. It is in this sense that secularist institutes under globalization have been able to bring out a global form of ethics that cut across religious affiliations. If what was done by religions in earlier times is now being done by organizations such as UN, and if religions themselves accept this new order, it is an indication that secularism has triumphed over religion in some very significant sense. When religions themselves are at war with one another it is secular institutes that sit on judgment and working as sobering influences on religions. If religion is reduced to a state in which it is told what to do and what not to do by a secular institute it clearly is not good for the age-old ethical self-image of the religions. This situation, on the other hand, is inevitable in view of the history of religions fraught, very often, with persecution of other religionists, non-believers and others like witches who were considered to be undesirable for the particular religion. Nevertheless, the sublime teachings of all great religions, in spite of the misbehaviours, of varying degrees and frequencies, on the part of the followers, have to be recognized. The very secular institutes clearly have been influenced by, or at least have not gone against, the essence of such teachings. This shows that religions do not have a dearth of resources of their own. What needs to be done is to have developed truly a global ethics within each system.

An indication to the recognition of this need is the document called "Declaration toward a Global Ethic", authored by Hans Kung and issued at the Parliament of World Religions, Chicago, 1993, which marked the first centenary of the initial Parliament in 1883. The Declaration was approved by the followers of the all religions gathered, and was signed subsequently by more than one hundred religious dignitaries belonging to different religious denominations . The declaration begins with the following analysis of the human predicament:

The world is in agony. The agony is so persuasive and urgent that we are compelled to name its manifestations so that the depth of this pain may be made clear. Peace eludes us - the planet is being destroyed - neighbours live in fear - women and men are estranged from each other - children die! This is abhorrent.

We condemn the abuses of Earths eco-systems. We condemn the poverty that stifles life's potential; the hunger that weakens the human body, the economic disparities that threaten so many families with ruin. We condemn the social disarray of the nations; the disregard for justice which pushes citizens to the margin; the anarchy overtaking our communities; and the insane death of children from violence. In particular we condemn aggression and hatred in the name of religion.

The Declaration holds that these sad conditions need not exist on earth and that there is an ethic capable of solving these problems available within religions. It further says that Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948 "on the level of rights" are confirmed and deepened by the Declaration "from the perspective of an ethic" (emphasis original). In other words, the Declaration proposes to provide an alternative religious basis for human rights to be upheld and observed. Although the document itself may be studied for its relative merits in completeness and conceptual clarity and the like the purpose of the present discussion being different we do not engage in such an exercise here. What is important to highlight in the present context is that religions have shown awareness of the larger challenge facing themselves. It is equally important to note that by admitting the religions' own role in aggravating human predicament (as found in the passage quoted above) the Declaration displays unbiased-ness and admirable sensitivity to the manifold sources of the problem.

Conclusion

The early strides of Globalization several centuries ago brought the western religion to Asia. More recently new strides of globalization have taken the Asian religions back to the West. On the one hand, globalization has found new homes for traditional Asian religions as it found new homes for the western religions centuries ago. On the other hand, the economic and cultural forces that are generated by globalization seem to pose serious threats to Asian religion in particular and religion in general all over the world without much discrimination. The fundamental principle of globalized market economy seems to be to let the market to decide, and the market, in John Rawls words, "ignores the claims of need altogether" . In this inhuman pursuit, it is believed that religion is the most plausible candidate to provide sanity while maintaining its own. The way the globalized religion tries to dominate over other religions alarmingly suggests that religion too has entered the race on equal terms. In other words, while the fate of the developing economies are decided by the market the fate of the Asian religions which lack sufficient material resources is left to be decided by the same principle of 'market'. The race in the view of the runners has only one rational end, that is, extermination of all other religions except the most powerful, whatever it may be.

So long as religion itself is a competitor in the game it does not have a moral right, nor does it have a capacity to provide guidance for the kind of maladies described in the preamble to the Declaration of Global Ethic we discussed above. Therefore it is paramount for religions to have adopted their own pluralist ethic toward each other before aiming at anything more grandeur. If religion fails to do this, what is most likely to happen is that ordinary people, who do not wish to be bothered by religious disputes, will bypass it.

Notes

1 Fore more information please refer to Dillion (2003) and Hayens (1999)

2 D'Souza, (2005). p. xi.

3 It is not totally irrelevant to record here that V. Fausboll, one of the pioneers who started editing and transliterating Pali texts in Roman letters, even before PTS was started, envisaged (cultural) globalization as far back as 1877 in the following words: I have continued to transliterate the Oriental into Latin characters and shall continue to do so in all I publish of Pali, for it is my conviction that the fine Latin Characters must not only henceforward be applied to languages which have no literature and to literatures which have hitherto not been published, but also that they one day will supersede all other characters when European-American civilization has, like a lava, laid itself over all other civilizations and made them into Herculaneums and Pompeiis.(emphasis added.) (Jataka, Vol. 1. 1877) Looking back after one hundred thirty years, it does not seem that the wish of Fausboll, articulated in not-altogether-kind words, has come totally true although he definitely has captured the trend of globalization. It is not known whether or not Rhys Davids had a similar wish!

4 Debates prior to that of Panadura were held at the locations of Baddegama (1865), Udanwita (1866), and Gampola (1871).

References

An-Na'im, Abdullahi. (2002). "Religion and Global Civil Society: Inherent Incompatibility or Synergy and Interdependence?" in Global Civil Society 2002, eds. Glasius, Marlies., Mary Kaldoe and Helmut Anheier, The Centre for Study of Global Governance.

Beyer, Peter. (2003). "Social Forms of Religion and Religions in

Contemporary Global Society" (pp.45-60) in Handbook of the Sociology of
Religion, ed. by Michele Dillion, Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Chung, Chai-Sik. (2001). Korea, Religious Tradition and Globalization, Institute for Modern Korean Studies, Yonsei University, Korea.

Dillon, Michele. (ed.) (2003). Handbook of The Sociology of Religion, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

D'Souza, Leela. (2005). The Sociology of Religion: A Historical Review, (Author Publication) Jaipur, India.

Gellner, Ernest. (1992). Postmodernism, Reason and Religion, Routledge: London and New York.

Haynes, Jeff. (1997). "Religion, Secularization and Politics: a post modern conspectus in The Third World Quarterly, vol 18, (pp.709-728) 1997.

------- (ed.) (1999). Religion, Globalization and Political Culture in the Third World, St. Martin's Press, New York.

Hick, John. (1989). An Interpretation of Religion, Yale University Press, New Heaven.

Juergensmeyer, Mark. (1993) The New Cold War? Religious Nationalism Confronts the Secular State, University of California Press, Berkeley.Kinnvall, Catarina. (2004).

Globalization and Religious nationalism: Self, Identity, and the Search for Ontological Security" in
Political psychology, (pp.741-765) Vol.25, No.5, 2004.

Kuhn, Hans. (1993). Declaration Toward a Global Ethic, Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, Chicago.

Preston, Paul. (2001). Evangelicals, and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Chapters on Asia: pp.61-101.]

Rawls, John. (1967) "Distributive Justice" in Justice, ed. by Allan Ryan, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 1993.

Ryan, Allan.(ed.) (1993). Justice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Spohn, Willfried. (2003). "Multiple Modernity, Nationalism and Religion: A Global Perspective" in Current Sociology, (pp. 265-286) May/July 2003 Vol. 51.2003.

Tilakaratne, Asanga.(1997). "Globalization: A Buddhist Perspective to Economics" in Dialogue (NS) Vol. XXIV, Colombo, pp.53-65.

------- , (2006). "The Buddhist View on Religious Conversion" in Dialogue (NS) Vol. XXXII & XXXIII, Colombo, pp.58-82.

Van Der Veer, Peter. (2002). "Translational religion: Hindu Muslim movements" in Global Networks, 2, 2 (pp. 95-108) 2002.

Asanga Tilakaratne, PhD Senior Professor of Buddhist Studies, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka.