Salvatore Puledda
The Human Being On the Threshold of the New Millennium
28/03/98 - Sala congressi Società Umanitaria - Milano
I wish to thank the Center of Cultures of Milan, and its president for having invited me to illustrate New Humanism's
ideas in this gathering, and Rev. Rgiakiya Pandita Shasthrapathi Angulugaha Wansananda Thero for his enlightening
explanation of the meaning of Humanism in Theravad Buddhism. I thank our Asian and European friends for being here
today.
I must say, first of all, that this is an extremely stimulating meeting given that our common interest, according
to the title of the event itself, is the human being's situation on the threshold of the new millennium.
At this point, however, I must make a clarification. To speak in terms of "millennium" means to place
oneself within a temporal horizon that belongs to the Christian West but which is foreign to other cultures, and,
in particular, to Buddhism. If my knowledge of this great doctrine's history is not wrong, Buddhism, or at least
certain schools of Buddhism, frames its history instead on the basis of a 500-year temporal scansion. Consequently,
it has recently begun the sixth phase of its secular development.
This comment on time scansions is not really very important: I think that when we gave the title tot his meeting
-- "The human being on the threshold of the new millennium" -- what we wanted to say was that humanity
today, in its entirety, finds itself in front of an extremely delicate and dangerous historical passage. We wanted
to say that humanity today finds itself faced with the need to make an enormous change. This, though, is extremely
difficult, problematic, and complex. To use New Humanism's language, we can express this by saying that the situation
of today's humanity is that of a "global crisis."
My speech will hinge precisely on this point. I will also discuss the remedies that New Humanism offers to face
this global crisis, and, within this topic, some of the doctrinal similarities between Humanism and Buddhism. I
refer to the idea of compassion towards the suffering of all beings and our moral attitude that can be summarized
in the phrase: "Treat others as you would like to be treated."
Before entering the heart of the matter, I would like to clarify what the significance is for us of this meeting
with the official representatives of the doctrine given to man by one of the heroes of humanity, by He who was
called the "Light of Asia", Illuminated, Tathagata, Buddha.
Ours is quite a young movement, born in a specific cultural area, that of the Latin culture, and more in particular,
Latin-America. However, from its very beginning the Humanist Movement has shown a clear internationalist vocation,
a strong, conscious drive to overcome its cultural specificity and reach all cultures. As it continued to expand
from its place of origin, first in Europe and then in the United States, the Movement came in contact with and
included persons and associations belonging to the different cultures and religions.
And there's a key point I would like to make clear right now. The Humanist Movement has never asked any of its
members to sever his or her own cultural roots or abandon their religious faith in order to conform to the cultural
model of the founders of the Movement. On the contrary; it has always encouraged everyone to put into practice,
as coherently and conscientiously as possible, the religious and moral principles in which they believe in good
faith and which they consider valid. The Humanist Movement does not distinguish among its members on the basis
of their religious beliefs. Quite the opposite: it accepts all religions and also atheism on only one condition:
that they will not preach nor practice violence or discrimination to impose their views.
And because it includes persons of different cultures and faiths -- on a peer basis and following the sole criterion
of our common humanity -- the Humanist Movement has always fostered activities that promote a better mutual understanding,
the exchange of ideas, and personal and collective enrichment with the representatives of different religions.
The list of these meetings is long. I will only mention the most significant ones in which I was a participant
myself.
In 1981, in Sri Lanka, there was a large meeting between the representatives of the higher level of the Shanga,
i.e. the Buddhist order, and Silo, the founder of the Humanist Movement. Again in 1981, there was another meeting
with several Hindu religious persons when Silo delivered a speech before over 10.000 people on the Chawpatty beach
in Bombay. I also remember that a representative of the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church participated in the First
Humanist World Forum held in Moscow in 1993. Meetings with Hebrew communities, especially in Argentina, have been
frequent, and the same holds for the Ba'hai faith and for religious representatives of the Indian peoples of America.
Therefore, this exchange of ideas with our Buddhist friends today falls within a broader context: that of meeting
the representatives of all the creeds to which our supporters belong. Moreover, I must point out that the Humanist
Movement has been in Sri Lanka for many years and has a numerous membership.
To finish this introduction I must say that in the meetings I have just mentioned and in all the many others that
have taken place, our message has always been acknowledged with attention and respect; we have always met people
who, notwithstanding their specific creed -- at times an antique and venerable religion -- have always shown a
genuine concern not so much and not only for their religious community and their church, but more so for the fate
of humanity in general, for the extremely serious crisis, this difficult historical transition, we are all going
through.
Now that the meaning this meeting has for us is clear, I would like to move on to the more specific contents of
the discussion. Let's begin with the personal and social crisis
Since it started 30 years ago, the Humanist Movement has insistently spoken about a crisis that would have expanded
and deepened until it ended up undermining the very foundations of the current human civilization, a crisis that
would have spared no country or institution no matter how solid or powerful they looked at the time.
Thirty years ago these statements sounded a bit strange, discordant, discouraging, even decidedly catastrophical.
Today, after so much disappointment, so many defeats, after the loss of certainties and models, even the man in
the street admits the existence of a crisis that involves both the personal and the social spheres.
The Humanist Movement has always claimed that it would have not been a partial phenomenon, circumscribed to some
specific sector of society, like for instance, politics, economy, art, or religious life, but a global, structural
crisis. Nor would it be confined to Western countries, where the symptoms were more evident, but it would extend
to all cultures, to the entire human civilization. At the same time, however, the Humanist Movement has always
warned against interpreting such a crisis tragically, in a millenarian sense, for it would show the end of a process,
the end of certain conditions, and herald a radical transformation -- though difficult and tortuous -- of human
civilization as we know it. In spite of the dangers and the threats it entailed, the crisis would coincide with
a phase of growth and advancement for the human being. The crisis is here because humankind has made amazing steps
forward, but what we have been given does not fulfill our deepest expectations.
And it is precisely on the basis of this delicate transition from one stage of human civilization to a more developed
one that the Humanist Movement legitimates its own existence. There would be no need for the Movement if the institutions,
the social organization and the distribution of wealth were fine somewhere on this planet; if human beings felt
increasingly happy and peaceful somewhere in this world.
Here we get to the particularity of the current crisis, a unique feature, something that has never ever happened
before in human history. That is its globality, its planetary magnitude. The history of man has repeatedly witnessed
the fall of huge empires, of entire civilizations, the disappearance of whole peoples along with their cities,
their institutions, their gods. But never before has there loomed -- over all mankind -- the threat of a global
catastrophe such as the one we are now facing as a result of the dangers posed by a nuclear war or ecological disaster.
But again, never before has there been the actual possibility of the creation of a global civilization, common
to all peoples on Earth. This crisis is the result of this extremely hard and hazardous passage.
Our generation was the first to see the image of our planet from outside. From space we saw our planet as one
world - there were no boundary lines - the Earth was our common home. And we saw it was threatened, it was fragile.
I think nothing better than this image can account for the crisis today and, at the same time, for the exciting
challenge in store for humanity.
Because on this planet -- shared by all, unified by mass communication media -- we see in real time the most painful
imbalances: hunger and opulence; the most advanced technology and the most strenuous physical work; huge crowded
cities on the verge of collapse and abandoned, deserted areas. But most of all we see the confusion, the loss of
meaning in life and violence in all its forms: economic, religious, racial, sexual, psychological... Violence
enhanced by the newest technological potential. And we see that violence does not even spare that island of Sri
Lanka with its an ancient pacifist tradition.
I think it is well known to us all that today there's the practical possibility to raise the living conditions
of all human beings to an acceptable level as far as food, health and housing are concerned. If this does not
happen, it is simply because there is a monstrous economic system that concentrates in the hands of 20% of humanity
80% of the wealth. And this is so not only on a global scale, between rich and poor countries, but also within
opulent societies, where there is increasing unemployment and entire layers of the population and geographic areas
are neglected.
But perhaps the scariest aspect of the current crisis resides in the confrontation between cultures. Until recent
times, the great civilizations developed separately, mostly on the basis of endogenous factors, and only occasionally
did they interact through commercial exchange, cultural and religious influence, migrations, and war.
In today's global village everyone interacts with everyone. Mass communication media introduce in our homes different
life styles, views of the world, aspirations and values. What's good and what's evil? Everything becomes relative.
In the large metropolis, in restricted physical spaces, human beings coexist with different, if not downright contrasting,
cultural landscapes, points of reference, life styles. What's good and what's evil if good for me is different
from what good is for my neighbor?
The Humanist Movement recognizes in this the magnitude and the meaning of the present crisis. We could enlarge
on the subject and provide more detailed explanations -- sociological, political, economic, etc. -- but I feel
that even without them it shouldn't be difficult to agree that from this situation of globalization -- from which
there's no way back -- two alternatives open up in front of us: either a destructive struggle for hegemony among
the various cultures, with only one prevailing over all the others that leads to the rise of a coercive, uniform
empire on a planetary scale, or the creation of a universal human nation, where the different cultures may live
together, each of them contributing with its own experience, each of them with its own identity, with its own colors,
its music, its way to approach the divine.
Here we get to another issue we would like to discuss. In what way can the Humanist Movement contribute to the
construction of a universal human nation? But before this, I must clarify a few things. Why the Humanist Movement,
why New Humanism?
If we open a history book we learn that humanism was a cultural phenomenon that appeared in a certain historical
moment and in a precise geographical place: first in Italy and then in the rest of Western Europe between the
second half of the 14th century and the second half of the 17th century.
But what has this cultural movement to do with today's world? We all understand the importance it had for the
history of the Western world because it reclaimed dignity and a central position for the human being in opposition
to Christian Medieval times' degradation. But what can it say to Asian and African cultures, to the heirs of pre-Columbian
cultures, or to the cultures of Oceania? Today's Humanist Movement reformulates and reinterprets the concept of
humanism in new ways and includes it in a historical, global perspective. That is, it puts it in tune with our
times which, as we said before, are witness to the dawn of a planetary society for the first time in human history.
For us, the Humanism that made its presence known in Renaissance Europe and that placed the human being and its
dignity at the center of everything is not only a European phenomenon. Humanism was already in other cultures,
for example, in Islam, India, and China. Sure, it was called differently, since there were different cultural reference
parameters, but it was nonetheless implicit in the form of "attitude" and "outlook on life".
Therefore, in our conception, Humanism is a phenomenon that arose and that developed in various parts of the world
at various times. Precisely for this reason it can provide a convergent direction to different cultures that are
currently in forced and strife-torn contact.
But what historical indications allow us to speak in these terms and to develop this interpretation? When can
we speak of "Humanism" for cultures that have had a complex and extremely varied culture? In our opinion,
it is possible to find moments that we call "Humanist" in all of Earth's great cultures that are recognizable
through the following signals:
At these times, the human being occupies a central position as a value and as a preoccupation;
the equality of all human beings is affirmed;
personal and cultural diversity are recognized and valued;
knowledge tends to be developed beyond what had been accepted as the absolute truth up until that time;
the freedom to profess any idea and belief is affirmed;
violence is rejected.
I think that no other doctrine comes as close to these Humanist criteria as Buddhism. This is why we recognize
in Buddhism a perspective on man and the world that is very similar to our own. To explain better, I would refer
to some key aspects of the New Humanist doctrine.
The third point that I wanted to develop is the one related to the conception of the human being proposed by the
Humanist Movement.
In his first public speech, given on May 4th, 1969 at the foot of the West's greatest mountain chain, the Aconcagua,
the founder of New Humanism, Silo, discussed these issues that are critical for every human being: suffering and
the path to overcome it. The title of that speech, to which we date the beginning of our movement, was: "Healing
of Suffering".
With simple and poetic words, Silo said that true wisdom does not come from books, rather it is a question of
personal experience, of interior experience. Real wisdom lies in comprehending through meditation what the root
of suffering is and what the tools to overcome it are. First of all, Silo distinguishes between pain and suffering.
Pain belongs to the body, suffering to the mind. Physical pain can diminish thanks to science's progress and to
the an ever-more just social organization that allows everyone to satisfy their primary needs such as food, housing,
a dignified job, etc. But neither science nor social justice can triumph over the mind's suffering. There are three
paths to mental suffering: the path of memory, the path of perception, and the path of imagination. One suffers
because one lives in a contradictory situation, that is, a situation in which one does things that oppose each
other. But one also suffers for fear of not achieving something in the future or of losing something possessed.
One also suffers for frustrations and delusions, for what was not obtained or for what was lost or for what has
already been suffered: humiliations, violence, the body's pains, betrayals, injustices, shame. One also suffers
for fear of illness, old age, and death.
At the root of all of the mind's suffering, Silo says, there is internal violence. And the root of internal violence
is desire. Nonetheless, internal violence, motivated by desire, does not stay inside the person who suffers from
it. Like an illness, this violence contaminates everything around it. It produces in others, in our neighbor, new
pain and new suffering. It becomes physical, racial, religious, sexual violence. It turns life upside down.
Overcoming violence, then, means weeding out the root of desire. This, as we know, is a long and arduous path
that begins by purifying and raising desire. It begins by rejecting all forms of violence; it begins with the effort
to reach out to others, to dedicate oneself to others, to help them overcome their pain and suffering. Isn't this
the same thing Buddhism calls compassion towards the suffering of all beings?
We have tried to set out down this difficult road. That is why we fight all forms of violence; that is why we
fight racial, religious, and sexual discrimination and why we battle an economic system that is unconcerned with
the vast majority of human beings' most elementary needs. A moral principal that is as old as civilization guides
us on this path: "Treat others as you would like to be treated." On the basis of this principle, we
try to carry our activities forward, erring and proceeding. Well we know, though, that only by dedicating oneself
to others and surpassing one's egoism may we heal our suffering.
Thank you for your attention. For all of you, peace, force, and joy.