Beyond Religion
(A Review)
I don’t know how I got access to the audiobook for *Beyond Religion* by the Dalai Lama, but I decided to sit down and listen to the thoughts of this prolific religious leader, voiced in this case by Martin Sheen. Soon I found myself quickly interested in the premise. The thesis for the book is that religion is incapable of unifying all of humanity. Therefore, we need a "Secular Ethic" to unite the world that does not root itself in any one tradition.
The basic structure of the book is this:
What would a "Secular Ethic" look like?
Why do we need this system of a "Secular Ethic"
Practical advice on how one could go about implementing said system
In the following review, I have specific insights into major sections of what was discussed in the book, but I can give a brief summary of my impressions. The Dalai Lama throughout the text relies too much on the assumption that humanity is naturally compassionate and cares for others. I would argue that it is quite important to understand that though life is important, don't fall into the assumption that everyone agrees on this fact. *This* is the role of religion. No other type of framework can hope to explain the value of human life. As soon as I can choose what and what not to value, I can choose to not value you. I would say this is my fundamental problem with the concept of a "Secular Ethic" as it is defined here. What we value is essential to our ethics and we cannot just assume that all people will value what is correct. This is the basic problem of many groups coming together under one ethical system while having nothing of significance to unite them under.
It is important to note before we start that when the Dalai Lama says 'secular' he takes great effort to explain that he is not referring to our Western understanding of secular, but something more like a collaboration between many disparate groups toward a common goal.
Helpful insights
First I want to start with what I find helpful in this book. I know that it will be short compared to the rest of the review, but I want to be clear that the Dalai Lama is quite learned on ethics and I think my criticisms lie mostly in that he is either misguided or overly optimistic about the human condition.
As a person already convinced of the value of human life, I was inspired to do better in being compassionate for those around me. The Dalai Lama made sure to make it clear that, if we value humans and humanity, we ought to act in a way that takes care of those who are vulnerable and live in a way that is thankful for what we have (to whom we are thankful to is one of these points of disagreement). This book was a great reminder to live in a way that reflects these values daily and to not keep compassion as purely an intellectual pursuit.
The Problem of Evil
I may be wrong, but I don't recall any mention of the word 'evil' in this entire book, and I think this in itself is a failure when you are trying to present any ethical framework. The existence of evil is one thing that almost every society can agree on. The author seems to chalk the misbehavior of individuals up to a rejection of their innate compassionate natures. However, this is very difficult to understand when you are faced with real evils, especially those of the 20th century. I happily concede the existence of good, misguided people, but that will not be enough to explain the horrors of genocide that have plagued our modern era. The only moment in the text that The Dalai Lama seems to take to reflect on these horrors is when he considers the Germans that saved Jews from Nazi persecution. He then states that when they were asked why they saved these lives through the threat of their own, they said that, anyone would do the same in their situation. Then our author moves on without any question about this response! I struggle to not write in all caps here.
Obviously, it is not the case that "anyone would do the same in their situation" as the entire reason that they protected their Jewish neighbors was because of the clear evil of the Nazis around them.
When we try to wave away evil as just a human construction we are unprepared when we are confronted with the greatest evils our world has seen. One can say that evil does not exist as it is just the absence of good, but just because something exists out of lack does not mean that it does not exist. Illness is a lack of health, but it would be strange to say because of this it does not exist. To push the metaphor, this book is like an attempt to make a medical handbook without referencing cancer. It may work for you for a while, but as soon as the greatest illnesses appear you are woefully unequipped to face them. All it takes to knock over this system is to ask the question "Why? Why should I care?" and then there is no solution that can be offered to keep evil at the door.
Unwarranted Moral Optimism
This brings us to optimism. Don't get me wrong I think the ideal human state is slightly biased toward optimism, but Beyond Religion goes much too far. Reasonably, the author calls the reader to mindfulness practices as a solution to draw up feelings of compassion. I am all for times of reflection like journaling and prayer, but we now come to a logistical problem. When you offer medicine to a sick person it is up to them to take it. We are always free to continue suffering. This is where the analogy to medicine begins to break down though. Where we could forcefully medicate an individual we cannot do so with these practices. We now have to convince everyone that these practices are valuable. Here we arrive at the issue that lies at the center. If I don't value what you are selling, I am not going to buy it. I am all for making an inclusive system that seeks to incorporate everyone, however, the difficulty is that not everyone wants to be a part of the system. When there are outsiders there is division and unrest and we are right where we started. In theory, there may be something to the creation of a secular ethic, but in practice, we would be left with a similar landscape to what we have now.
Inescapable Worldviews
As a relatively minor point, our author has a difficult time escaping his frame of Buddhism. He continually brings up lessons from the great thinkers of India's history and by doing so he creates a secular ethic that is more tightly tied to Eastern ethical understandings. To give one illustrative example, the Dalai Lama has a definite bias against the role of violence in society. It seems that he does not believe in the existence of a just war. That is his prerogative. However, many would disagree and believe there are quite a few instances in which violence can be justified. Though specific tactics by the Allies may have been immoral it would be difficult to say that the war against the Nazis was unjustified and unwarranted. He has stated in the past that the major consideration against war is the oneness of humanity and how it destroys our unity. I seriously ask the question, would he respond as Gandhi responded looking back at the atrocity of the holocaust:
“Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.” -Gandhi
This type of pacifism is immoral and I can think of no justification for it. War for war's sake is detestable, but so is telling the victims of atrocities to place themselves into the hands of their oppressors. This may seem like a contradiction to the Dalai Lama, but the protection of innocent lives is worth the cost of war.
Reliance on Science
As an expected outcome of creating a "Secular Ethic", there is no reliance on any specific tradition. Thus a common language is needed to communicate between cultures and the Dalai Lama settles on the language of Science. The problem with Science is that it is only equipped to answer certain questions. For example, "Does anger harm personal and communal health?" In this way, the author uses science well. He can back up statements he makes with expert testimony from psychologists and neuroscientists.
This difficulty appears when we start to ask about some of the assumptions that the Dalai Lama begins his work with. For example, there is an assumption that it is a moral imperative that we give our attention and care to the continuation of the human species. He attempts to fill this gap by referencing the biological pull that many have to continue the propagation of the species. However, this is skilled misdirection. Just because I am naturally drawn to a particular answer does not make it the answer. When presented with methods of treatment, if I am told that one method will be very painful while the other has minimal side effects, then I will tend to choose the latter even though the second may have a much lower effectiveness. I need to know why humanity is worth fighting for. There are groups today who argue that human extinction is a moral imperative. When we question the most foundational beliefs that ethics are based on, we find that Science does not have the answers to these questions. When there is disagreement on these foundational beliefs there is conflict and as much as we want to avoid this it is unreasonable to expect otherwise. If I were to prioritize health above absolutely everything else, then it would be odd to expect that I would not pursue paths that are considered immoral to achieve this goal, "morality" is not my priority, health is. The Dalai Lama is unable to avoid this inevitability as not everyone agrees on the value of human life, and methods are just as important as ends.
Conclusion: Where is the "why"? and Secular Jesus
I found myself making my way through this book and coming to an odd conclusion. This is what I think my friends who are not well-versed in Christianity think Jesus sounds like. I have a feeling that if I replaced every mention of modern events and Buddhism, I could pass this off to them as the teachings of Jesus (The good moral teacher).
In the entire book, there is nothing very offensive in the least. The only people called out in the entire book are maybe wealthy capitalists who do not give to the poor. Everything is crafted to be as inoffensive as possible. By this, we find nothing is said.
Jesus, on the other hand, made it a point to call people out and was not overly delicate with calling out those around him. The key is Jesus understood that it was not just enough to be a good person, but you also needed a reason. A broken clock is correct twice a day. Only when one has a comprehensive understanding of the foundational principles that guide ethics, can we be fully free to collaborate in the truth. In avoiding religion the Dalai Lama has run into the very reason that it exists.