On HHDL and the ironic practice of religion
Dalai Lama, London, 1996. Photograph by Steve Pyke. Used with permission of the photographer
Back in early September, His Holiness the Dalai Lama shared the following via Facebook:
All the world’s religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness, can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.
This is the thesis of HHDL’s book, Beyond Religion, published a year ago. Yet this Facebook status — months later — set off a small storm of blog posts, tweets, and opinions that is still rumbling about the religion sector of the blogosphere. And my own informal survey indicates no one has really paid close attention to the profound irony of a global religious leader calling for the relativizing of religion.
It is an incongruity: The Dalai Lama, a product of religion if ever there was one, saying that we must get beyond religion. He acknowledges as much in the Introduction to BR:
This [call to go beyond religion] may seem strange coming from someone who from a very early age has lived as a monk in robes. Yet I see no contradiction here. My faith enjoins me to strive for the welfare and benefit of all sentient beings, and reaching out beyond my own tradition, to those of other religions and to those of none, is entirely in keeping with this.
This is admirable in its simplicity and lack of offensiveness. I suspect many people from varied faith traditions would agree with it (although they may not use the phrase, “sentient beings”). Reaching out to others is good and well. But how many of these would go so far as to advocate for religion-free ethics? And why is HHDL doing this?
I think it’s because religion sometimes produces individuals who outgrow religion.
Let me clarify: I do not mean that the Dalai Lama has no use for religion. Or that he thinks religion is silly. But many people use religious organizations and ideas primarily as a means of belonging. Often one’s religious identity is little more than self-protection in a strange and sometimes scary world. The social and intellectual defenses provided by religion can be formidable and highly effective.
But for some people religion has the opposite result. In these individuals a religion may have the counterintuitive effect of deconstructing itself. That is, it deconstructs the social and intellectual barriers that define the religion in the first place, barriers that may turn out in the end to be the most serious threats to humanity’s common well-being.
This seems to be the case with HHDL. He has been grounded in a particular tradition, trained in its philosophy, and disciplined in its practice. But he no longer needs its community or its philosophy to distinguish himself from the rest of humanity. In him his religion has accomplished its finest goal: a human being who sees himself first and most clearly as a human being among other human (not to mention sentient) beings. Robes, Buddhism, and Tibet may define him for us, but they do not define him for himself.
But, and here’s the thing: He’s a Tibetan Buddhist, the real deal. He meditates every morning. He wears his robes. He still describes himself as “a simple Buddhist monk.” And while he may not always use the language and images of Buddhism in his broader addresses, he does when he addresses his monks and nuns. To them he speaks fluent Buddhish.
This must be one of the most obvious cases of what James Fowler called the “ironic imagination — the capacity to see and be in one’s or one’s group’s most powerful meanings, while simultaneously recognizing that they are relative, partial and inevitably distorting apprehensions of transcendent reality.” The ironic practice of religion: I suspect it happens for lots of people, not just HHDL and not just Buddhists.
It must be rather freeing to practice one’s religion while seeing it for what it is: A vessel for the universal and not the universal. It seems that such freedom would allow religion to be taken seriously but not too seriously. Such freedom might produce humility. Perhaps it is this freedom that gives HHDL his energy, his focus, and his incredible lightness of being.
There are 13 Comments to "On HHDL and the ironic practice of religion"
Paul, glad to see a post after so long! This post is very interesting, and I do think we should be open to “the best” aspects of “religions” other than our own. Or, for that matter, to those of non-religious philosophies as well.
But, ultimtely, most religions make “truth claims.” They say the universe is a certain way, that there are certain things in (or above) the universe (such as God). They have a “history” which is correcf, or not. And, despite some substantial similarities in the behaviors called for, they are not all the same. (Witness, for example, the battles over abortion and homosexuality.) Therefore, in the final analysis, it does make a substantial degree of “difference” as to which religion youi are in, and some religions may be “more true” and others “more false.” And don’t we want to find the truth, since that is what allows us to best order our lives (not to mention the potential for an “after life”).
Therefore, I think I have to partially disagree ultimately with your closing point to a degree:
It must be rather freeing to practice one’s religion while seeing it for what it is: A vessel for the universal and not the universal. It seems that such freedom would allow religion to be taken seriously but not too seriously. Such freedom might produce humility.
I think in the ultimate analysis a desire for truth and “right living” DOES have to take religion “seriously,” and I am not sure that is compatible with taking it “not too seriously.”
Paul. Good to see your post. I hear the voice of a settled person. Sounds like you are enjoying your new world.
RE: Your post.
In a gossipy moment we were discussing a friend of ours. My Buddy says of our friend and his take on religion, ” I don’t think he takes a big dish of any of that.” Works for me.
As far as humility goes, we might have a tiny bit of a wait on that. Currently, it looks like we would rather “fight than switch.” In the words of that famous philosopher Casey Kasum. ” Ponderous man. Ponderous.”
Good to hear from you!
Hi Curtis. Good to hear from you. Thanks for the note. I am indeed settled, although much about my future is not. Happy tonight in what the Buddhists might call the “don’t know mind.”
Paul, I thought I could be a little more definite about my prior comment on “truth claims.” Specifically, “There is a God.” Either true or false. According to laws of logic there cannot be something and its opposite at the same time. “Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Same thing. “The Bible is basically correct as to the history it recites.” Same thing. “It is wrong to have an abortion.” “There is a heaven where Christians go when they die and live forever.” “There is a hell where non-Christians go forever.” You get the point. I don’t know how anyone could be “dispassationate” about these kinds of propositions.
Tom, good to hear from you and to know you’re still out there. I suppose we could start up our old dialogue again, but we’ve done so much of it that you’ll not be surprised to hear that while I believe your emphasis on the excluded middle is appropriate in many places — science, say, and some kinds of theology — they do not in the end sufficiently mirror the world we live in. Especially not when it comes to the nature of God and the higher reaches of Christian theology.
What I mean to say is that when it comes to ultimate questions, I think more in terms of both/and than either/or. A Christian can run from paradox only so long — its central doctrines finally paradoxical. And IMO that paradoxical light shines on all good theology. It colors the whole. If there’s not a little paradox involved then it’s probably not really true. And if it’s not true, it’s not interesting.
Happy to see you blogging here again, Paul. Joy and peace of the season to you and yours!
Thanks for the good word, Jack. I’m happy to be blogging and it made me smile to see your name in my inbox. Peace and joy also to you and Barbara and the family.
What a treat to see a post!
There is a lot to say about what you’ve written, but I think the most important thing is to clarify terms.
What do we mean by “religion”? Several people have put forward ideas about what it entails – such as the making of truth claims – but I think we should remember that the development of the word and concept “religion” is historically contingent and quite recent. It is in many ways a product of the eighteenth century.
“a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether”
I wish he’d said monotheism.
It’s double-speak that allows buddhism to diplomatically refer to itself as “not a religion” but rather “a philosophy”. Or “a practice”. Yet also apply for tax exemptions like yahweh’s religions do. And scientology.
There’s nothing so selfish as these “spiritual” organisations (according to tax office critieria: supernatural + moralizing) that help themselves to the public purse. They’re taking from we who reject their coffers. Non-members. Us.
Contrary to popular option, such legal entities do no public good. They’re multinationals. Not local charities. Clubs existing for their members. For their stated mission. And for their holymen cum religio-political lobbiests. Who get civil leadership wrong. And public ethical advise even worse.
We don’t need holymen to advise us about life. We need them to tell homophobes to stfu.
Hi Ruth. So good to hear from you!
What you say is of course right, but I think the thrust of HHDL’s and my points are clear, nonetheless. Where would clarification of terms help in this case? IT is likely that you see something I don’t!
P.
Talk about “getting beyond religion” is antithetical to the very idea of getting beyond religion – it’s merely another tactic to push a globalist agenda based in secular humanism.
Who determines the tenets of this new “supra-religion”? How do they propose to move everyone away from their faiths and toward unified thought without some sort of coercive program?
What is this “supra-religion” grounded in that transcends the material and the imperfect reason of men? What ultimate reality can be expressed in it?
There’s a new kind of colonialism getting underway in the world. And its just as bad, and even more insidious, as the old kind of colonialism.
No, this “getting beyond religion” suggestion of HHDL meshes very well with what abrahamic leaders keep preaching is how their tradition helps local communities. Oh yes their scriptures talks of divine things. But above all, clergymen insists that christ’s approach to morality is good for local citizens, here in this 21st century world. To keep teaching kids that profoundly antiquated fable is ethically impermissible. It’s wrong.
The alternative isn’t some supra-religion, with tenets, and leaders. We have ethics teachers. And we have religious moralizers. Government educational institutions cannot be coercive. Democracies constitutionally restrict our public servants. Unless you (like the 2012 Texas GOP official party platform) stretch meanings such that you reject the goal of replacing a child’s childish beliefs and familial fictions with contemporary academic truths. Secular state’s christendom’s contemporary biblical (half)truths.
Ethics shares the same grounding as all other academia endeavors throughout human history. Including theology. Written language and collaborative thought between scholarly individuals. The last 350 years of science and technology should assure you we’re making progress. I think you’ll find we’re making progress in all areas (literature, music) even if you personally dislike particular aspects of modernity (50 shades of gray, hip hop). If you think ethics oughtn’t be “progressive” then I can only invite you to consider slavery. Otherwise I say we’ve reached a cognitive impasse, and leave the moralizing to your nearest neighbours to convince you of the goodness of changing your mind.
Finally, globalization ain’t colonialism. There’s no kings of the world wide web.
Wonderful post, Paul. Religion as a “vessel for the universal and not the universal.” Indeed. Astutely & beautifully put. Couldn’t agree more.