Beyond Religion

BEYOND RELIGION – Part-I

Ethics for a Whole World

Today, any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

This statement 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 those of none, is entirely in keeping with this.

I am confident that it is both possible and worthwhile to attempt a new secular approach to universal ethics. My confidence comes from my conviction that all of us, all human beings, are basically inclined or disposed toward what we perceive to be good. Whatever we do, we do because we think it will be of some benefit. At the same time, we all appreciate the kindness of others. We are all, by nature, oriented toward the basic human values of love and compassion. We all prefer the love of others to their hatred. We all prefer others' generosity to their meanness. And who among us does not prefer tolerance, respect, and forgiveness of our failings to bigotry, disrespect, and resentment?

In view of this, I am of the firm opinion that we have within our grasp a way, and a means, to ground inner values without contradicting any religion and yet, crucially, without depending on religion. The development and practice of this new vision of ethics is what I propose to elaborate in the course of this book. It is my hope that doing so will help to promote understanding of the need for ethical awareness and inner values in this age of excessive materialism. At the outset I should make it clear that my intention is not to dictate moral values. Doing that would be of no benefit. To try to impose moral principles from outside, to impose them, as it were, by command, can never be effective. Instead, I call for each of us to come to our own understanding of the importance of inner values. For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence, and happiness we all seek. Of course, all the world's major 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 believe the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics that is beyond religion.  

Rethinking Secularism

In light of our growing mastery over so many aspects of the physical world in the past two hundred years or so, it is not surprising that many people today question whether we have any need for religion at all. Things which in the past were only dreamt about - the elimination of diseases, space travel, computers - have become reality through science. So it is not surprising that many have come to place all their hopes in science, and even to believe that happiness can be achieved by means of what material science can deliver.

But while I can understand how science has undermined faith in some aspects of traditional religion, I see no reason why advances in science should have the same effect on the notion of inner or spiritual values. Indeed, the need for inner values is more pressing in this age of science than ever before.

In the attempt to make a compelling case for inner values and ethical living in an age of science, it would be ideal to make that case in wholly scientific terms. Although it is not yet possible to do so purely on the basis of scientific research, I am confident that as time goes on, a more and more secure scientific case for the benefits of inner ethical values will gradually emerge. Of course I am no scientist, and modern science was not a part of my formal education as a child. However, since coming into exile, I have done a lot of catching up. For more than thirty years now, I have held regular meetings with experts and re- searchers from many scientific fields, including physics, cosmology, biology, psychology, and, especially of late, neuroscience.

Contemplative traditions, in all religions, place great emphasis on exploring the inner world of experience and consciousness, so one of my aims in these discussions has been to explore the scientific understanding of areas such as thought, emotion, and subjective experience.

I am very encouraged by the fact that science, and particularly neuroscience, is now increasingly paying attention to these matters, which have been neglected for so long. And I am pleased by recent developments in scientific methodology in these areas, in which the traditional scientific principle of objective third-person verifiability is now being expanded to include the domain of subjective experience. An example of this is the work in neurophenomenology by my late friend Francisco Varela.

I have also had a longstanding interest in what scientific basis might be found for understanding the effects of contemplative practice and the deliberate cultivation of qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness, attention, and a calm mind. I have always felt that if science could show such practices to be both possible and beneficial, then perhaps they could even be pro- moted through mainstream education. Fortunately, there is now a reasonably substantial body of evidence in evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and other fields suggesting that, even from the most rigorous scientific perspective, unselfishness and concern for others are not only in our own interests but also, in a sense, innate to our biological nature. Such evidence, when combined with reflection on our personal experiences and coupled with simple common sense, can, I believe, offer a strong case for the benefits of cultivating basic human values that does not rely on religious principles or faith at all. And this I welcome. 

Clearly there are people who believe, with complete sincerity, that separating ethics from religion is a great mistake in itself, and indeed is a source of many of the social and moral problems of modern society-the breakdown of families, growing numbers of abortions, sexual promiscuity, alcoholism, drug addiction, and so on. For them, these problems largely result from people having lost the basis for developing inner values that religion alone can provide. For those whose religious belief is so closely tied to ethical practice, it is hard to conceive of one without the other. For those who believe that truth requires God, God alone can make ethics binding. Without God as the guarantor, they suggest, there is at best only relative truth, so that what is true for one person may not be true for another. And in this situation there is no basis for distinguishing right from wrong, for evaluating good and bad, or for restraining selfish and destructive impulses and cultivating inner values.

 While I fully respect this point of view, it is not one I share. I do not agree that ethics requires grounding in religious concepts or faith. Instead, I firmly believe that ethics can also emerge simply as a natural and rational response to our very humanity and our common human condition. 

 But where does this leave us with regard to grounding ethics and nurturing inner values? Today, in a scientific age in which religion strikes many as meaningless, what basis for such value is left to us? How can we find a way of motivating ourselves ethically without recourse to traditional beliefs?

 To my mind, although humans can manage without religion, they cannot manage without inner values. So my argument for the independence of ethics from religion is quite simple. As see it, spirituality has two dimensions. The first dimension, that of basic spiritual well-being -by which I mean inner mental and emotional strength and balance-does not depend on religion but comes from our innate human nature as beings with a natural disposition toward compassion, kindness, and caring for others. The second dimension is what may be considered religion-based spirituality, which is acquired from our upbringing and culture and is tied to particular beliefs and practices. The difference between the two is something like the difference between water and tea. Ethics and inner values without religious content are like water, something we need every day for health and survival. Ethics and inner values based in a religious context are more like tea. The tea we drink is mostly composed of water, but it also contains some other ingredients - tea leaves, spices, perhaps some sugar or, at least in Tibet, salt - and this makes it more nutritious and sustaining and something we want every day. But however the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water. While we can live without tea, we can’t live without water. Likewise we are born free of religion, but we are not born free of the need for compassion.

 Across all cultures, all philosophies, and indeed all individual perspectives, there is no consensus about the essential orientation of human nature. Instead, there seem to be many views. To put the matter at its simplest, there are some who believe, at one end of the spectrum, that we are by nature fundamentally violent, aggressive, and competitive; while others, at the other end, take the view that we are predominantly disposed toward gentleness and love. Most perspectives lie between these extremes, accommodating all of our qualities and propensities in varying degrees. Generally speaking, if we view human nature as dominated by destructive tendencies, our ethics will most likely be grounded in something outside ourselves. We will understand ethics as a means for keeping those destructive tendencies in check in the name of some greater good. If, however, we view human nature as predominantly oriented toward kindness and the desire for a peaceful life, then we can consider ethics an entirely natural and rational means for pursuing our innate potential. On this understanding, ethics consists less of rules to be obeyed than of principles for inner self-regulation to promote those aspects of our nature which we recognize as conducive to our own well-being and that of others. This second approach is in tune with my own.  

Two Pillars for Secular Ethics

I believe that an inclusive approach to secular ethics, one with the potential to be universally accepted, requires recognition of only two basic principles. Both of these can easily be grasped on the basis of our common experience as humans and our common sense, and both are supported by findings of contemporary research, particularly in fields such as psychology, neuroscience, and the clinical sciences. The first principle is the recognition of our shared humanity and our shared aspiration to happiness and the avoidance of suffering; the second is the understanding of interdependence as a key feature of human reality, including our biological reality as social animals. From these two principles we can learn to appreciate the inextricable connection between our own well-being and that of others, and we can develop a genuine concern for others' welfare. Together, I believe, they constitute an adequate basis for establishing ethical awareness and the cultivation of inner values. It is through such values that we gain a sense of connection with others, and it is by moving beyond narrow self-interest that we find meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in life.

 Before offering a systematic presentation of the way I envisage this secular approach, a few words are in order on the background and motivation that shape my views on this subject. Since childhood I have been a Buddhist monk in the Tibetan Mahayana tradition. My understanding of ethics, as well as of issues such as human nature and the pursuit of happiness, is informed by this background. On a personal level, my everyday approach to the practice of ethics is profoundly influenced by the writings of the Indian Nalanda tradition, which combines critical philosophical inquiry with ethical living and contemplative practice. In the course of this book I draw on some of the resources of the Nalanda tradition. However, it is certainly not my intention, in presenting this book, to make more Buddhists! In fact, when I am asked to give Buddhist teachings in the West, I often share my personal view that it is not, by and large, a good idea for people to adopt religious practices which are not well grounded in their own culture and educational background. To do so can be difficult and can lead to unnecessary confusion. Instead, my motivation is simply a wish to contribute to the betterment of humanity. If resources from my own tradition can be useful to those outside it, then I think it is good to draw on those resources. In writing this book I am certainly not interested in propagating my own faith. Instead, I am calling on my readers to investigate matters for themselves. If they find some of the insights of classical Indian thought useful in their investigations, that is excellent, but if not, that is also okay! So, in the following chapters, I offer my thoughts not as a Buddhist, nor as a religious believer, but simply as one human being among nearly seven billion others, one who cares about the fate of humanity and wants to do something to safeguard and improve its future.