Cover
About the Book
About the Author
Title Page
Introduction
Part I
A NEW VISION OF SECULAR ETHICS
1. Rethinking Secularism
2. Our Common Humanity
3. The Quest for Happiness
4. Compassion, the Foundation of Well-Being
5. Compassion and the Question of Justice
6. The Role of Discernment
7. Ethics in Our Shared World
Part II
EDUCATING THE HEART THROUGH TRAINING THE MIND
Introduction: Starting with Oneself
8. Ethical Mindfulness in Everyday Life
9. Dealing with Destructive Emotions
10. Cultivating Key Inner Values
11. Meditation as Mental Cultivation
Afterword
Acknowledgments
Copyright
It may seem extraordinary to hear one of the world’s best-known spiritual leaders argue that we need to move beyond the dictates of faith, but in this ground-breaking book that is exactly what the Dalai Lama suggests.
Combining his knowledge of other religions with his understanding of the latest advances in contemporary science, the Dalai Lama contends that we will not change the world just by praying: we need to turn to ethics if we are to succeed in sustaining and improving human life on this planet. He examines questions of justice, power and responsibility in relation to good governance, and considers different applications of ethics in the fields of action, speech and mind.
In this essential blueprint for modern life, the Dalai Lama is clear that faith without reason can be harmful, leading to fundamentalism. He shows that the current debate can no longer be divided into atheism versus religion: the issues at stake are far more complex. Drawing upon his extensive experience at the frontlines of faith and politics, His Holiness reveals that another way is possible: to meet the future, we must marry compassion with reason and create a system of secular ethics that can unite us, whatever our beliefs.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the spiritual and political leader of Tibet. Today, he lives in exile in Northern India and works tirelessly on behalf of the Tibetan people, as well as travelling the world to give spiritual teachings to sell-out audiences. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.
I am an old man now. I was born in 1935 in a small village in northeastern Tibet. For reasons beyond my control, I have lived most of my adult life as a stateless refugee in India, which has been my second home for over fifty years. I often joke that I am India’s longest-staying guest. In common with other people of my age, I have witnessed many of the dramatic events that have shaped the world we live in. Since the late 1960s, I have also traveled a great deal, and had the honor to meet people from many different backgrounds: not just presidents and prime ministers, kings and queens, and leaders from all the world’s great religious traditions, but also a great number of ordinary people from all walks of life.
Looking back over the past decades, I find many reasons to rejoice. Through advances in medical science, deadly diseases have been eradicated. Millions of people have been lifted from poverty and have gained access to modern education and health care. We have a universal declaration of human rights, and awareness of the importance of such rights has grown tremendously. As a result, the ideals of freedom and democracy have spread around the world, and there is increasing recognition of the oneness of humanity. There is also growing awareness of the importance of a healthy environment. In very many ways, the last half-century or so has been one of progress and positive change.
At the same time, despite tremendous advances in so many fields, there is still great suffering, and humanity continues to face enormous difficulties and problems. While in the more affluent parts of the world people enjoy lifestyles of high consumption, there remain countless millions whose basic needs are not met. With the end of the Cold War, the threat of global nuclear destruction has receded, but many continue to endure the sufferings and tragedy of armed conflict. In many areas, too, people are having to deal with environmental problems and, with these, threats to their livelihood and worse. At the same time, many others are struggling to get by in the face of inequality, corruption, and injustice.
These problems are not limited to the developing world. In the richer countries, too, there are many difficulties, including widespread social problems: alcoholism, drug abuse, domestic violence, family breakdown. People are worried about their children, about their education and what the world holds in store for them. Now, too, we have to recognize the possibility that human activity is damaging our planet beyond a point of no return, a threat which creates further fear. And all the pressures of modern life bring with them stress, anxiety, depression, and, increasingly, loneliness. As a result, everywhere I go, people are complaining. Even I find myself complaining from time to time!
It is clear that something is seriously lacking in the way we humans are going about things. But what is it that we lack? The fundamental problem, I believe, is that at every level we are giving too much attention to the external, material aspects of life while neglecting moral ethics and inner values.
By inner values I mean the qualities that we all appreciate in others, and toward which we all have a natural instinct, bequeathed by our biological nature as animals that survive and thrive only in an environment of concern, affection, and warmheartedness — or in a single word, compassion. The essence of compassion is a desire to alleviate the suffering of others and to promote their well-being. This is the spiritual principle from which all other positive inner values emerge. We all appreciate in others the inner qualities of kindness, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, and generosity, and in the same way we are all averse to displays of greed, malice, hatred, and bigotry. So actively promoting the positive inner qualities of the human heart that arise from our core disposition toward compassion, and learning to combat our more destructive propensities, will be appreciated by all. And the first beneficiaries of such a strengthening of our inner values will, no doubt, be ourselves. Our inner lives are something we ignore at our own peril, and many of the greatest problems we face in today’s world are the result of such neglect.
Not long ago I visited Orissa, a region in eastern India. The poverty in this part of the country, especially among tribal people, has recently led to growing conflict and insurgency. I met with a member of parliament from the region and discussed these issues. From him I gathered that there are a number of legal mechanisms and well-funded government projects already in place aimed at protecting the rights of tribal people and even giving them material assistance. The problem, he said, was that because of corruption these programs were not benefiting those they were intended to help. When such projects are subverted by dishonesty, inefficiency, and irresponsibility on the part of those charged with implementing them, they become worthless.
This example shows very clearly that even when a system is sound, its effectiveness depends on the way it is used. Ultimately, any system, any set of laws or procedures, can only be as effective as the individuals responsible for its implementation. If, owing to failures of personal integrity, a good system is misused, it can easily become a source of harm rather than a source of benefit. This is a general truth which applies to all fields of human activity, even religion. Though religion certainly has the potential to help people lead meaningful and happy lives, it too, when misused, can become a source of conflict and division. Similarly, in the fields of commerce and finance, the systems themselves may be sound, but if the people using them are unscrupulous and driven by self-serving greed, the benefits of those systems will be undermined. Unfortunately, we see this happening in many kinds of human activities: even in international sports, where corruption threatens the very notion of fair play.
Of course, many discerning people are aware of these problems and are working sincerely to redress them from within their own areas of expertise. Politicians, civil servants, lawyers, educators, environmentalists, activists, and so on — people from all sides are already engaged in this effort. This is very good so far as it goes, but the fact is, we will never solve our problems simply by instituting new laws and regulations. Ultimately, the source of our problems lies at the level of the individual. If people lack moral values and integrity, no system of laws and regulations will be adequate. So long as people give priority to material values, then injustice, corruption, inequity, intolerance, and greed — all the outward manifestations of neglect of inner values — will persist.
So what are we to do? Where are we to turn for help? Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity — the basic inner human values that we appreciate in others and would do well to promote in ourselves. Perhaps then we should seek inner values from religion, as people have done for millennia? Certainly religion has helped millions of people in the past, helps millions today, and will continue to help millions in the future. But for all its benefits in offering moral guidance and meaning in life, in today’s secular world religion alone is no longer adequate as a basis for ethics. One reason for this is that many people in the world no longer follow any particular religion. Another reason is that, as the peoples of the world become ever more closely interconnected in an age of globalization and in multicultural societies, ethics based on any one religion would only appeal to some of us; it would not be meaningful for all. In the past, when peoples lived in relative isolation from one another — as we Tibetans lived quite happily for many centuries behind our wall of mountains — the fact that groups pursued their own religiously based approaches to ethics posed no difficulties. Today, however, 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.
I AM A man of religion, but religion alone cannot answer all our problems.
Not long ago I attended a formal ceremony to mark the opening of a new Buddhist temple in Bihar, a particularly densely populated and poor part of northern India. The chief minister of Bihar, an old friend of mine, made a fine speech in which he expressed his conviction that, with the blessings of the Buddha, the state of Bihar would now prosper. When my turn came to speak, I suggested, half-jokingly, that if Bihar’s prosperity depended solely on the blessings of the Buddha, it really should have prospered a long time ago! After all, Bihar is home to the holiest site for Buddhists — Bodh Gaya, where the historical Buddha attained full enlightenment. For real change, we require more than the blessings of the Buddha, powerful though they may be, and more than prayer. We also need action, which will only come about through the able efforts of the chief minister and others like him!
This is not to suggest that blessings and prayer are useless. In fact, I consider prayer to be of immense psychological benefit. But we must accept that its tangible results are often hard to see. When it comes to obtaining certain, direct results, it is clear that prayer cannot match the achievements of, for instance, modern science. When I was ill some years ago, it was certainly comforting to know that people were praying for me, but it was, I must admit, still more comforting to know that the hospital where I was being treated had the very latest equipment to deal with my condition!
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 researchers 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 promoted 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.
This then is the basis of what I call “secular ethics.” I am aware that for some people, in particular for some Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters, my use of the word “secular” raises difficulties. To some, the very word suggests a firm rejection of, or even hostility toward, religion. It may seem to them that, in using this word, I am advocating the exclusion of religion from ethical systems, or even from all areas of public life. This is not at all what I have in mind. Instead, my understanding of the word “secular” comes from the way it is commonly used in India.
Modern India has a secular constitution and prides itself on being a secular country. In Indian usage, “secular,” far from implying antagonism toward religion or toward people of faith, actually implies a profound respect for and tolerance toward all religions. It also implies an inclusive and impartial attitude which includes nonbelievers.
This understanding of the term “secular” — to imply mutual tolerance and respect for all faiths as well as for those of no faith — comes from India’s particular historical and cultural background. In the same way, I suspect, the western understanding of the term comes from European history. I am no historian, and certainly no expert on this subject, but it seems to me that as science began to advance rapidly in Europe, there was a move toward greater rationality. And this rationality involved, among other things, a rejection of what came to be seen as the superstitions of the past. For many radical thinkers from that time to our own day, the adoption of rationality has entailed a rejection of religious faith. The French Revolution, which expressed so many of the new ideas of the European Enlightenment, is a good example of this, with its strong anti-religious element. Of course there was also an important social dimension to this rejection. Religion came to be regarded as conservative, tied to tradition, and closely associated with old regimes and all their failings. The legacy of this history, it seems, is that for more than two hundred years, many of the most influential thinkers and reformers in the West have viewed religion, not as an avenue to human liberation, but as an obstacle to progress. Marxism, one of the most powerful secular ideologies of the twentieth century, even denounced religion as the “opium of the people” — with tragic consequences, as communist regimes forcibly suppressed religion in many parts of the world.
It is a result of this history, I feel, that in the West the idea of secularism is so often understood as being antagonistic toward religion. Secularism and religion are often seen as two opposing and mutually incompatible positions, and there is considerable suspicion and hostility between the followers of the two camps.
While I cannot accept the suggestion that religion is an obstacle to human development, I do feel that, in the context of history, anti-religious sentiments may be understandable. History teaches the uncomfortable truth that religious institutions and adherents of every denomination have been involved in exploitation of others at some stage or another. Religion has also been used as a pretext for conflict and oppression. Even Buddhism, with its doctrine of nonviolence, cannot escape this charge entirely.
So when negative attitudes toward religion, in the West or elsewhere, are motivated by a concern for justice, they must be respected. In fact, one could argue that those who point out the hypocrisy of religious people who violate the ethical principles they proclaim, and who stand up against injustices perpetrated by religious figures and institutions, are actually strengthening and benefiting the traditions themselves. However, when assessing such criticisms, it is important to distinguish between criticisms directed at religion itself and those directed at the institutions of religion, which are two quite separate things. To my mind, notions of social justice are in no way contrary to the principles espoused by religion itself, because close to the heart of all the great faith traditions is the aim of promoting humanity’s most positive qualities and nurturing such values as kindness, compassion, forgiveness, patience, and personal integrity.
For me, then, the word “secular” holds no fear. Instead, I am mindful of the founders of India’s secular constitution, such as Dr. B. R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the latter of whom I had the honor to know personally. Their intention in promoting secularism was not to do away with religion, but rather to recognize formally the religious diversity of Indian society. Mahatma Gandhi, the inspiration behind the constitution, was himself a deeply religious man. In his daily prayer meetings, he included readings and hymns from all the country’s major faith traditions. This remarkable example is followed in Indian public ceremonies to this day.
The kind of religious tolerance Gandhi personified is nothing new in India. It has ancient roots, stretching back more than two thousand years. It is revealed, for example, on inscribed pillars dating from the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE. One inscription contains the exhortation to “honor another’s religion, for doing so strengthens both one’s own and that of the other.” Furthermore, Sanskrit literature reveals a classical culture that was intellectually tolerant and rich in debate. In India, many philosophical positions have been subjects of great discussion since ancient times. Even positions that look much like modern materialism and atheism have an honorable and respected history in Indian tradition. Classical philosophical texts contain many references to the Charvaka school, whose adherents rejected any idea of God and the existence of any soul or afterlife. Other thinkers often vigorously opposed Charvaka views as nihilistic, but their radical materialism was nevertheless taken seriously as a philosophical position, and their founder was generally referred to as a rishi (sage). Proponents of Charvaka ideas were also accorded a certain level of recognition and respect by some Indian rulers — many of whom were outstandingly tolerant of other religious faiths. The Muslim Emperor Akbar, who held dialogues with Hindus, Christians, and others, is one example of this tradition.
Some time ago, I had an illuminating discussion on this subject with a former deputy prime minister of India, Mr. L. K. Advani. He suggested that India’s longstanding culture of tolerance, diversity, and debate is precisely what explains its marked success in maintaining a secular democracy. I am sure he is right. Today, the majority in India are Hindu, but many other religions are also well represented. India is home to the second-largest Muslim population in the world — a fact not appreciated by many in the West — and there are also many millions of Sikhs and Christians, as well as substantial Jain, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, and Jewish communities. In fact, the ethnic and religious minorities of India are almost too numerous to mention. In addition, hundreds of different languages are spoken in the country today. Amid this tremendous human diversity, it is a relatively common sight to see Hindu temples and Muslim minarets standing next to one another on city streets. In fact, most villages have more than one religion represented among their populations.
I recently met a man from Romania who, for a research project, had visited numerous Indian villages. In telling me about a largely Muslim village in Rajasthan in which there were only three Hindu families, he expressed surprise that these families lived there with no sense of fear or apprehension. His surprise, I thought, must be a result of the western media’s misleading portrayal of India’s communal relations. There have been some severe and deeply regrettable incidents of communal violence in India, but it is a mistake to generalize these across the entire subcontinent. Notwithstanding such isolated incidents, India by and large maintains, despite its great diversity, a peaceful and harmonious society. Clearly, the ancient Indian doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolence, has flourished and been adopted as a principle of peaceful coexistence by all faiths. This is a tremendous achievement, and one from which other countries in the world can learn.
Sometimes I describe myself as a modern-day messenger of ancient Indian thought. Two of the most important ideas I share wherever I travel — the principles of nonviolence and interreligious harmony — are both drawn from ancient Indian heritage. Though I am of course a Tibetan, I also consider myself to be, in a sense, a son of India. Since childhood my mind has been nourished by the classics of Indian thought. From the age of six, when I began my studies as a monk, the majority of the texts I read and memorized were by Indian Buddhist masters, many of whom were from the ancient university of Nalanda in central India. And since early adulthood my body, too, has been nourished by Indian fare: rice and dal (lentils).
So I am very happy to share and promote this Indian understanding of secularism, as I believe it can be of great value to all humanity. In today’s interconnected and globalized world, it is now commonplace for people of dissimilar world views, faiths, and races to live side by side. I am often struck by this on my travels, especially in the West. For a considerable portion of humanity today, it is possible and indeed likely that one’s neighbor, one’s colleague, or one’s employer will have a different mother tongue, eat different food, and follow a different religion than oneself.
It is a matter of great urgency, therefore, that we find ways to cooperate with one another in a spirit of mutual acceptance and respect. For while to many people it is a source of joy to live in a cosmopolitan environment where they can experience a wide spectrum of different cultures, there is no doubt that, for others, living in close proximity with those who do not share their language or culture can pose difficulties. It can create confusion, fear, and resentment, leading in the worst cases to open hostility and new ideologies of exclusion based on race, nationality, or religion. Unfortunately, as we look around the world, we see that social tensions are actually quite common. Furthermore, it seems likely that, as economic migration continues, such difficulties may even increase.
In such a world, I feel, it is vital for us to find a genuinely sustainable and universal approach to ethics, inner values, and personal integrity — an approach that can transcend religious, cultural, and racial differences and appeal to people at a fundamental human level. This search for a sustainable, universal approach is what I call the project of secular ethics.
Clearly