Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dalai Lama endorsing Humanism?
B5C
Veteran
If you haven't seen his recent Facebook post here it is:
What do you think? Is religion a wall that prevents love and compassion?
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 am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.http://io9.com/5942616/dalai-lama-tells-his-facebook-friends-that-religion-is-no-longer-adequate
What do you think? Is religion a wall that prevents love and compassion?
0
Comments
I think it's easy to take potshots at religion or religious institutions. Maybe they do present an obstacle to realizing love, compassion, and Enlightenment. But they're created by humans, so we're back to the buck stopping here--with us. Humans create those institutions, probably initially out of idealism, but they can quickly degenerate to serving mundane goals: power, fame, greed, lust, whatever. They can fall prey to jeaousy, anger, the whole gamut. So...then what? Institutions are only as good as the humans in them. Would we do away with all those obstacles by doing away with the institutions? The obstacles are carried around in humans' heads and hearts. Would there be a lesser likelihood of them manifesting if there weren't institutions to fight over control for?
I don't have answers. Only questions at this point.
But really, these spiritual values exist independently of religion anyway, don't they? We don't need a religion to tell us what's right and wrong, and that helping others is the right thing to do.
What does it mean, " a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion"? Isn't spirituality by definition an expression of spiritual impulse that is outside the control of "religion", which we usually take to mean "organized religion"? I think the trend in Western society, at least, is already there, this has already been realized to a degree.
What do you think? Is religion a wall that prevents love and compassion?
I'm guessing there are several components to his conviction--one, that religious conflict remains a problem, and two, that increasingly fewer people identify themselves as religious.
It seems to me that religions often foster love and compassion within a religion, but not always between religions. Religions have always clashed, though, so I'm wondering if the bulk of his statement has to do with the second fact (shrinking religious population).
Religion and culture used to be all but inseparable; it would be as accurate to say that cultures taught ethics, as it would be to say that religions taught ethics. But traditional cultures and traditional community lifeways are endangered species; even "global" religions are endangered species to some extent, so with both culture and religion waning, there's a danger of being left, in a few hundred years or so, with an ethics-less, money-obsessed world culture. We might think it's already happened, but we actually have quite a lot of culturally and/or religiously-driven ethics in place. I do think this could be changing, though. The thing about religions and cultures is that they are very deeply rooted; they get passed from generation to generation or at least have been for thousands of years.
Humanism is a nice thought, but in order to guarantee its longevity one would have to entrench it in people as deeply as a religion--in which case it has become, basically, just another religion. I suppose if it had built-in, secular logic, such as the tenet to never accept things blindly but rather "examine everything to see if it proves out," it could end up being a better religion--oh wait, there's already one like that
“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.”
Dalai Lama
" If you have a particular faith or religion, that is good. But you can survive without it.”
Dalai Lama
“As human beings we all want to be happy and free from misery… we have learned that the key to happiness is inner peace. The greatest obstacles to inner peace are disturbing emotions such as anger, attachment, fear and suspicion, while love and compassion and a sense of universal responsibility are the sources of peace and happiness.”
Dalai Lama
“Open your arms to change, but don't let go of your values.”
Dalai Lama
“All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness ... the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.”
HHDL has many quotes and quips regarding attachment to the religious side of Buddhism practice, as well as other religious practices....
He da MAN. :thumbsup:
Secular ethics are not meant, however, to replace for Buddhists the practices in concentration and wisdom which strive to focus the mind, lead to realization of the nature of mind, and ultimately become enlightened.
Secular ethics aren't actually intended to replace the more comprehensive system of ethics for committed Buddhist either; rather, to work toward a foundation of transcultural ethics, which would hopefully inspire more peace and harmony in the world.
Ethics is a huge part of Buddhism, but not the only part. Absolutely, religions are not (or may not be) necessary for a decent, ethical worldwide culture; but this is to some extent a different issue from developing deep practices on extensive ethics, concentration and wisdom, within a religion, as a personal goal. Safe to say, though, that worldwide ethics would be a wonderful foundation from which people might be inspired to move toward those further goals.
Not to mention that the term "Humanism" has a dozen or so different definitions, and it becomes even harder to guess at what exactly he is saying. Or perhaps, he wishes to leave it for a more open interpretation, so we can all make his statement work for us, in some way.
Also, Humanism does not necessarily mean that one is not religious. Yes, Secular Humanists are the most well known, but there are also Religious Humanists; those who believe in God, but believe that our lives on Earth are more important than obsessing over our salvation.
Also, even if the Dalai Lama is endorsing Humanism...so what? I always thought that some humanistic teachings were already a part of Buddhism?
" When the first letter is capitalized, "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.[7]
Religious humanism developed as more liberal religious organizations evolved in more humanistic directions. Religious humanism is a unique integration of humanist ethical philosophy with the rituals and beliefs of some religion, although religious humanism still centers on human needs, interests, and abilities.[8] "
I was a little "off" in what I thought Humanism was before I looked it up.
I thought it meant that one viewed humans as "superior" on all levels over animals, nature and the world as a whole. I think I was wrong because I didn't see superiority mentioned in any of the definitions I came across....
I never did. I just wasn't exactly correct about what Humanism meant.