As I began reading this book, I was very skeptical. Yes, there are certain standards which I do believe that all rational people can agree - murder is wrong, generosity is good, living in peace is better than living in war. The problem is that rational people don't live by these standards even though most probably believe them.
From the beginning, these were the ethics that the Dalai Lama presented. In my mind, I had a vision that he wanted the whole world to gather around a camp fire, hold hands, and sing "Kum Ba Ya." It brought me back to the time that I played in a pit orchestra for the musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and the cast sang "The Brotherhood of Man." People of a younger generation may remember the Disney Channel's Movie High School Musical and the song "We're All in this Together." Those essentially were the beginning points the Dalai Lama were trying to make. All humans despite religion or non-religion live on one planet and have to live in peace or in war, and living in peace is the best option.
From there, he goes on to propose certain "non-religious" practices and beliefs that he believes everyone can accept to create an Ethic for the Whole World. While he denies it from the very beginning, what he presents is essentially a "watered down" version of Buddhism. While I am not a Buddhist, I could tell this is what he does because he says things like "In Tibet we call this _____," or "The Buddhist term for this is _____."
In one sense, he is promoting what is a Secular Ethic. Buddhism is a Non-Theistic Religion. Buddhism does not believe in a god. Some may argue that Buddhism is more of a Philosophy and set of Practices of Enlightenment and Awareness, though that argument is beyond the scope of this review.
The Dalai Lama, through his Buddhist lens tackles issues such as Justice, Emotion, Responsibility, War, Generosity, and so forth. While all the world's major religions take a stance on these issues, he attempts to address them through logic and reason, though his logic and reason is based in Buddhism.
At first, I thought this book would be a total failure, and that disappointed me because the Dalai Lama is an inspiration to the world when it comes to Compassion and Peace. I do not think that an Ethic apart from religion was possible - though it is possible for a non-religious person to be ethical, though in that case, each non-religious person's ethic would be unique to that person. Only through religions and philosophies can we have standardized and systematic Ethics, and even then, it is a tedious task subject to numerous variations (Take Christianity for example - While it may seem that there is one Ethic - "Love God and Love your Neighbor," we then get into issues such as war, abortion, politics, and so on - and Christians are in no way united as a whole).
Where the Dalai Lama did succeed is pointing out certain virtues and practices that all rational people can agree. The problem is that we can agree, but we choose not to agree. He gives us some methods to practice and come to unity, but my question is, Will people choose to use these methods and come to unity?
At the very moment I was going to say that this book was an epic failure, I was struck with the thought that my review was an epic failure. What I didn't take into account was that the Dalai Lama tried. He tried to take EVERYONE into account and give worth and value to ALL PEOPLE. He shamed me.
As a Christian, when is the last time, I thought, that I saw a book by another Christian that tried to do the same? Of course, every religion is going to have books mainly directed at their own practitioners. But, if Christians truly believe that God is God and Christ is Savior, then isn't that for EVERYONE? Fine, obviously everyone isn't Christian, obviously everyone doesn't share our beliefs, but our God, our Christ, and our Holy Spirit are available to EVERYONE.
All too often, Christian books are about how to keep everyone else out, or they're about how to get those who are like us in. I've yet to find more than a handful (and I'm being generous saying "handful" though I can't think of any off the top of my head) that address how Christians relate to the rest of the world. When I do see books saying how we relate to the rest of the world, they usually say that we're right, and they go to hell. Is that Christian hope? Is that the Christian message? Did Jesus tell us to sit back and watch the world go to hell? Did Jesus tell us to hurt sinners or those who disagree with us, whether it is emotionally or physically?
Christian Hope tells us that God reaches down to the son who was in the pig pit and calls him to come home despite how he shunned the Father. The Christian Message is one of God sending his only Son to die a brutal death for the sins of the entire world. Jesus told us to spread that message so that others will believe and live in hope and eternal life. Jesus never hurt a sinner - he ate with them. He didn't accept their sin, but he accepted them as a person uniquely and perfectly created by God worthy of the same salvation available to ALL PEOPLE.
Salvation is not an issue in Buddhism. Peace and Enlightenment are. The Dalai Lama presented concrete ways for everyone to receive those gifts. Can Christians do the same? Can Christians be people of peace and love to everyone rather than people of division? Can we Christians sit at a table with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Atheists, and so on and share a common and peaceful meal? Can we Christians share this world in love and peace and let God do the job of salvation? Can we Christians sow the seeds and let God be the one who reaps the harvest? Can we take concrete Christian actions to ALL PEOPLE in love and peace to present an Ethic for the Whole World?
No comments:
Post a Comment