"God Talk" -- Enough Already?
This article has to thank for inspiration the excellent article of the same title by the New York Times' wise and savvy commentator and "Think Again" columnist, Stanley Fish.
Yet another inspiration came from one of our favorite poems in Erica Jong's recently published collection of new poems, LOVE COMES FIRST. There she quips, in true EJ style, "God is not dead/but missing in action."
How true! Nor can it be otherwise, for it is we -- you and I -- who are supposed to provide the action. As Gandhi (and a few other sages) has told us, "We must be the change we want to see in the world." So, let us not wait for "God" or anybody or anything else to act, while the ball is so obviously in our own court!
That is why we recommend, despite its misleading title, Phil Zuckerman's new book on Sweden and Denmark, Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment (New York University Press, 2008). Of course, neither Sweden nor Denmark is really a "godless" or atheistic nation. People there just don't talk about "God" all the time, as seems fashionable in other parts of the world. Instead, they just quietly do "God's" work in terms of social justice, compassion with the less fortunate members of society, and helping each other out in ever so many ways. However, they do all of this, as a society, without even thinking of it all as a religious duty or pious acts. They simply chose that way of life as something that rational and decent but non-God-talking "secularists," like them, may do.
All of this, particularly American, "God talk," these days, also reminds us, by way of contrast, of much that the Dalai said about these things, when visiting Costa Rica, a few years ago. As it happened we were there, at the time, and had the privilege of not only listening to him but also experiencing that extraordinary personality's literally radiating love and compassion, just by his physical presence -- even without having to say anything. In this instance, though, he did have plenty to say, indeed, especially on the topic at hand! Allow us, hence, to share with you some of our recollections of his remarks, since they may help to at least explain, to some extent, the phenomenon of all the present "God Talk" -- or rather chattering about "God" -- that is suddenly going on, both in the popular media, as in academia.
In his several public meetings here, the Dalai Lama was particularly outspoken on the topics of "God" and "religion," when addressing an overflow crowd of students, at the University of Costa Rica. About "God" he said, for instance, in answer to a question, that Buddhism does not use the term, since it conveys belief in a personal, Creator-God. However, he quickly added, presumably for the benefit of his mostly, at least nominally, Catholic audience, that "Buddhism, while not engaging in 'God-talk,'" does have "the greatest respect for the deistic religions." Nor was Buddhism, he added, despite its avoidance of God-talk, in any way to be taken for being "anti-God" or "atheistic."
The Dalai Lama was particularly blunt when talking about "religion," in general. He said that only a very small percentage of people, despite their membership in one kind of religion or other, are actually taking their religion very seriously. Most so-called "religious" people are only very superficially involved with the particular faith, in which they happen to have been brought up. To that he added something even more daring and maybe even shocking to many of his academic but still nominally Catholic listeners, when saying, "most people are really only money-worshippers," implying that their religious pretensions are, at rock bottom, only hypocritical.
As if anticipating such books like Professor Ronald Aronson's recent, Living Without God (Counterpoint, 2008), he addressed some of the questions raised therein and, no doubt, were also in many of his student audience's mind, such as what "living without God" would really have to be like. As Aronson's book puts it, "the most urgent need" for secularists today would have to be, in the first place, "a coherent popular philosophy that answers vital questions about how to live one's life." Well, the Dalai Lama did, we think, present to his audience, exactly that kind of practical philosophy, though he did, of course, do so in terms of Buddhist philosophy and psychology (while Aronson's Living Without God does, of course, try doing so in more general, secular terms).
In his earlier critiques of some so-called "new-atheist" books, with their "in-your-face" atheism, like the runaway bestseller, The End of Faith, by Sam Harris, Aronson had already been calling on these authors to "affirm a secular basis for morality." Fairly enough, he demands the same of his own treatise, Living Without God, and largely succeeds in doing so. More specifically, Aronson's Living Without God also demands that such a secular philosophy provide equally coherent guidelines for a universal ethics that includes prescriptions for right action.
Well, in addressing his student audience at the University of Costa Rica, the Dalai Lama affirmed specifically that ethics and morality need not be based on religion or belief in "God." He frankly admitted that, in this respect, he did have a strong disagreement with the Pope, in their recent, private meeting. The latter insisted, of course, that morality had to be based on religious faith. In contrast, the Dalai Lama declared that ethics and morality can arise simply out of recognition of our mutual interdependency, leading in turn to such secular virtues as respect, caring, and compassion for others. Stanley Fish's article, "God Talk" reminds its readers, in that connection, of certain echoes in Christianity, when referring to Jesus, as "one who spoke up for love and justice and was done to death for his pains."
In that connection, the Dalai Lama pointed out that the Buddha himself, some 2,600 years ago, laid out a very specific moral codex of conduct in his famous "Eightfold Path" -- though, again, without reference to "God" or belief in any kind of "religion." That ancient moral codex included such things as "right action," "right speech," not giving cause for suffering, refraining from indulging in intoxicants and other harmful substances, as well as from "sexual misbehavior." The authors agree wholeheartedly to every one of these strictures, with the only proviso that the concept of "sexual misbehavior" may be overdue for revision in the light of what is scientifically known today about human sexuality (for instance, with regard to homosexuality), that was not known two millennia ago. We are certain that the present, very science-oriented Dalai Lama would be open to such a revision, having repeatedly stated that if ever there was a clash between modern science and Buddhism, it was not science but Buddhism that would have to change.
The Dalai Lama, though, stressed that, in addition, to the above mentioned secular "virtues," ethical living ultimately requires yet something else, though it also does not require belief in God or any kind of religious notion: The absence (or, as we would say, at least the "relative" absence) of selfishness or self-centeredness, that is of "ego" -- to which the Dalai Lama has often referred as humanity's "chief demon"!
With that we have come full circle with regard to living without "God talk." We shall leave open, for now, only the quest for "coming to terms with death," raised in yet another recent article, "The New Atheism, and Something More," by Peter Steinfels (The New York Times, February 14, 2009). Actually, we have already addressed ourselves to this issue in the last chapter of our own book, Staying Sane in a Crazy World (BookSurge/Amazon.com, 2008). There, we have done so in the context of discussing the famous writer, Joan Didion s tragic and almost simultaneous loss of her husband, as well as her daughter (pp. 342-344). We have said that she unfortunately, in our opinion, did turn to the wrong sources, that is, Western psychiatry and philosophy, for the comfort she so badly needed. In that respect, we suggested that it seems only Buddhism has really "come to terms" with this so fundamental issue.
Admittedly, we may never get scientific proof of what some of the most advanced Buddhist yogis "discovered" in their deep states of meditation on this so important and yet so difficult to understand subject. Yet, their very detailed explanations of death and dying definitely have more internal logic and are surely more rational and believable than talk about "resurrection of the body" and similar such offerings from the major religions. For now, we shall leave it at that, though there will, no doubt, we ample opportunity to return to this most difficult and troublesome subject.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
See Ed and Deb Shapiro's Profile
I am an Undo- just undoing it all- and finding who you are- your authentic self-
I love Undoism- isms can be prisons- truth is freedom! - joy - happiness- peace- anyone want to join- the nothing club- we are looking for nobodies- and it''s all about nothing
Jesus wasn't a Christian, Buddha (means to wake up) wasn't a Buddhist etc.
They all realized their true nature- they saw things as they truly are. They understood emptiness- no solid self. * form is emptiness- emptiness is form *
Ed
Perfect, Ed! I couldn't agree more. And for those people who do expect God to help them, my mother always told me, "God helps those, who help themselves!" :-)
Buddhism has often appeared to be the most rational or most enlightened of the world religions to many - well, from the times onward when there was some kind of choice, presupposing translations etc.
But the struggle of morality presupposing catholic or christian faith is not between the pope and the Dalai Lama. Nor is it now. It was during the reformation and afterwards, during enlightenment humanism and rationalism. And the result of that struggle is the formation of the nations of England, France and the US. Meaning: the pope lost, and he lost long ago.
At this juncture, it does seem however that another jump forward seems possible and necessary. In my view this tendency has two sources: one is that it's simply getting too obvious that power-wielding in religious dogmatism is not only outdated, it's also no longer working. The other is that there is a convergent evolution of core elements of faith, and a growing acceptance that authenticity of faith cannot be easily upheld without renewal - even though this sounds paradoxical.
But in this, as in all mind-bogglingly complex matters, the only thing that's certain is that there's no silver bullet. Well, maybe nobody will be surprised to find that the ethical life cannot be brought about by a silver bullet.
Nice to see a wave of rationality sweeping across the culture. Hopefully it will endure and increase.
Best single book on Buddhist thought imho: Buddhism Without Beliefs by Stephen Batchelor. Read the first 15 pages and you'll know more about Buddhism than most 'Buddhists'. Key concept is that the four noble truths were never "things to belief in" they were always "calls to action".
That's why the term "dharma practice" is probably more accurate a term than "Buddhism" because the original grounding concepts were based on action, not belief.
The Dalai Lama came to my town last year, and I was going to go see him. But, when I realized that he charges $200 PER PERSON admission, somehow, that took all of the appeal right out of it for me. When "spiritual leaders" of all persuasions stop asking people for money, I might start listening to them
At HH The Dalai Lama's appearance on May 2 in Foxboro, MA (Gillette Stadium), $200 would have bought you a "floor level" seat way up front. 100% of the proceeds went towards the building of a Boston Tibetan cultural and educational center. Robert Kraft, owner of Gillette Stadium (and owne of the New England Patriots) provided use of Gillette Stadium at zero rent, ensuring a successful event (which raised $440,000). You might want to go back and see where the proceeds of the Dalai Lama's appearance you mentioned went towards.
See Ed and Deb Shapiro's Profile
bootooyoo - The Dalai Lama doesn't charge anything- his robes are made out of patches of cloth that are put together
he gave away all the money he received from the Nobel Peace Prize
We had a personal audience with him at his residence in India. he is the most ordinary kind man I ever met.
We wrote 2 books with contributions from him.
The Dalai Lama and Robert Thurman wrote the Forewords to our new book.
for your own good be certain when you come to conclusions for your own benefit. He is a living joy.
Treasure yourself,
Ed
I'll remain skeptical of any one or any group who elevate themselves, literally and figuratively, above the majority of their countrymen as the ruling monks and lamas of Tibet did, through spirtitualism, or religion, or any other controlling means.
"Buddhism, while not engaging in 'God-talk,'" does have "the greatest respect for the deistic religions.
It isn't often that a magical being like the Dali Llama is so generous in his assessment of some other magical being's religion. Good for him. We could use a little more tolerance from the faithful.
I've also been fascinated with buddism. If I had to attend a religious cermony it would be the buddist temple. I enjoy all religious celebration, but I find the most peace with buddist. Anyone seeking nirvana is my kind of person....
Actually the way I practice Buddhism, the last place I would seek peace would be an institutional building. I agree with you that it is a very peaceful way to live and be.
Technically speaking, the last place a lot of people seek peace is in an institutional building. Namely, a hospital.
:p
The Buddha, when asked about the existence of God, said this: If you are shot with an arrow, do you spend time looking for who shot you or do you concentrate on taking the arrow out?
And that was the end of that.
Basically, I came down with a bad case of Jesus Fatigue in about 2003 and it is clear to me that all the talk from the Christian Right is just is an excuse for no action on their so-called beliefs.
I'd be so damn happy if this country would talk about something besides Jesus, and cancer - the two topics you cannot go one day in America without hearing about.
Technically speaking, Buddhism is not a religion, but a school of thought. it is the study and practice of Buddha's teachings. Therefore, it is non-thiestic.
The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths, the first of which is the truth of suffering. Everything changes, and it is our resistance to change, our desire to be happy, and avoid suffering, that causes suffering. Many have explained this as clinging. The search for peace, and the avoidence of unpleasant things, creats a cycle of suffering. Even when we are happy, soon we want more. We seek entertainment, diversion, because we cannot accept things as they are.
One of the biggest problems for western people is the very Buddhism, and the very teacher of Buddhism. They serve as an obstical to realization, which is what Buddha taught. The reason is due to spiritual materialism. Are we attracted to Buddism, and the Dalai Lama due to his exiotic visage, or because we are rejecting our own religion? What exactly are we seeking? Athiesm is too harsh for us? So we are looking for a spiritual "leader" who will provide verification that we are good?
I am so sorry to tell you, this the very definition of suffering. Self deception. The only one that is not fooled by this, however, is the Dalai Lama, who knows very well that he is selling water by the river. He is the exact opposite of Buddha's example:
http://www
I follow The Buddha's Teachings as interpreted by Osho - if anyone would like to find a book that helps you in your search read Osho's, book "The Buddha Said . . . " It has changed my life completely. I considered my self a Buddhist, but I also believe the teachings of Christ as found in The Book of Thomas.
Glad you mentioned the Book of Thomas. Amazing how no one was supposed to ever find that book.
FairTalk
I just watched the "Tibet in Hell" 3-part series on youtube. Admittedly, I did not know much about the history of Tibet and the oppression of it's people by the ruling class. My cynical nature and common sense told me that there must be more to the Dalai Lama's story than we are fed by the media. I had no idea just how right I was. The videos were incredibly eye opening - shocking even, and I plan to learn more. Thank you for pointing me in that direction.
Bootooyoo, I am pleased you were able to find that series.
The funny thing about a lot of the "God talkers" is that they obviously do not really believe the teachings of their own faith, or else they would realize that it does not matter what other humans think of them, their GOD is the one judging(and from what I hear, their god knows and sees all).
God is imaginary and Jesus was nothing but a con-man like 19th century Joseph Smith.
I am sorry you can't see the difference in these two individuals. Even though I am not a Christian, Christ never tried to "sell" himself or his beliefs. Joseph Smith on the other hand you are spot on.
The more important difference between them is that one wrote fiction and the other is fictional.
It's generalizing a bit to say that it's a crutch for everybody. I'm sure it's true in many cases, but there are people who believe that there is a God and don't use that faith to belittle or hate anybody. We should be focusing on eliminating faith as an excuse to hate or cause suffering. Do you honestly think people would stop killing each other without religion? We'd just find another stupid excuse.
Religion is a crutch and addiction. We all face fear of death, but for some, if believing makes them feel better, then it no longer matters if it is true, they MUST believe. To relieve their fear. Anyone else not believing now becomes a threat to this opiate of religion. Omigosh, someone doesn't believe, maybe it's not true, and I have to be afraid again. Let's kill them!
Once a person has an addiction, they are no longer trustworthy. They will lie, cheat, steal, whatever to keep their addiction going. You can't reason with them. The addiction is everthing. It's more important than anyone. It feels good. Honor and truth go out the window.
Hey, they're right about one thing - god isn't dead... he never existed to begin with!
Exactly!
I'm of the opinion that that is a comment that no scientist should ever make, if only because its flat out impossible to prove whether an omnipotent being doesn't exist, for the simple reason that if said being *does* exist and doesn't want it to be proven for some reason or another, then it wouldn't be proven (see, omnipotence).
And then you get to the various definitions of God, which range from "omnipotent force outside creation, looking in," to "everything in existence in all its myriad forms." It'd be hard to say that God never existed when the person you're talking to is a pantheist who believes that Reality is God and that there isn't really any meaning to life except to exist.
The best you can reliably say is that there exists no proof that God exists, especially not any specific God, and no need for any God to exist for our reality to work as it does.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
