Daily Archives: September 18, 2012
“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.”
This incredibly senseless twitter statement comes from a man who can be considered the epitome of the stupidity of our times: the Dalai Lama. A man so in love with himself and his “popularity light” among people who need a smattering of spirituality whilst they go on living their heathenish life, the man attempts to go “beyond religion” in his quest for a better spirituality and ethics.
Let us examine the implications of what the man says:
1) Truth changes, and he is the man to tell us when it does. Grounding ethics in religion used to be adequate, but this is no longer the case. Says who? The Dalai Lama, of course.
2) There is a “reality of the world today” that is different from the reality of the world of all ages past and future. For some unfathomable reason (other than the desire of the man to be universally popular among the ignorant world masses) human nature and human condition have now changed. Says who? The Dalai Lama, of course.
3) The man is “increasingly convinced”. He doesn’t really know. His truths are evolving. Sounds like a monologue of one who has had one vodka too much, and shouldn’t have been left near a computer. But it sounds very modern and in tune with the times, so it must be fine.
The entire blabber is entirely senseless. Truth is either unchangeably true, or it isn’t Truth. It can’t be “evolved”, become “inadequate”, or need to go beyond itself. As a religion is a set of beliefs based on the faith in a supernatural entity and the truths this entity wants its follower to know and live by (irrespective of what their personal preferences are; otherwise it is not a religion anymore), to say that religions are becoming “no longer adequate” is tantamount to say that this supernatural entity needs to be corrected by the Dalai Lama himself when he (she, it) begins to go astray, or goes past best before date, or his message becomes inadequate for the “new times”.
Unsurprisingly, this astonishingly brainless twitter message received vast support from the “spirituality light” crowd, the “let us all be oh so inclusive” set who want to be free to do whatever they please without any restriction than their own, very conveniently shaped idea of what is right and wrong.
This is what happens when people follows false prophets: the blind leading the blind.
The orgy of populism this twitter message seems to introduce (it is very easy to see what the Dalai Lama is thinking about: a kind of “a-religious” “ethics” where everyone can feel comfortable whatever his behaviour, “beyond religion altogether”) will fit very well with the lifestyle of so many in the West; those, that is, whose entire spiritual life is based on wholly concepts like “inclusiveness” and “tolerance”, and whose ethical values consist in doing whatever they please, and allowing everyone else to do just the same. They certainly deserve the new ethics “beyond religion” of the Dalai Lama: Similia similibus solvuntur.
Unsurprisingly, this man is on the side of easy approval on pretty much every modern controversy: be it about feminism, environmentalism, sexual perversion, or even abortion, there’s no way of catching him out saying something the masses might be seriously displeased with, and he will not take a stance he knows to be seriously unpopular.
To show you the enlightenment of this self-appointed “incarnation of bodhisattva” here is, verbatim, his opinion about homosexuality:
“If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask ‘What is your companion’s opinion?’. If you both agree, then I think I would say, ‘If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.'”
“A la carte” morality, and perfectly coherent with the gradually emerging discovery that religion is now passé, and ready to be substituted for extremely profound concepts like “if there’s no harming others, then it is okay”.
I complain about our trendy bishops, but this here is on another scale altogether.
Seriously, what an ass.