|
by Stephen
Batchelor
These two pieces
were commissioned by The Independent newspaper in London in 1999 and 2000.
The first is a reflection on a recent visit by the Dalai Lama to England;
the second a reflection on attitudes towards cannabis.
The "Faith and
Reason" column, The Independent, Saturday 29 May, 1999 (Wesak).
On his recent visit
to Britain, the Dalai Lama was widely quoted as saying that he did not
wish to encourage people to convert to Buddhism. Instead, he emphasized
the importance of staying with the religion in which one was raised.
On the surface this
sounds like a reasonable and responsible piece of advice. It may well have
allayed the fears of Church leaders that the decline in their
congregations would not be further accelerated by calls from this
charismatic and charming Buddhist “Pope.” The disquieting fact nonetheless
remains that there are few others at the head of a major religious
denomination who could fill the Albert Hall -- let alone one who would
then tell his audience not to look to the tradition he represents for
answers to their questions. It seems that it is not so much what the Dalai
Lama says that attracts people to his gatherings, but the authority with
which he says it.
This advice of the
Dalai Lama appears to grant broadly equal value to the world’s established
religions, to the point where it does not really seem to matter into which
one you happened to be born. While he encourages mutual tolerance and
on-going dialogue between these faiths, the Dalai Lama seems unwilling to
challenge the status quo. Yet one of the reasons why a small but steadily
growing number of Europeans and Americans are drawn to Buddhism and other
non-Judeo-Christian traditions is precisely because they do question the
status quo.
The Dalai Lama has
come to represent far more than just Tibetan Buddhism. Whether he likes it
or not, he has become a postmodern icon, an uncannily successful performer
on the stage of a pluralistic and individualistic world; religious belief
and spiritual practice are here no longer regarded as elements of an
inherited faith to be uncritically accepted but rather as choices to be
made freely and responsibly. It is all too easy for traditional religious
figures (including the Dalai Lama himself) to speak dismissively of a
“supermarket spirituality.” In so doing, they risk further alienating
themselves from those who question the authority of their ancestral
religion and seek instead commitment to and engagement with a practice
that responds to the specific demands of their personal and social
experience.
If the Dalai Lama’s
injunction is valid now, then presumably it would have been valid in the
past too. In which case is one to assume that he disapproves of Tibetans
having converted to Buddhism from their indigenous animist faith in the
8th century? But if, as one might reasonably expect, he regards the
transmission of Buddhist teachings from India to Tibet as the glorious
beginning of the religious culture he now struggles to preserve in exile,
then on what grounds does he discourage his Western admirers from adopting
Buddhism now?
In the past, whether
in Lhasa or Rome, conversion was forced on subject peoples by a rhetoric
of superiority and uniqueness, the repression of alternatives, threats of
hell or simply imperial decree. But today, when freedom of choice is
celebrated as one of the great achievements of liberal democracies, why is
the exercise of this freedom not more actively encouraged in addressing
the most important and profound questions of our existence? Such
encouragement might inspire each of us to face these questions honestly
and directly rather than simply acquiesing in the established beliefs of
our traditional religious and secular institutions.
Addressing people
who were similarly confused as to what path in life to follow, the Buddha
once suggested: “Do not be satisfied with hearsay or with tradition or
with legendary lore or with what has come down in scriptures or with
conjecture or with logical inference or with weighing evidence or with
liking for a view after pondering over it or with someone else’s ability
or with the thought ‘the monk is our teacher.’ When you know in
yourselves: ‘These things are wholesome, blameless, commended by the wise,
and being adopted and put into effect they lead to welfare and happiness,’
then you should practice and abide in them.”
Although delivered
to an audience in north India more than two and a half thousand years ago,
the Buddha’s sceptical and pragmatic advice has a curiously contemporary
ring. Rather than suggest to his listeners that they either stay with the
tradition in which they were born or convert to another because they are
impressed by the credibility of its doctrines or a teacher’s authority, he
advises them to find out for themselves what actual benefits the practice
of such a teaching can bring.
Those who adopt
Buddhist ideas, values and practices today in the West are not necessarily
interested in joining another religious institution. They find the
Buddha’s “test it and see” approach to be perfectly compatible with a
healthy scepticism. If one interprets the Dalai Lama’s advice as an
encouragement for Westerners to remain within their own secular
traditions, then atheists and agnostics may be reassured to find the
non-theistic and self-reliant approach of Buddhism to be broadly in
keeping with their own outlook. At the same time, Buddhism may also be
enabled to recover its own critical and pragmatic perspective, which,
historically, has often been overshadowed by its having assumed the
identity of a religious creed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Faith and
Reason" column, The Independent, Saturday 15 July, 2000.
Sam Mendes’ film
American Beauty tells the story of a middle-aged man who renounces a
conventionally successful but inwardly meaningless existence in order to
find authenticity and fulfilment. But the character’s bemused rebellion
against the banality of suburban America catalyses an hysterical and
violent turbulence in the adults around him. While the repressed forces he
has unleashed finally destroy him, in so doing they trigger a liberating
spiritual epiphany.
A key element in
this story is the hero’s rediscovery of cannabis. Smoking pot is presented
as an integral part of his existential and moral awakening. Instead of
making him dissolve into uncontrollable giggling fits, cannabis is shown
to be compatible with a mood of calm reflection that goes hand-in-hand
with a renewed commitment to physical fitness. Yet the political leaders
of this country, who would doubtless praise the artistic and commercial
success of the young British director’s first film, routinely and
comprehensively condemn the use of all proscribed drugs.
This is but one
instance of the contradictions that surround the issue of drug use in our
society today. Another would be the double standard applied to the
achievement of physical as opposed to cultural excellence. While a
sportsman will have his Olympic medals revoked for using drugs that
enhance his performance, a rock star would not be stripped of his Grammy
awards if it turned out that his songs were composed and played under the
influence of an illegal substance. Why do we impose regulations on the
behaviour of one but not the other? Why should the athlete be punished,
but the artist not?
While drug use among
writers and musicians may be frowned upon but tacitly accepted, its role
in generating religious experience tends to be either dismissed out of
hand, ignored or denied. Yet a significant proportion of those drawn to
Buddhism and other eastern traditions in the 1960’s were influenced in
their choice of religious orientation by experiences induced by
psychoactive substances such as cannabis and LSD. Although such Western
Buddhists would now tend to eschew the use of these substances and warn
against the dangers of abuse, few would deny their role in opening their
eyes to a life of spiritual and religious meaning.
The connection
between drug use and spirituality is not, however, limited to the
experience of a few aging hippies. The ritualised use of drugs is still
practised among sadhus and shamans of traditional cultures from India to
Peru. The current use of drugs such as Ecstasy at all-night raves is
likewise associated with heightened states of individual consciousness as
well as the forging of a deep ecstatic bond between participants. The
language and symbols of Asian and American sacred traditions permeate the
literature, lyrics and imagery of this underground dance culture as much
as or even more than they did in the festivals and happenings of the
‘60’s.
It is all too easy
either to dismiss such claims of spiritual significance for drugs as
thinly veiled justifications for hedonistic indulgence or to invoke the
tragic consequences of heedless excess as grounds for denying the validity
of any drug induced experience at all. In so doing, we fail to recognize
the spiritual aspirations that are seeking expression and fulfilment in
this way. We likewise ignore the harsh fact that this society has lost the
ability to address the religious feelings of a considerable section of its
young.
When the broad
culture sends out contradictory messages about drugs while politicians
seem incapable of anything but blanket condemnation, to whom can people
turn for informed and sympathetic guidance? If drug use is a spiritual
issue, then surely this responsibility should fall on religious leaders.
Yet the spokesmen and women of the mainstream denominations seem to have
little to say on the subject beyond pious encouragement to abstinence.
Buddhism is no exception. The taking of intoxicating drugs is listed along
with murder, sexual misconduct, theft and lying as something every lay
Buddhist is expected to relinquish.
Before we can even
begin to have a serious discussion about the use and abuse of drugs in
contemporary society, there needs to be an acceptance of at least the
possibility that certain currently illegal drugs can produce life and
performance enhancing effects. Such a shift in attitude will require both
political courage from those entrusted with matters of law as well as
greater openness, understanding and tolerance from those who offer moral
and spiritual guidance.
Although we live in
a world in which the widespread consumption of legal, illegal and
prescribed drugs keeps growing, we seem incapable of conducting an
intelligent and compassionate debate around their use and abuse. We might
be reaching a point where the contradiction between what society permits
and what people actually do in terms of ingesting psychoactive substances
becomes intolerable. This contradiction both undermines the credibility of
those in positions of political and religious authority and fractures the
moral consensus needed to hold together an increasingly pluralistic
society. Unless the hysteria and repressive blindness around drug use
begin to diminish, a sane and constructive response to an issue that
threatens to spiral dangerously out of control will elude us.
Return
to Table of Contents
|