Overview of Beyond Religion by the Dalai Lama (Part 1 of 2)

(Photo by Ven Tenzin Jamphel on the Dalai Lama Facebook page)

​Beyond Religion. Sounds like my kind of book! But even though it offers “A New Vision of Secular Ethics” (the title for Part 1 of the book), it was written by a man who goes by “his holiness.” The subtitle states it was written “for a whole world”, but the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, an offshoot of one of the world’s major religions, practiced by a relatively small number of people in a mountainous enclave that has been in exile since the People’s Republic of China annexed it in 1951. Like a koan, this book appears to be a manifestation of “the identity of opposites.” In fact, I wish it had received the opposite title. Something like Before Religion or Up to Religion would have been more accurate in my opinion. But I’ll explain why at the end of this review.
 
I actually came across this book via my work with David Sloan Wilson and ProSocial World. On every page of ProSocial’s website, its “Purpose Statement” says it wants to “Consciously evolve a world that works for all.” I always liked this because it is deeply aligned with my view of Evolutionary Ethics and Why Evolutionary Philosophy Matters. But it turns out this is also highly aligned with the Dalai Lama’s message. And that is no accident! Beyond Religion was published in 2012. According to ProSocial’s 2022 Annual Report, their history “began in 2011 as an initiative of the Evolution Institute and spun off to become its own nonprofit organization in 2020.” And during that incubation time, on October 30th 2019, ProSocial co-founder David Sloan Wilson took part in a conversation with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala, India about this “whole world ethic.”
 
Part of this alignment comes from evolutionary thinkers arriving at the same conclusion from different locations. And part of this is me being deeply influenced by David Sloan Wilson’s work. But with the Dalai Lama too? That was unexpected so I wanted to dive into this book to see how strong the links really are. And what I found was so good I just had to share it here.
 
Beyond Religion is a short book — the Kindle version has only 189 pages. But it is split into two parts that are so distinct, yet equally important, that I thought my review should reflect this too. Part 2 is about the Dalai Lama’s meditation practice, which by itself is worth the price of the book (and much more!). So, I’ll write about that next. But Part 1 is all about secular ethics, so I’ll cover that first. As usual for these reviews of mine, I’ll share some important passages from the book and just comment on them as we go along. The quoted passages below all come from the 2012 UK Kindle version.
 
Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World by His Holiness Dalai Lama
 

• Table of Contents: Cover; About the Book; About the Author; Title Page; Introduction; Part I A New Vision of Secular Ethics; 1. Rethinking Secularism; 2. Our Common Humanity; 3. The Quest for Happiness; 4. Compassion, the Foundation of Well-Being; 5. Compassion and the Question of Justice; 6. The Role of Discernment; 7. Ethics in Our Shared World; Part II Educating the Heart Through Training the Mind; Introduction: Starting with Oneself; 8. Ethical Mindfulness in Everyday Life; 9. Dealing with Destructive Emotions; 10. Cultivating Key Inner Values; 11. Meditation as Mental Cultivation; Afterword

 
About the Book

• (p. 2) [It] may seem extraordinary to hear one of the world’s best-known spiritual leaders argue that we need to move beyond the dictates of faith, but in this ground-breaking book that is exactly what the Dalai Lama suggests.
• (p. 2) the Dalai Lama contends that we will not change the world just by praying: we need to turn to ethics if we are to succeed in sustaining and improving human life on this planet.
• (p. 2) the Dalai Lama is clear that faith without reason can be harmful, leading to fundamentalism.
• (p. 2) His Holiness reveals that another way is possible: to meet the future, we must marry compassion with reason and create a system of secular ethics that can unite us, whatever our beliefs.

 
Amen and hallelujah! But I wonder how many people who have turned to Buddhism are receptive to this message. And I wonder how many secular thinkers know the Dalai Lama is saying this. This is an incredibly brave book, but I fear it could fall on deaf ears all around the world.
 
Introduction

• (p. 2) what is it that we lack? The fundamental problem, I believe, is that at every level we are giving too much attention to the external, material aspects of life while neglecting moral ethics and inner values. By inner values I mean the qualities that we all appreciate in others, and toward which we all have a natural instinct, bequeathed by our biological nature as animals that survive and thrive only in an environment of concern, affection, and warmheartedness — or in a single word, compassion. The essence of compassion is a desire to alleviate the suffering of others and to promote their well-being. This is the spiritual principle from which all other positive inner values emerge.

 
This message about the virtue of compassion is central to the book and will be discussed later. Here, though, I would like to highlight the ultimate consequence that the Dalai Lama mentions in passing — “our biological nature as animals that survive and thrive.” Perhaps it is in the nature of a Buddhist to not focus on striving towards something, but science can give us all the guidance we need about this goal, if only we would all agree to it. And knowing this goal is essential to best “alleviate suffering and promote well-being” since avoiding all harm is impossible.
 

• (p. 2) we will never solve our problems simply by instituting new laws and regulations. Ultimately, the source of our problems lies at the level of the individual. If people lack moral values and integrity, no system of laws and regulations will be adequate. So long as people give priority to material values, then injustice, corruption, inequity, intolerance, and greed — all the outward manifestations of neglect of inner values — will persist.

 
This is exactly why atheism alone won’t work. And why the Humanist movement’s shyness about developing an ideology or prescriptive worldview is a missed opportunity.
 

• (p. 2) Science, for all the benefits it has brought to our external world, has not yet provided scientific grounding for the development of the foundations of personal integrity.

 
This is no longer the case. Just to take a few obvious examples, the shift in evolutionary studies from competition to cooperation as a driving force for the survival of life, and the focus on thriving in the fields of positive psychology and ecology could all provide necessary details about how personal integrity can lead life towards the ultimate goal mentioned above. We just need to spell this all out.
 

• (p. 2) any religion-based answer to the problem of our neglect of inner values can never be universal, and so will be inadequate. What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

 
Agreed! And I still think our universally-shared evolutionary history is the best source for this approach to ethics.
 

• (p. 2) I am of the firm opinion that we have within our grasp a way, and a means, to ground inner values without contradicting any religion and yet, crucially, without depending on religion.

 
So, this may be correct for the Buddhist’s emphasis on inner values. Highlighting compassion would not contradict any religion that I know of. But stating an end goal — is it surviving and thriving here on Earth or an afterlife of heavenly paradise? — does cause conflict. And I don’t believe you can fully express the inner values without having an end goal in mind.
 

• (p. 2) I should make it clear that my intention is not to dictate moral values. Doing that would be of no benefit. To try to impose moral principles from outside, to impose them, as it were, by command, can never be effective. Instead, I call for each of us to come to our own understanding of the importance of inner values. For it is these inner values which are the source of both an ethically harmonious world and the individual peace of mind, confidence, and happiness we all seek.

 
Imposing moral rules doesn’t work. But clearly stating the moral guides and the reasons for them could work to gather cooperators together who agree with them. I’ve never seen how Buddhism’s great emphasis on inner values could be enough. To me, they are necessary (and we will develop them in Part 2), but not sufficient.
 
Part I — A New Vision of Secular Ethics
Chapter 1 — Rethinking Secularism

• (p. 5) I am pleased by recent developments in scientific methodology in these areas, in which the traditional scientific principle of objective third-person verifiability is now being expanded to include the domain of subjective experience.

 
Yep. The cognitive revolution of the 1950’s is a great example of this happening during the Dalai Lama’s lifetime.
 

• (p. 5) have also had a longstanding interest in what scientific basis might be found for understanding the effects of contemplative practice and the deliberate cultivation of qualities such as compassion, loving-kindness, attention, and a calm mind. I have always felt that if science could show such practices to be both possible and beneficial, then perhaps they could even be promoted through mainstream education.

 
Bringing mindfulness to schools is happening as we speak.
 

• (p. 5) there is now a reasonably substantial body of evidence in evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and other fields suggesting that, even from the most rigorous scientific perspective, unselfishness and concern for others are not only in our own interests but also, in a sense, innate to our biological nature.

 
Yes, but selfishness is also “innate to our biological nature.” The trick is to argue when and why to use each one. And that takes a goal to guide us.
 

• (p. 6) for some people, in particular for some Christian and Muslim brothers and sisters, my use of the word “secular” raises difficulties. To some, the very word suggests a firm rejection of, or even hostility toward, religion. It may seem to them that, in using this word, I am advocating the exclusion of religion from ethical systems, or even from all areas of public life. This is not at all what I have in mind.
• (p. 6) In Indian usage, “secular,” far from implying antagonism toward religion or toward people of faith, actually implies a profound respect for and tolerance toward all religions. It also implies an inclusive and impartial attitude which includes nonbelievers.

 
It would be great if everyone could adopt this inclusive and impartial attitude, but it just doesn’t seem attainable given the epistemological positions of many religions. More on this later.
 

• (p. 9) dating from the reign of Emperor Ashoka in the third century BCE. One inscription contains the exhortation to “honour another’s religion, for doing so strengthens both one’s own and that of the other.”
• (p. 11) Two of the most important ideas I share wherever I travel — the principles of nonviolence and interreligious harmony — are both drawn from ancient Indian heritage.

 
Once again, this is great, until disagreements about truths and goals occur. Nonviolence and harmony do not provide guides for answers to intractable disagreements.
 

• (p. 12) I should acknowledge that there are some who, though sympathetic to my explanation of secularism in Indian terms, still question the viability of detaching ethics from religion in this way. The mistrust of attempts to separate the two is so strong among some followers of theistic traditions that I have been cautioned, on some occasions, not to use the word “secular” when speaking about ethics in public.
• (p. 13) For those whose religious belief is so closely tied to ethical practice, it is hard to conceive of one without the other. For those who believe that truth requires God, God alone can make ethics binding.
• (p. 13) I do not agree that ethics requires grounding in religious concepts or faith. Instead, I firmly believe that ethics can also emerge simply as a natural and rational response to our very humanity and our common human condition.

 
Wow. These passages could have been written by any of the “four horsemen of the non-apocalypse.”
 

• (p. 14) The systems of belief with which the world’s religions ground and support inner values can, generally speaking, be grouped into two categories.
• (p. 14) On the one hand are the theistic religions, which include Hinduism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In these traditions, ethics is ultimately grounded in some understanding of God — as a creator and as the absolute ground of all that is.
• (p. 14) since God is infinite love or infinite compassion, loving others is part of loving and serving God.
• (p. 14) there is the belief that after death we will face divine judgment, and this provides a further strong incentive for behaving with restraint and due caution
• (p. 15) On the other hand, in the non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and a branch of the ancient Indian Samkhya school, there is no belief in a divine creator. Instead, there is the core principle of causality, while the universe is regarded as beginningless.
• (p. 15) [These] religions instead ground ethics in the idea of karma. The Sanskrit word karma simply means “action.” So when we talk about our karma, we are referring to all our intentional acts of body, speech, and mind, and when we talk about the fruits of our karma, we are talking about the consequences of these acts.
• (p. 15) When combined with the idea of rebirth and successive lives, this understanding becomes a powerful basis for ethics and the cultivation of inner values.
• (p. 15) All religions, therefore, to some extent, ground the cultivation of inner values and ethical awareness in some kind of metaphysical (that is, not empirically demonstrable) understanding of the world and of life after death.

 
Yes. And these metaphysical stances are blockades to universal agreement wherever they become hardened.
 

• (p. 16) I do not think that religion is indispensable to the spiritual life.
• (p. 16) Today, in a scientific age in which religion strikes many as meaningless, what basis for such values is left to us? How can we find a way of motivating ourselves ethically without recourse to traditional beliefs?
• (p. 16) although humans can manage without religion, they cannot manage without inner values.
• (p. 16) As I see it, spirituality has two dimensions. The first dimension, that of basic spiritual well-being — by which I mean inner mental and emotional strength and balance — does not depend on religion but comes from our innate human nature as beings with a natural disposition toward compassion, kindness, and caring for others. The second dimension is what may be considered religion-based spirituality, which is acquired from our upbringing and culture and is tied to particular beliefs and practices.
• (p. 17) The difference between the two is something like the difference between water and tea. Ethics and inner values without religious content are like water, something we need every day for health and survival. Ethics and inner values based in a religious context are more like tea. The tea we drink is mostly composed of water, but it also contains some other ingredients — tea leaves, spices, perhaps some sugar or, at least in Tibet, salt — and this makes it more nutritious and sustaining and something we want every day. But however the tea is prepared, the primary ingredient is always water. While we can live without tea, we can’t live without water.

 
What an interesting metaphor! We non-religious types need to develop our tea.
 

• (p. 18) there are some who believe, at one end of the spectrum, that we are by nature fundamentally violent, aggressive, and competitive; while others, at the other end, take the view that we are predominantly disposed toward gentleness and love.
• (p. 18) if we view human nature as dominated by destructive tendencies, our ethics will most likely be grounded in something outside ourselves.
• (p. 18) If, however, we view human nature as predominantly oriented toward kindness and the desire for a peaceful life, then we can consider ethics an entirely natural and rational means for pursuing our innate potential.

 
Yes. And we now know that humans are both of these. And for good reason. The signature adaptation of the human species may be cooperation. But the science around prosociality shows that cooperation requires special conditions, including regulation towards shared goals using graduated responses to both helpful AND harmful behaviors. In other words, we need to be kind. And sometimes we need to be cruel to be kind. And it takes wisdom to know the difference between these situations.
 

• (p. 19) I believe that an inclusive approach to secular ethics, one with the potential to be universally accepted, requires recognition of only two basic principles.
• (p. 19) The first principle is the recognition of our shared humanity and our shared aspiration to happiness and the avoidance of suffering; the second is the understanding of interdependence as a key feature of human reality, including our biological reality as social animals. From these two principles we can learn to appreciate the inextricable connection between our own well-being and that of others, and we can develop a genuine concern for others’ welfare. Together, I believe, they constitute an adequate basis for establishing ethical awareness and the cultivation of inner values.

 
That is an argument that is perfect in sync with evolutionary philosophy. And this continues in the next few chapters.
 
Chapter 2 — Our Common Humanity

• (p. 21) in any attempt to develop a genuinely universal approach to ethics, [we have] to have a clear understanding of what unites us all, namely our common humanity.
• (p. 26) Since we are social animals — that is, since our survival and flourishing depend on being part of a group or community — our capacity for empathy has profound implications for our pursuit of happiness and well-being.

 
This is almost word-for-word what Humanists UK says when they teach ethics.
 
Chapter 3 — The Quest for Happiness

• (p. 31) A human being survives only with hope, and hope by definition implies the thought of something better. As I see it, our very survival depends on some idea of future happiness.
• (p. 31) Happiness is a rather general term, so there is potential for misunderstanding. For example, it should be made clear that in this book’s secular context, we are not talking about religious conceptions of ultimate happiness, but rather the simple joy or happiness we all understand in an ordinary or everyday sense.
• (p. 31) what are the sources of human happiness? Three factors immediately suggest themselves which, I think most people will agree, contribute significantly to human well-being, namely wealth or prosperity; health; and friendship or companionship.
• (p. 40) there are also other crucial factors which greatly contribute to our level of genuine happiness and joy. Recent scientific research suggests that chief among these are a sense of purpose which transcends narrow self-interest and a feeling of being connected with others or of belonging to a community. The root of both of these, I believe, is compassion or warmheartedness

 
The positive psychology literature is overflowing with scientific books about this topic. (See here, here, here, or here.) I’ve read many of these and listened to podcasts with the authors of many, many more. Unfortunately, this short chapter by the Dalai Lama is completely lacking in actual references to this field, but it does help to see his simple, straightforward thinking as well as the link to compassion, which is the subject of the next two chapters.
 
Chapter 4 — Compassion, the Foundation of Well-Being

• (p. 41) Without another’s loving care, none of us would have lived more than a few days. As a result of this intense need for others in our early development, a disposition toward affection is a part of our biology. This is a characteristic we share with many other mammals, and also birds
• (p. 48) What is important is that when pursuing our own self-interest we should be “wise selfish” and not “foolish selfish.” Being foolish selfish means pursuing our own interests in a narrow, shortsighted way. Being wise selfish means taking a broader view and recognizing that our own long-term individual interest lies in the welfare of everyone.
• (p. 50) While compassion at the biological level can be unconditional, like the mother’s love for her baby, it is also biased and limited in scope. Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance, because it is the seed from which unbiased compassion can grow. We can take our innate capacity for warmheartedness and, using our intelligence and conviction, expand it.
• (p. 52) universal compassion is not rooted in any self-regarding element, but rather in the simple awareness that all others are human beings who, just like oneself, aspire to happiness and shun suffering.
• (p. 53) My old friend Professor Paul Ekman, a pioneer in the science of emotion, once told me that even Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolutionary theory, believed that “the love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man.”
• (p. 55) since universal compassion involves gradually expanding one’s circle of concern until it finally embraces the whole of humanity, it needs constant cultivation.
• (p. 56) religion is not necessary for cultivating compassion. In fact, secular techniques for compassion training are already in use, and their effectiveness has even been scientifically demonstrated.

 
It’s striking to me how much this mimics Peter Singer’s book The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress, which I tried to take to its logical ethical conclusion by considering the evolutionary story of all of the life that has ever been or ever will be. I’m really looking forward to spending some more time in Part 2 of Beyond Religion to learn about ways to cultivate this compassion. But first, are there limits to this compassion?
 
Chapter 5 — Compassion and the Question of Justice

• (p. 57) For many, it seems, there is a conflict between the principle of compassion, which implies forgiveness, and the exercise of justice, which requires punishment for wrongdoing. As they see it, the principle of justice or fairness, rather than that of compassion, must underpin any humanistic approach to ethics.
• (p. 58) compassion by no means implies surrender in the face of wrongdoing or injustice.
• (p. 61) From a secular point of view, without such beliefs in punishment and reward in the afterlife, we must ask ourselves what punishment is really about. Is it about retribution and revenge — about making wrongdoers suffer as an end in itself? Or is it more about preventing further wrongdoing? To my mind, the purpose of punishment is not to exact suffering as an end in itself. Rather, the suffering inflicted by punishment should have a higher purpose, namely to discourage the wrongdoer from repeating the offense and to deter others from committing similar acts. Punishment is, therefore, not about retribution but about deterrence.

 
This is roughly the same conclusion reached by Dan Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book debating free will, determinism, and “just desert”. We’re aligned once again! But what about the final subject of Part 1 of Beyond Religion — ethics — which is covered in the next two chapters?
 
Chapter 6 — The Role of Discernment

• (p. 73) While intention is the first and most important factor in guaranteeing that our behaviour is ethical, we also need discernment to ensure that the choices we make are realistic and that our good intentions do not go to waste.
• (p. 74) For those occasions when we do not have time to work things out in detail, it is useful to have internalized general rules to guide our actions.
• (p. 80) we will never know all the causes that have given rise to any situation. Nor can we foresee all the consequences of our actions. There is always bound to be some element of uncertainty. It is important to acknowledge this, but it should not worry us. Still less should it make us despair of the value of rational assessment. Instead it should temper our actions with proper humility and caution.
• (p. 80) This uncertainty is another reason why ethics must be grounded at the level of motivation, as I have said, rather than purely on consideration of consequences.

 
In my paper on “Rebuilding the Harm Principle”, I say something similar about how to integrate consequentialism and virtue ethics. (I also add in the third of the three major camps of moral ethics, deontology.) Bravo!
 
Chapter 7 — Ethics in Our Shared World

• (p. 84) people are making a convenient distinction between ethics on the personal level and ethics on the wider social level. To me, such attitudes are fundamentally flawed, as they overlook the interdependence of our world.
• (p. 88) Disarmament is compassion in practice. What is required, therefore, is both inner disarmament, at the level of our individual hatred, prejudice, and intolerance, and outer disarmament, at the level of nations and states.
• (p. 91) On the issue of economic inequality, I consider myself at least half Marxist. When it comes to creating wealth and thereby improving people’s material conditions, capitalism is without doubt very effective, but capitalism is clearly inadequate as any kind of social ideal, since it is only motivated by profit, without any ethical principle guiding it.
• (p. 92) I told [a very wealthy couple], having made your money as capitalists, you should spend it as socialists!

 
This chapter actually consists of several short sections about technology, war, the environment, economics, science, education, and perseverance, but these four quotes are enough to show we’re basically aligned again. All of the points being made are simply a natural extension of the principle of flourishing in an interdependent world. The fact that this secular ethics is coming from the Dalai Lama rather than a typical atheist is completely remarkable. It’s a perfect example of what Cass Sunstein called a “surprising validator”. And it gives me great hope.
 
This marks the end of a fairly long overview of just the first half of this book, but I do hope it sparks an interest to read the whole thing and to share it widely with people who might be receptive to this message. As I said at the start, I only wish the title of this book had been flipped. Here’s why. In David Sloan Wilson’s autobiography, he wrote this about the Dalai Lama:
​

A quote of his is framed on my wall: “To defy the authority of empirical evidence is to disqualify oneself as someone worthy of critical debate in a dialogue.”

​This is an enormously important statement about epistemology that wasn’t covered in Beyond Religion. I entirely agree with the authority of empiricism and with the empiricists’ arguments that all of our knowledge comes from this source. But we are also crucially inspired by our beliefs, hopes, imagination, hypotheses, or faith about what might be in the realm of the unknown. If life had only ever acted on what was empirically known, it would never have progressed at all. I will have more to say about this in an upcoming paper about the evolution of knowledge, but the important thing to say here is that perhaps this message about secular ethics would be easier to accept if it was advertised as being confined to the empirical world, as being confined to the evidence that we can all agree upon.

​Beyond that realm, some of us may be inspired by various visions of earthly utopias. Some of us may be inspired by various visions of heavenly paradise. Trials and errors will show us which of these prove to be more accurate and/or effective. But, to put a spin on the Dalai Lama’s book title, these are “beyond secularism”. That doesn’t make them better or more important. Just literally out of reach. This isn’t the same thing as S.J. Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria since religions have typically tried to make claims about the empirical world. But if religions were prepared to retreat from any disproven ideas, then empirical secularism could become what we all agree to. Beyond that, you can believe what you want to believe, as long as it doesn’t “defy the authority of empirical evidence.” I’m sure that suggestion would still face pockets of fierce resistance, but maybe it would be a more comforting way to approach this attempt to create an ethics for the whole world. What do you think?