Welcome to the first session of our Living Vision cyber book
group. We are reading the Dalai Lama’s (we’ll refer to him as DL from this
point forth) newest book Beyond Religion. On Sunday afternoon, Feb. 5 at 5:00,
we’ll “convene” by logging onto this particular blog entry to discuss its introduction and first three chapters.
To make your entry of comments easier and our organized
discussion more pointed and effective, let me clarify a few things. Since there
are four Sundays in February and each one will be a target date for 1/4th
of our discussion of the book, those Sundays and discussions will be designated
numbers 1-4. But each of those four will have several blog entries attached to
them. You'll remember that on Sunday, Feb 5 we will be discussing the introduction and the the first three chapters of the book. So there will be an entry labeled 1A which will cover and invite your
comments for the introduction only. Entry 1B will cover and invite your
comments for chapter 1 only. Entry 1C will cover and invite your comments for
chapter 2 only, etc. This will enable us to keep our comments clearly focused
on the same portion of the book and see everyone’s comments on that particular
section in the same place. So by the time we get to the second Sunday in Feb,
the 12th, the entries we will have used to prepare for that
discussion will be 2A, 2B, etc. It may sound confusing, but we'll manage it together.
So, since we are in entry 1A, here are some key things to
think about and comment on in the comment section of the blog in preparation to
our live discussion. It is your written comments that will deepen and expedite
our Sunday afternoon interchange. Further, since some of you may not be able to
make Sunday’s “gathering,” now is your chance to make your points and raise
your questions.
Let’s begin…
Introduction
The clear thesis of the book is found toward the end of the
intro and reads
as follows: “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.”
Do you see his point? Do you agree? Why/Why not? (Comment!)
What do you most want to discuss from the introduction? (Comment!)
Hello Group!
ReplyDeleteI will not have a chance to read the book; however, I can follow the blogs and throw at least my two cents into the mix.
My response to the lines of introduction you quoted is short. I agree with DL's thought process in the following ways:
The world is getting smaller; greater numbers of people have ready access to information and more people gain access every day. In this environment people should develop the ability to appreciate the diversity in the world. Likewise, we should also develop the ability to see our common ground, those qualities that make us human. The neglect of human values must be addressed in a universal way if we as humans want to share peaceful lives.
My thought is the approach should be simple; it should be void of cultural influence. But is this really possible? If it is too simple does it lose it's impact?
If we have a natural instinct for inner values, by which he means the qualities that we all appreciate in others, ie compassion (pg xi), then how are we neglecting them? He later on talks about nurturing and teaching inner values. I do not think our individual approach to inner values can be devoid of cultural influence, but I do agree that there is a universality to ethics and inner values that transcends religion. On pg. xiii he does outline the manifestations of breakdown of moral values and integrity: injustice, corruption, inequality, intolerance, greed, so I suppose I could see that this is the opposite of "an outward and visible sign of an inner and spiritual grace" which is a beautiful way that Christianity speaks of the same issue (cultural influence, same principle).
ReplyDeleteAs people comment and reference the readings here, please include page numbers, so it is easier to see what you are commenting on in context, thanks.
I agree with DL in terms of what he is striving for - a secular based ethics - and completely see the need for humanity to establish such an ethics. But practically, it is difficult for me to see or even imagine HOW such an ethics can emerge and endure. Whether I want them to or not, my ethics have been hugely influenced by the life and teachings of Jesus. Because of that, I assume that another's ethics will similarly be based on something/someone, which is totally fine, of course. The problem, for me. comes when/if those multiply based systems conflict or collide. I want what DL wants; I just need helping seeing how we can get there.
ReplyDeleteIn a secular work place, we live and work by a set of ethics. Many of those are imposed, spelled out in rules and regulations. Even so, despite the huge diversity of values and influences, we seem to believe in a universal ethic. "I can't believe she did that and thinks it's okay!" is the type of response that suggests an unwritten rule. And people are disrupting those agreed upon ethics on a daily basis!
ReplyDeleteLater in the book, DL talks about teaching this secular ethic. Well, of course we were all taught some sort of ethic growing up, just not the same one. Even in US Protestant culture there are various ethics. Ruby Payne has provided a framework for understanding the different values held by people who live in generational poverty, vs the middle class, vs the wealthy. Values determine how we will interpret a situation and how we will act upon that situation, our ethics.
So this is interesting, but I don't know how it can be achieved.
While I was reading the introduction, I kept hitting the same mental roadblock. While I agree with the DL that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong, and for the most part, a desire to live in a world that succumbs to it, it was the origin of those 'ethics' that kept me from fully embracing DL's vision.
ReplyDeleteIt's been a core belief of mine that the innate sense of right vs. wrong is not something of man, but rather instilled by our creator. Without this god-created instinct, we would not instinctively agree to an unspoken 'code' of living in harmony with one another, a comfort when justice is served, or most importantly, we would not have the deep yearning to seek the wholeness that comes from relationship with God.
So, to fully attempt to see the world through DL's eyes, I had to keep this in mind as he wrote. Through that filter, I can see how his vision could allow us to live in harmony globally, and naturally.
Another thing that truly bothered me was DL's constant praise of India and it's people as closely embodying his vision of world harmony. India still operates under a generations-old caste system, where people are valued on a social ranking system with well-known and established rules. More than any other country, India segregates it's people based on wealth (or lack thereof).
While I know one size does not fit all when it comes to any nationality, the many Indian families I have had the blessing of having as friends tell me what caste they belonged to when they lived in their native country. They also tell me of their many house servants, which were paid little, but served those 'higher' than them in order to gain favor for their next life. How does this practice mesh with what DL is trying to get across?
Welcome! Please type you name in as its own comment so we know who is "here" today... And be sure to keep hitting your refresh key after entering, ok?
ReplyDeleteToby Jones
Welcome, to get us started with the intro and everyone's comments, let's begin with this thread...Seems we all are in agreement with DL's thesis and his desire for a secular ethics w/out direct religious influence. But we all seem to be struggling with how to get there. Type your thoughts, ideas, possible solutions on how to get there... (Remember to enter your name as a comment, if you haven't done so yet, and to keep hitting your refresh key)
ReplyDeleteIn order to "get There" the behaviors that represent the universal ethics have to be modeled in all places-ie-schools,work places etc.. how do you make that happen?nancy
ReplyDeleteMelanie's comments about India and DL, I had same. Recently reading about Tibet and China, and how China thinks after DL dies, the younger people in Tibet will be reeducated enough to not want to follow his principles anymore, but actually the younger Tibetans are very committed to continuing to follow him.
ReplyDeleteworking better now, refresh key not available
ReplyDeleteSometimes the theory of 'how to get there' overshadows how simple it really is, in my opinion. It's a 'can't seen the trees for the forest' problem...
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's all about servant leadership and distilling our own lives down so that we make serving others a priority.
Barb, try hitting your 'F5' key to refresh the page
ReplyDeletesome how those that believe in the universal ethics have to be the example setters- no way I can think of to mandate this type of behavior- how can we justify punishing someone who does not show compassion?
ReplyDeletebarb- my refresh key is on the left next to the back arrow
DeleteTo find and re=hit your refresh/reload key, look in View pull down menu up above blog. Should be in there. FYI, guys, I'm going to be deleting any non-content/instructional comments to keep it as easy and smooth as possible to keep us on point and "with" each other's points. Keep going. We'll be switching to entry 1B soon but not yet
ReplyDeleteI like what Melanie is saying - we just have to DO it in our own way, in our own contexts, in our own lives, and certainly with our children somehow. Ok everyone, let's jump over to entry 1B and I'll post a quick new thread comment to get us going. see you there...
ReplyDeleteIn my own life, I need to rid myself as much as possible of labels... does the woman behind me in the new Yukon at McDonalds really need me to buy her dinner? Or should I wait for another time when a 'rattier' car is in my rearview?
ReplyDeleteMy instinct might say to wait, but how am I to know that she didn't lose her job that day? Or maybe she miscarried last week? I need to stop filtering who I see as 'in need' of my love
Hi, Sorry to be late to join. I work for a large, statewide organization. My job is to bring change and improvement to the organization. We have a little over 500 people and trying to get people to just be respectful of each other is incredibly difficult. So while I agree with what DL says, I can't imagine how we can get the whole world to support and act on such an ethic.
ReplyDeleteMalanie makes a very good point. We never know other people's stories. Compassion first, judgement MUCH later, is key.
ReplyDelete