The Dalai Lama and “the Opium of the People”

Karl Marx wrote, “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people” (in Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, 1843).

It was particularly Christianity that Marx had in mind when he penned those oft-quoted words, for Christianity was clearly the dominant religion of Europe and Great Britain at the time. And to a certain degree Marx’s analysis was correct: most forms of popular Christianity at the time were individualistic and “other-worldly.” The focus of faith was on inner peace in the present and eternal bliss in the future.

Marx’s assertion about religion was also applicable to the religious tradition of India and Tibet (Hinduism and Buddhism). Through the centuries (millennia), those religions have stressed inner tranquility far, far more than social action.

In recent decades, there has been a new type of Buddhism, often referred to as engaged Buddhism (or sometimes socially-engaged Buddhism). This movement is particularly linked to the Vietnamese Thien (Zen) Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. But it is, clearly, a new form of Buddhism.

To a limited degree, the Dalai Lama has been linked with engaged Buddhism. But I did not get that impression from his public talk in D.C. on July 9 or from his essay titled “A Human Approach to World Peace” about which I wrote in my previous posting.

In fact, it seems that the Dalai Lama’s emphasis was much too individualistic, and his stress on inner happiness (regardless of the outward circumstances) was the kind of viewpoint that Marx was referring to when he called religion “the opium of the people.”

The emphasis on the individual and inner peace was long a feature of popular Christianity, to be sure. That was seen, for example, in Billy Graham’s Peace with God: The Secret Happiness (1953).

Perhaps that “fault” is even greater in Tibetan Buddhism, however. Meditation is its foundational practice. (The same is true for traditional Zen.) But here is the problem: meditation can be, and often is, an escape from the larger world rather than preparation for active engagement in seeking to solve the problems of society now.

There needs to be a two-way movement, such as Elizabeth O’Connor articulated well in her seminal book Journey Inward, Journey Outward (1968). Meditation or other means of cultivating the “inner” life, emphasis on what now is often called spirituality, is of great importance. But the “journey outward” is equally important.

Many Christians, doubtlessly, have not adequately implemented that needed two-way movement. But in his recent public talks as well in his previous essays, the Dalai Lama has not adequately dealt with the “nitty-gritty” of engagement with the problems of society either.

It is well and good for the Tibetan Buddhist leader to declare that “we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace.” But to emphasize the development of a compassionate heart without a challenge to engage in societal change is, perhaps, to foster a mentality that proves largely to be “opium” for contemporary people.

Questioning the Dalai Lama

Tenzin Gyatso (b. 1935) is known around the world as the Dalai Lama. He has been in town this week, and I could have gone to hear him speak.

The “town” mentioned is Washington, D.C., and the Dalai Lama has spoken Verizon Center in D.C. daily since July 6. His final appearance there (this time) is tomorrow. During most of these days I have been staying in a D.C. suburb, so I could have easily gone to one of his gatherings.

Sunday morning I even had a free ticket in my hand, but gave it back as I had already decided not to go.

I probably would have gone if I could have met him personally and said, “Hello, Dalai!” (This is probably an irreverent pun, but I am enough of a latent Quaker to dislike ranking people hierarchically, with some “properly” addressed only as Your Highness.)

My decision not to go was largely based on an examination of why I would go. It seemed that being able to “boast” later that I had seen and heard the Dalai Lama was the main reason for going. So I decided just to listen to his July 9 talk on YouTube and read “A Human Approach to World Peace,” his essay first published in 1984.

To be honest, I am not very favorably impressed with what the Dalai Lama has to say. But I can see why he is quite popular in this country (and around the “developed” world). His message is appealing to those who tend to believe that personal and societal happiness can be achieved by people thinking correctly and trying harder.

The Dalai Lama proclaims that “we must generate a good and kind heart, for without this, we can achieve neither universal happiness nor lasting world peace.” That may well be true, but how do we go about generating such a heart?

Traditional Buddhism emphasizes the “eightfold path,” but the Dalai Lama claims he is not trying to convert people to Buddhism. Still, he sees the basic human problem through Buddhist eyes. He writes, “The great [religious] teachers wanted to lead their followers away from the paths of negative deeds caused by ignorance and to introduce them to paths of goodness.”

But according to the traditional Christian worldview, the human predicament is not rooted in ignorance; it is due to sin. And the solution is not enlightenment (a freeing from ignorance) but forgiveness and redemption linked to repentance. Such a perspective, though, is becoming harder and harder to “sell” in our narcissistic culture. Many people seem to like the Dalai Lama’s ideas better; they would rather meditate than repent.

And they would rather seek to save themselves than to trust someone else to save them. The Dalai Lama acknowledges that some people “prefer Buddhism” because “everything depends upon your own actions.” That appeals to those who want to be master of their own fate.

But is there no need for a Savior? Do we humans only need a guide to show us the way to live?

There are more questions I have about the Dalai Lama’s message, and I will likely continue these musings on the July 20 posting.

Note: Most of the quotes in this posting are from “A Human Approach to World Peace,” which can be found here. His July 9 talk is available at this link.