|
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. |