Morality, Religion and Belief

My views on Morality Religion and Life.- letter to a friend

It was very laudable to read your treatise composed with so much research and taking up so much of your time. I am not going to guess what your motives are but just presenting you with my own perspective on why we indulge in this type of activity and take you through my attitude which has gradually changed.

 

1.    We are curious by nature and will always ask questions.

2.    Being exposed to the scientific method, we will always ask for evidence.

3.    We ponder about “laws” in the Universe, possible “truths” or whether there is only one truth.

4.    We rely on our mind, brain and cognitive processes to try and reach a solution.

5.    We are hugely conditioned by our genes, our upbringing as children with parental influence and the total social environment we grew up. Many times, these influences are subconscious and when we think we made a “Free choice”, it in reality may not have been free.

6.    We wonder about life spans and whether birth is followed by inevitable death and whether there is something beyond death.

7.    We wonder how such a complex and massive Universe arose and whether the inevitable conclusion is that it was designed.

8.    We wonder why Morality and Ethics exist in society. Is it because of religion as the main or sole cause or can Humans be moral without the need to be driven or influenced by forces that we cannot comprehend or have great difficulty in comprehending.

9.    If belief is taken away from a person through reasoned argument/debate, will it make the person better or worse?

10.  If a person is less happy after rejecting religion, is it because religion was necessary to be happy or is it because expectations based on religion have been taken away? For example, if a man believes as he journeys through a dessert (life) in a car, that there is a helicopter (God) in the sky that will always swoop down and save him if he is in difficulty, and then discovers that there is no helicopter (no God), would he be unhappy because he is now deprived of the comfort of help (real or unreal does not matter) or because he has abandoned belief in helicopters which is an essential feature for happiness BECAUSE it is true. In other words, belief in God is essential if you seek redemption (even doing good things is not enough, belief is central).

11.  Can religions do only good and can do no harm?

12.  Is only one religion TRUE, or all are true or are all False? If a person believes that there is only ONE truth (bringing tautology as the belief that there is only one truth is also a belief which may or may not be true), then all other religions are false and ony one is TRUE

13.  As Human beings within a community, is it our duty to spread the TRUTH because we care for humanity and ignoring a person (especially if he/she is close to you)  is a selfish act. This as I see it, is the basis of evangelism. I know two sisters who drifted apart and sadly no longer communicate as the elder (strong believer) felt it was her absolute duty to convert her sister (Agnostic) as she just couldn’t let her drown in the sea of ignorance and kept pressuring her (with good intentions) to accept God.

 

Coming to my own development. 

I no longer think that those who believe in God are ignorant or lacking in logical thinking.

I find belief In God not acceptable to me as a rational thinker but I am willing to admit that I may be wrong.

I strongly believe in Humanism and what it stands for - love and respect for our fellow beings. Humanists believe that human experience and rational thinking provide the only source of both knowledge and a moral code to live by. They reject the idea of knowledge 'revealed' to human beings by gods, or in special books. 

I don’t need belief in an after-life or in supernatural forces dictating what is good and what is bad. I believe that morality is a strong driver in selection pressure of evolution. “Selfish gene” is a misnomer as Species survive through unselfish behaviour just as much as looking after its own interests. Cooperation, adaptive group behaviour, empathy, generosity and many other characteristics drive us towards survival. The day selfishness dominates would signify the end of our species! 

Almost all religions favour moral practices and I would postulate  that if you trace back history and view the world dispassionately, you would find that religion has promoted slavery, discrimination against women, ethnic cleansing and more recently, against birth control and euthanasia. But millions of devotees have selectively chosen the good things in their religious texts and discarded the bad things. (This has produced a problem - fundamentalists who believe in the literal interpretation of holy texts against what I call the Enlightened ones). One could say that humanity has progressed in spite of religion but this is also not true as we can document thousands of good things for which religion has been a strong driving force. 

I do not worry about seeking proof as I know that there will never be a consensus. I like to know why so many intelligent, wise and good people differ so much. I am happy to have the opportunity to be inquisitive and reflective and it does not matter what individuals believe so long as it gives them happiness and a satisfactory explanation ( for them, although it may not be acceptable to others), for big questions such as “why am I here? How should I live? What is good and what is bad” etc. BUT with the vital and overriding caveat that it must not harm others or interfere with the laws and freedoms agreed by Society at that particular point in history. These laws can change with change in circumstances, e.g., abortion was illegal but in most countries, it has changed. We cannot tolerate a new set of laws based on religion such as Sharia Law in Islamic societies which just would not be tolerated in secular states. The worrying thing is that those who practice some abominable things such as stoning your wife to death, do so not because it is right in a moral sense but because their religious law states so. (I bet that most husbands struggle with awful emotions when it happens and they see the suffering on the face of the wife but they keep saying to themselves that Allah would approve). 

We cannot have a Catholic state which bans abortion under any circumstance (even when a woman who is raped becomes pregnant with the child of the bastard who made her pregnant). We cannot have religion deciding whether euthanasia is permitted or not. We cannot have religion deciding whether to have slaves or not and to tier humans into primitive (less rights) or advanced (the rulers). 

In all these instances, the group I belong to, i.e., the Humanists, will deal with these with love and empathy. 

I am not a Buddhist (although born as one and undoubtedly influenced by it), but I love the Buddhist principles of Meththa (loving-kindness), Karuna (compassion), Muditha (altruistic joy) and Upekkha (Equanimity). I love it because of what you and society would be if you practise them, not because of what you might reap in a mythical afterlife. 

I love the Christian principle of “Do unto others as you would like done to yourself”, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour” and many more. 

I don't approve of the "Ten Commandments" and much prefer the Buddhist way of taking precepts - something you take unto yourself and not something commanded.

I had a very close friend who is sadly no more, one of the best human beings I have come across, an absolutely convinced and devout Christian, who told me, “Mahendra, I know you are a Buddhist and does accept Jesus as your Saviour but the God I believe in will always love you whether you believe in Him or not because of the person you are”. I was so touched. This is such a constructive view. I almost felt, “if Christianity can make a person like her, give me Christianity! 

Compare with another who said “I am sorry Mahendra, you are good person but if you want to go to Heaven, you will have to accept Jesus, and knowing you well, I just KNOW that you will do so before you depart from this World- one day, it will happen, I know it” 

I think that the vast majority of people belong to a religion because they were born to it. I also feel that a very large proportion haven’t thought deeply about it but accept it as helpful and supportive, especially in times of need. There is a proportion who is frightened of death and what awaits them. Among Buddhists and Hindus (not all I must add), many are driven by fears of how they may be reborn. Another group find it social attractive, giving them communal happiness and a “purpose”. Christian, Buddhist and Islamic communities provide so much of support for their fellows. 

A claim to know the truth can only be a viewpoint. It would be unwise to regard oneself as someone who has realised the truth. But I accept that some may genuinely believe so. But in such cases, you are entitled to hold the belief that you do know the truth, but you have no right to expect your fellow humans also to accept it and to regard those who disagree with you as misled (again I make the distinction that you may not be able to stop thinking so but if so please keep it to yourself!). 

We are all born and we all die. What happened before and what might happen after, are mere speculation. If the TRUTH was obvious, there won’t be any discussion.

 

Mahendra Gonsalkorale

19^th July2021

Will Buddhism survive without the Sangha?

Mahendra Gonsalkorale. 2nd March 2021

A good friend expressed the view that Buddhism may not survive without the Sangha. Do I agree or disagree? Here is my answer.

Buddhism is a deep philosophy but a lot of ordinary human beings are not truth-seekers in the proper sense of the word but seekers of consolation and props to help them live through worries and difficulties. Most of such people would have adopted any religion to which they were born to (I mean parents and culture). They would be equally at home praying in church, temples, kovils, mosques. I would challenge anybody who says that the vast majority of Buddhist are those who have sought the truth and realised it. I don't look down on those who are regular temples goers and worship statutes and forever seek merit to improve their merit accounts and improve their chances of a good life if indeed there is one after death. It is a strong human need. Those who indulge in these activities without expecting rewards and merely because they find the atmosphere conducive and a reminder of virtuous activities in life will of course benefit. 

The Sangha had a remit when it was first set up but has got corrupted beyond recognition to the point that a member considers it appropriate to consider himself as a suitable person to sit on the Sri Lanka Cricket Board! The political activities of some are disgusting as they promote hate and intolerance. The Sangha are foremost in pushing the idea of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy. This is to me a sad state of affairs and I have nothing to do with them apart from those I personally know and respect such as Ven Galkande Dhammananda Thero, a genuine humane person with love tolerance and empathy.

But the ordinary Buddhist (I don't mean in a derogatory way at all) , need the Sangha and all the rituals and paraphernalia that go with it and Buddhism does run the risk of a slow death. I may be wrong and the ven Wlapola Rahula may well be right and although the number of "Buddhists" will decline dramatically, they may well be the "real  Buddhists". It may be a subject studied by people who are inclined towards seeking answers and not those who are seeking emotional props. I would welcome such a society if it ever becomes a reality. They would not look down on Christians and Hindu us and Muslims, they wouldn't be concerned with preserving enough "Buddhists" in the country, they would not be worried about allowing Muslims to bury their dead, they wouldn't worry about the proportion of Buddhist parliamentarians, they wouldn't be concerned with people's ethnicity, they would not be concerned with establishing caste-based Nikayas, they would not be worried about Presidents worshipping them, they wouldn't be worried about building large temples and massive Buddha statues. They know that Buddhism is something to live by and not an appendage to be used when it suits them.

Will Buddhism die without them? Yes, there is a danger. But I feel that Knowledge will always be available for those who seek it and Buddhism will survive, maybe in a different way. But the "prop" aspect is important for Society. Will anybody miss these props? Sadly yes. Those who use Buddhism as an emotional balm and as a tool for domination in society at the expense of others (The - "I am a proud member of Manchester United or whatever club", complete with Buddhist flag and contempt for other Clubs type)"

My musings The first for 2021

My musings today January 7^th 2021

A remark from a close friend. “At the beginning of the service we were given pieces of paper and a pencil and asked to write something about 2020 that we want to put behind us. (Many wrote 'Covid' and 'Trump' I think!). During the service we walked up to the fire pit and threw these pieces of paper into the fire pit. It felt strangely liberating! Try throwing away and burning everything negative about 2020 in a fireplace or bonfire, depending on where you live! It will feel good! Here's to 2021!”

Like most things in life, this type of symbolism will appeal to a lot and not so to others. All religious teachers used symbolism as well as parables. There is something about them which have a powerful influence on us. In fact in some "Thovil" ceremonies this is done with a lot of ritual chanting and the object to which the demon responsible for the client's illness is coaxed into a metallic object which is then disposed of. The secret is the faith or strong belief the subject has in it. There is a feeling of finality in getting rid of something which is affecting you- you literally "see" the problem being got rid of. Faith is one of the strongest human emotions, or so I believe.

A belief is something usually very personal but could be a shared view within a group of people. It does not need verification, just an acceptance. Truth on the other hand in philosophical terms can be questioned in many ways. First of all is there a "universal truth" independent of knowledge which operates throughout the Universe which could be "known" or "realised" or is the view that there is a "truth" also contestable. The truth might be that there is no truth! If you are physicalist, the only truths are natural laws that exist such as gravitation etc. For a physicalist, there is nothing spiritual and everything can be explained or could be explained if it has not been explained so far, on the basis of science. A belief could arise after examining the evidence but there is no agreement on what evidence is admissible. The only requirement is that is satisfies the believer.

You might sense that I am just a very confused man trying to make sense of the World and you are correct!

One of the burning questions I am dealing with at the moment is whether Human beings have the capacity to understand the world around them through what I call "insight" for lack of a better word. I am used to forming concepts and beliefs based on scientific enquiry and logic. I just wonder whether attempting to understand or comprehend phenomena through gaining knowledge, which is just the arrangement of data or information in a particular way, is ever going to yield the "truth", assuming of course that there is one, OR whether to entertain the possibility that we have within us a latent capacity to "realise" the true meaning of reality, which is essentially what the Buddha said. The idea that we all have this shining lamp within us which will illuminate and expose the true nature of reality is fascinating. The idea that it is there and if only we are able to access it by going through all the curtains that hide it, all will be revealed is enticing. But I find it difficult to believe that if I sit under a tree and just think deeply for long enough (contemplative meditation) that there would be an "aha" or "eureka" moment when I get up with a smile on what I "know"! But even Newton admitted that the falling apple story is not how it actually happened!

When you are retired you have much more time (what is time?) to grapple with these.

Or is it more sensible to just accept that birth (not your choice) is always followed by death (not usually your choice) and all we can do is to spend the time in between, as happily we can, by which I mean with minimum discomfort (mental and physical) and with maximum comfort? The problem is that comfort itself is relative. We wouldn't really know what comfort is if we have never experienced discomfort.

One thing I am convinced of is this.  The concept of an all-powerful, all-loving, all merciful God is something I cannot accept. For me either (a) there is no God or (b) he is not all-powerful or (c) he is not all-loving and picks and chooses when to use his powers. Furthermore, to attribute everything we cannot answer to God is a cop-out; "Let it be X", where X is something you are incapable of understanding but one day you may.....if you accept Jesus or Allah or Atlas on Faith. Secondly, I find it very difficult to accept the idea of the persistence of life after death. I find the Buddhist concept of impermanence very intellectually satisfying and the fact that there is nothing permanent in me and the "I" or "Me" concept is my own conceptualisation. Yet, I see some continuity in me from the past to the present, to the future. The "I" is continually changing but my "I" is different from your "I". You may call this a sort of "energy" but to me, the use of the term energy is very loose - like "X". This also leads me to wonder whether everything is physical or material or whether there is a spiritual element, yet to be understood. Not quite dualistic in the way of Descartes. Is the Brain the seat of all knowledge, emotions and perception? The spiritual query also arises from my question "why are we moral?". I do have some suggestions based on the theory of evolution as to why we are moral in a purely material sense without invoking non-material means, and on how natural selection would favour a moral code of behaviour.