In order to outline some of the real dividing lines in contemporary spirituality, we have to take a closer look at the dynamics and the players involved in the interfaith movement, the proponent of a development towards spiritual unification based on pan religious ethics. Interfaith represents a broad spectrum of attitudes from a more cooperative to an integrative approach. The latter is propagated mainly by a hard core group of ideologists rooted in eastern, sectarian movements organized around gurus or lamas and their offspring in Theosophy and eventually New Age. They are interested in a more radical spiritual renewal, since they understand that their own non-denominational, technique oriented spirituality has a huge advantage over and against the traditional religions in the new marketplace. Furthermore, they carry on the old prejudice of eastern sects against the Semitic religions and show in this respect an aggressive, ideological bias. The gradual process of secularization in the West has clearly demonstrated that not all the religious traditions of mankind show the same adaptability to an increasing commercialization. With the exception, maybe, of the Christian churches in the USA, the theistic religions are all more or less reluctant or, like Islam, even reactionary when confronted with this modernization, whereas eastern religions and sects, notably Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism, have proved themselves to be highly marketable. This marketability is enhanced by their religious leaders, the gurus and lamas, who deliberately adjust their philosophy and spiritual techniques to the demands and conceptual universe of the potential western consumers. From a factual point of view then, it seems appropriate to single out in this vast and varied spiritual development towards unification one of its main driving forces, which is in itself a rather complex phenomenon that is nevertheless carrying forward a trend-setting concept, which might become a general feature of the coming One World Religion. We are talking here about the Neuro-Buddhist-Unification-Project [NBUP].

A most prominent promoter and an internationally respected spokesman of this strategy is the 14th Dalai Lama, an icon in the New Age movement, who has been inspiring many lesser spirits with his promotion of Buddhist contemplative practice – strongly profiled by an annexation of scientific research and garnished with interfaith statements and free interpretations of non-Buddhist religions. He is a distinguished member of the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality, which according to its blueprint advances our crossing as a species into global consciousness, involving the: “Direct encounter and co-creation of the common ground between worldviews. Access to such global consciousness can only emerge from and through the transformation of rational awareness and intelligence into a global perspective. The great spiritual endowment of the planet converges on the insight, that there is and must be some Primal Originating Cause or Force or Power that is the source of all that appears – of all worlds, worldviews, perspectives, cultures, religions, ideologies, narratives ... phenomena; this primal force is found to be Infinite and First: What-is-first. Deepest research into What-is-First reveals that this Ultimate Source must be Infinite and hence the same Unifying Force generating all worlds and worldviews across the spectrum of religions and cultures, the sciences and other disciplinary narratives: we lack a truly global name for this Infinite First. It is also clear that the meditative traditions converge in developing powerful strategies and technologies to cross from egocentric minding into the holistic or non-dual patterns of meditative (integral) minding – this is the essential teaching, for example in Hindu Vedic texts, such as the Bhagavad Gita, or of the Buddhist teaching of overcoming egocentric life by meditatively crossing into the non-dual unified field where all things inter-connect and co-relate.” This is a typical example of New Age interfaith lingo based on a transcription and adjusted version of neo-Buddhist philosophy of meditation advocating non-duality, holism, spiritual technology and “meditative minding” against “egocentric minding”, that is a shift from the free and active thinking of an I into a non-differentiating “integral” position. In this exposition and as a concession to theistic religion we find an allusion to God as a first cause, but in the non-personal and abstract form of a force or source, you can unite with through meditation. In the last resort this “source” or “force” is nothing but the inherent qualities in the consciousness of the meditator himself. There is no transcendent and creative God “out there”, at least not according to Dalai Lama. In order to analyze in greater detail his more independent views, let us take as an example the following quote from his address at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience on November 12, 2005:

“Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism.”

Here we are at the core of the NBUP ideology and this is in fact a very clever and calculated statement, designed to make many readers and listeners assimilate the hidden meme uncritically. First, there is the principal Trojan horse of the argument, the claim, that science and Buddhism are on the same footing in spite of their completely different origin, and that they share “significant commonalities”. Let us remember that science is exclusively a product of the western capacity of free and active thinking (and is, rightly considered, an offspring of Christianity’s inherent power of secularization and individualization). There is no noticeable scientific achievement within Tibetan Buddhism or within Buddhism in general. Nevertheless, Dalai Lama asserts two analogous structures: the philosophical outlook and the methodology of science and Tibetan Buddhism respectively. Then he develops further on the similarities in philosophical outlook and mentions “a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes” in three versions. One is the idea of “a transcendent being”, that is of course a creative God, but he will not mention God directly. Dalai Lama knows as well as anyone else, that science in its struggle to emancipate itself from Christian dogmatism has a conflict-ridden history with the idea of a creative God, which is probably reflected in an ambivalent attitude towards Christianity held by many scientists in the audience. His indirect suggestion wards of the protective response from their deeper culturally rooted belief structure and mobilizes instead their latent aggression – yes, we don’t like this suppressive idea of a God either – how nice of you to stand up for us – and a considerate fellow you are too, not to trample on the remnants of our personal belief. Maybe you can give us back our belief in a form that allows us to be both scientific and spiritual at the same time? But in fact the comparability is only apparent and either a result of the manipulative eloquence of Dalai Lama or his fundamental lack of understanding of science, that is: bad thinking. On epistemological grounds science can not and will not rule out in advance the existence of an absolute, transcendent being, because true science only tries to explain the “hows”, not the “whys” of nature. The mutual “suspicion”, Dalai Lama is referring to and exploiting in his address, is of a historical nature from the perspective of western science, but of a dogmatic nature from a Buddhist perspective – not comparable at all! But no matter – he scored a cheap point – and then he might as well kill off the eternal soul or any idea of a permanent self. This is pure Buddhist dogmatism, and perhaps his listeners are not so eager to loose their own self as to get rid of an authoritarian God figure. Again, this really is not a subject relevant to science. The last item of absolutes is a “fundamental substratum of reality”. Here Dalai Lama is on thin ice, for many scientists operate with such a structure in their materialism, and they are actually also very fond of absolutes (constants and laws). And so, in the final analysis there is no substantial “commonality” between science and Buddhism whatsoever. Dalai Lama is a dogmatic ideologist and a manipulator, and the link and mutual understanding he has created here, is emotional and based on an argumentum ad populum and very weak analogies indeed.

Then we have the strong appeal to a common empiricist methodology and criterion of truth, that is experimental demonstrability and repeatability, which is similarly false. Dalai Lama is well aware of the fundamental materialistic principles of natural science in its incompatibility with Buddhism – he rejects so-called scientific materialism, the idea that consciousness, for example, is no more than a series of chemical reactions in our brains. That would not allow for reincarnation. The ”empirical field” of Buddhism therefore is quite different from that of natural science in that it covers only induced “states of consciousness” and their religious interpretation, not any physical experiments and data. Nevertheless, Dalai Lama eagerly points to the favourable possibility of an “interdisciplinary encounter” between neuroscience and Buddhist contemplative tradition, since ”the meeting of modern neuroscience and Buddhist contemplative discipline could lead to the possibility of studying the impact of intentional mental activity on the brain circuits that have been identified as critical for specific mental processes.” But then again, scientists have to “distinguish between the empirical aspects of Buddhist thought and contemplative practice on the one hand and the philosophical and metaphysical assumptions associated with these meditative practices”.

Obviously, Dalai Lama is here bent on merging his own idealistic empiricism with the materialistic empiricism of science as much as possible, using as his practical contribution research on the brain’s neurophysiologic-conscious functioning as their common ground and Tibetan monks as guinea pigs. Why? Out of sheer idealism and a quest for truth, as suggested, or because it transfers some of the respectability and reliability of natural science to Tibetan Buddhism in the western public opinion? We should, however, not misjudge the traditional claim of Buddhism, namely that any meditator, who pursues the instructed meditative exercises correctly, will eventually experience the same state of consciousness and validate the philosophical interpretation of it. Dalai Lama seemingly upholds this principle in his next comment: “In the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference, its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.” In reality, this is only a didactic principle, certainly not a heuristic one! Tradition and history consistently show us that Tibetan Buddhism as a system of knowledge is organized in an authoritarian and hierarchical system with built-in parrot-learning and indoctrination. There is rectification, subordination and very strict dogmatic interpretation, when it comes to spiritual authority and recognition of spiritual demands of reality (states of consciousness), since in all cases training is based on instruction from an acknowledged teacher, and decisive results involve transmission and initiation. The whole aim and merit of the system is to produce predictable and well defined results in the form of “tulkus”, imitative successors, who can guarantee the continuation of tradition, just as the system is completely lacking in innovation and any real experimenting. And so it is really a coquetry to claim that Tibetan Buddhism is either empirical or based on intellectual liberty in a way comparable to western science. Their methodological approach is by no means equal, and Dalai Lama and his scientific audience are not peers! Everyone in the audience has the personal freedom to change his mind, opinion and outlook in the light of reason and experience, but not the Dalai Lama! It will never happen. He can not leave his tradition and religious role behind. He is there only to convey his preconceived ideas.