Philosophy and Political Thought Paper 3

1. Gandhi sharply critiqued modern civilisation. What aspects of the critique would the Dalai Lama
endorse? What aspects would the Dalai Lama reject? What are their respective solutions?
A modern world requires a modern re-envisioning of classical religious
philosophy that suits the needs of the times and accounts for the realities of
modernity. Both Gandhi and the Dalai Lama attempt to create a set of values
that are steeped in religious philosophy, but applicable to the modern world.
Gandhi bases his political philosophy on his interpretation of the teachings of
the Bhagavad Gita, while Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth incarnation of the Dalai
Lama, being the spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhism, writes with reference to the
Bodhicharyavatara. Both recognize that there is unhappiness, suffering and
discontent in the world, and want to remedy the problem. However, in terms of
how the problem should be remedied, they differ in their opinion. I will
demonstrate in this essay how the two of them agree on the fundamental idea
that morality and ethics are much more important in modern society, but have
different characterizations of the importance of technology and therefore come
to different solutions to the problem of modern civilisation, with Gandhi offering
a societal approach and the Dalai Lama offering a more balanced, internal
approach.
In order to understand why they advocate their respective methods,
appreciation of the context in which these texts were written is essential.
Gandhi wrote Hind Swaraj in 1909, meant to instigate defiance of British Law
and inspire Indians to join in the struggle for Indias independence. His work is
thus highly politicised and meant as an incendiary and provocative text,
rejecting the methods used by the British to suppress India, including but not
limited to oppressive laws, modern infrastructure and technology, etc. He
advocates non-violent methods to achieve the ends he believes in, and writes

Page 1 of 6

with the conviction of someone who knows that what he says is true to inspire
and motivate people to revolt.
The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, writes from a more passive point of
view. His work is meant for internal reflection and general advice for life based
on the teachings of the Bodhicharyavatara by Shantideva. He believes,
however, that everyone is entitled to their opinion and can choose to not follow
what he discusses his text. He writes knowing full well that his methods are a
matter of his belief and does not claim them as necessarily true just what he
believes in. Thus in the Dalai Lamas Ethics we see a much more passive
approach to life.
Firstly, let us take a look at Gandhis criticism of civilization. He starts off
by criticizing technology and the progress that it has allowed people to make, as
well as the superficial nature of civilization. Instead of spears, he says, they
carry with them revolvers containing five or more chambers if people of a
certain country adopt European clothing, they are supposed to have become
civilized out of savagery Now one man can plough a vast tract by means of
steam engines and can thus amass great wealth Now, anybody writes and
prints anything he likes and poisons peoples minds their condition is worse
than that of beasts. They are obliged to work, at the risk of their lives for the
sake of millionaires (Gandhi, 1909, pp. 49-50). Thus, we can see in this one
short paragraph that he is against all facets of modern technology and sees the
negative side of it. This is where the Dalai Lama would disagree with Gandhi.
Gandhi acknowledges only the bad side of technology and fails to account for
the good that comes out of technology. While it is true that technology can be a
force for evil by spreading material inequality, causing stress-related disease
and poisoning the minds of certain people, technology also saves lives and
increases convenience. While Gandhi, like Rousseau, would like to regress to a
time when we are not dependent on technology and thus not subject to

Page 2 of 6

dependence and material inequality, the Dalai Lama says, We must be careful
not to idealise old ways of life (Gyatso, 1999, p. 13).
Unlike Gandhi, the Dalai Lama takes a much more nuanced approach to
the problem of materialism in modern civilisation. The romanticism of the rural
community that Gandhi espouses might be based more on necessity than
goodwill (Gyatso, 1999, p. 13). He goes on to say that if the people of Tibet
wanted thermal cooking, smokeless fuel and modern medicine, he would not
deny them of that. He says that both cases have their benefits and flaws. On
one hand, lack of technology leads to physical illnesses and discomfort but on
the other hand the presence of technology leads to mental suffering. The ideal
solution, therefore, is to find some means of enjoying the same degree of
harmony

and

tranquillity

as

those

more

traditional

communities

while

benefitting fully from the material developments of the world as we find at the
dawn of a new millennium (Gyatso, 1999, p. 13). This is a far more balanced
and agreeable (albeit vague and ill-defined) approach to the problem. Both His
Holiness and the Mahatma do agree that materialism is a problem in the modern
world, and detachment from the material world is something they both espouse.
Both see the problems in the world due to technology. However, their solutions
are vastly different. To use an analogy from the Bodhicharyavatara, to prevent
his feet from getting hurt, Gandhi would cover the entire world in leather, while
the Dalai Lama would rather have us all wear shoes.
In his discourse and criticism of the nature of railways, Gandhi criticizes
them for having connected different parts of India to each other, exacerbating
the spread of evil from one part of the country to another. He goes on to say
that man should only travel as far as his own hands and feet can take him, use
his intellect to know God and serve his immediate neighbours (Gandhi, 1909, p.
66). Gandhi seems to be saying, therefore that we should only be concerned
about those in our immediate vicinity. However, the Dalai Lama would disagree

Page 3 of 6

with him on this aspect. According to the Dalai Lama, one should not prefer
himself over other people, and care for someone far away with as much
sincerity and compassion as someone close by. The struggle is thus to
overcome these feelings of partiality. Certainly, developing genuine compassion
for our loved ones is the obvious and appropriate place to start Yet we need to
recognize that, ultimately, there are no grounds for discriminating in their
favour (Gyatso, 1999, p. 126). This is relevant to modern civilisation because of
the increased interconnectivity between individuals across the world. The
people we care about determines how we would interact in society and
underlying it are the ethical principles that we would live our lives by.
It might be possible to reconcile the views of Gandhis with those
espoused by the Dalai Lama if we do a less literal reading of Gandhis argument.
The reason Gandhi seems to hate modern civilisation is because it makes us
dependent on it. He believes that is this dependence that allows the British to
stay in power and control Indians, and the Indians who are most dependent on
technology like British rule that is the extent of their dependence. We brought
the English1, and we keep them. Why do you forget that our adoption of their
civilization makes their presence in India at all possible? (Gandhi, 1909, p. 85).
He does not seem to hate material goods in and of themselves but the effects of
these goods materialism, dependence, greed and inequality. We do not know
where our food grows, nor do we care. Yet we depend on it, and it is this
dependence that enslaves us. We chase after material wealth without realising
what is wrong. This also explains why Gandhi takes a dim view of doctors. He
does not hate medicine itself, but the mentality that comes with the application
of this medicine. I have indulged in vice, I contract a disease, a doctor cures
1 It is necessary to point out that when Gandhi refers to the English, he does not refer
to them as a group of people, but the values of Western civilization that they represent.
He says, It would be folly to assume that an Indian Rockefeller would be better than
the American Rockefeller (Gandhi, 1909, p. 117). If the English were to become
Indianised he would have no problem with them.
Page 4 of 6

me, the odds are that I shall repeat the vice (Gandhi, 1909, p. 77). He seems to
hate any technology that deprives us of our independence, or Swaraj. This
might help us understand how Gandhi is able to espouse the usefulness of the
handloom (arguably a piece of technology) while denouncing the train as an evil
of civilization. The intent of the technology matters just as much as the
technology, which helps explain the contradiction that Gandhi is writing this text
and publishing it using the very technology he claims spreads poison in the
minds of people. This may be a view that the Dalai Lama would be more
amenable to agreeing with, as he himself says that he would not deny an
individual the benefits of modern technology, so long as they do not come under
the mental stress of materialism.
Gandhis solution to modern civilisation would therefore be to relieve ourselves
of any technology that we have become dependent upon. He says, If the cause
of Indias slavery can be removed, India can become free (Gandhi, 1909, p. 83).
Gandhi thus believes in establishing the cottage industries in India by
empowering small-scale industries. This empowers individuals, removing them
of any dependence on others for material goods. This is why he espouses the
use of the handloom and treats it as symbolic of Indian Swaraj. He believes
that true civilization is that mode of conduct which points out to man the path
of duty (Gandhi, 1909, p. 80) which has nothing to do with material goods or
materialism at all. This is a view that His Holiness would find most agreeable,
since he espouses the importance of ethics and morality in a world where
science is treated like religion. At the same time, he says, I do not believe
everyone can or should be like Mahatma Gandhi and live the life of a poor
peasant. Such dedication is wonderful and greatly to be admired. But the
watchword is As much as we can without going to extremes (Gyatso, 1999,
p. 178)

Page 5 of 6

While Gandhi is more radical in his approach, he also has a clearer agenda
and thus clearer opinions about modernity and instructions on how to remedy
the problem. Despite the fact that he is occasionally contradictory and slightly
incongruous, he is specific about what he hopes to achieve. However, his
methods and solutions are not for the faint-hearted and require serious
dedication and commitment to achieve. In that way, he is more idealistic than
the Dalai Lama, who is a lot more general and practical in his approach to the
problem. This level of diplomacy in his responses can sometimes make his
approaches a little vague. While they both fundamentally agree on the idea of
non-violence, virtue and detachment from the material world, they do not wholly
agree on the nature of the problem. Given the fact that these texts were written
at different times in a period of rapid urbanisation, perhaps the Dalai Lama is
more inclined to believe that technological progress is natural and inevitable,
whereas Gandhi still might have believed in the possibility to go back to the
rural lifestyle that India had before British annexation. Ultimately, their
approaches are complementary. While Gandhi hopes to achieve large-scale
societal change through his methods, the Dalai Lamas methods are meant for
the individual wanting to shield himself from these effects in society.
A0093906X

References
Gandhi, M. K. (1909, December 11, 18). Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Gujarat
Columns of Indian Opinion.
Gyatso, T. (His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama) (. (1999). Ethics for the New Millennium.
New York: Berkley Publishing Group.

Page 6 of 6