The idea that pone can attain happiness and be good outside the dominion of religion as advanced by the Dalai Lama is an unconventional philosophy that is arguably true or disputable false. False is because conventionally it is ideal that being good is defined by religion as it is along the religious lines that we are able to determine what is pious or not. Religious teachings spell out what is good and what is not. This is in light of the fact that it supposedly represents the will of the maker and thus what is good for man as prescribed by God is more or less the best possible w ay in which man can attain piety. Religion sets out the standards of being good by defining the universal requirements for piety and righteousness. Since men are naturally predisposed to personal truths and justice, they might come into conflict with each other for their parallel beliefs. The middle ground is thus established by religion which offers a consensus to these truths
Dalai Lama is however justified in relenting the hallowed position of religion and asserting that being good is what a man needs and not religion. This is because in human history it is religious disquiet that has caused the highest number of deaths. Religious conflict far and wide has wrecked mankind countless times. Then again it is in religion that teachings of being good are taught with insistence that the religious disposition of a man would not earn them celestial bliss but the righteousness of their actions and the goodness of their hearts. This underscores the fact the religion realizes that it is being good that is more important than the religious orientation.
I believe that the Dali Lama is justified when he asserts that being good and pious is empirical to a man’s happiness and maintaining the global tranquility. Although man is naturally religious it is innate qualities that drives his happiness and guides the relationship with people. Being good is important as the ideals of being good and righteous are imbibed in our consciousness and that might be relatively used to explain why religious dispositions developed far apart share the ideals. Happiness and goodness is definable from inside and later on extended outside manifesting its elf in religion. Religion is conclusive of a man's happiness and goodness but not exclusively its cause.