An audience with His Holiness, Part 2

Continued from An audience with His Holiness, Part 1...

The students from the British School wanted to know how they could find inner peace in today’s world of conflict and globalization. The Dalai Lama began his answer by telling of quarrels had with his siblings while he was a child; something everybody with siblings can relate to. He said that eventually the quarrels would subside and they would get along again. They would become intimate, and that this intimacy was something that created compassion. He went on to explain that when one is a child, they have no worries about another person’s background, economic status, or ethnicity, that there is a feeling of oneness that doesn’t come from religion or religious teaching. He advised us to continue to keep that open-minded spirit as we grow into adults, and when our minds become more sophisticated as a result, not to forget our basic nature.

His Holiness elaborated. As people grow they learn to immediately think in terms of religious faith, ethnicity, or social and economic background when they first meet one another. As a result these relationships often begin with a “what I will gain from this“ mentality. He emphasized the importance of keeping a “young” mind when forming friendships and again mentioned the inherent biological factor that creates some kind of compassion and sense of community. Our biology, if I understood correctly, is initially a seat for compassion.

The Dalai Lama’s testimony continued: This youthful compassion allows a person to develop a sense of community, or a “we” at a young age. The implications of this “we” stem far beyond our immediately accessible community, and why shouldn’t they? Is the “we” in our immediate social group the same “we” that others experience in social groups on the other side of the world? If so then all 6.7 billion of us are a bit more similar than “we” thought. His Holiness used the example of India and Pakistan. They are neighbors. As the societies increasingly become more globalized what one does to the environment, and how one reacts to global issues has an effect on the well-being of the other. India and Pakistan share some parts with each other, or you could say that in some ways they are a part of each other. Each is a part of the other‘s “we“. So it is in the best interest of these countries, and of individual peoples and communities to help their neighbors. Through destruction, violent, and negative activity, individuals, communities, and countries negatively influence their own interests.

His Holiness stated that when drawing upon our biological status as a basis for the seat of compassion, one can generate a peace of mind that can be used as a preventative measure to maintain good health. His teaching was that if illness happens, peace of mind can help recall the afflicted to a state of good health. He said that when facing a tragedy in a more calm and peaceful state one can handle it more realistically, and that with anxiety, anger, jealousy even small things can be difficult to handle. These negative physical states and emotions could impede the quest for inner peace in a competitive, global society.

His next point of advice dealt with actions and actors. His Holiness said that as far as actions are concerned, if other person takes advantage unjustly of you sometimes it is necessary to take countermeasures, but that the countermeasure only should apply to the action, not the actor. The actor, according to the Buddhist philosophy, is still a human being, still a part of “we“. His Holiness considers them to be like a family member. His advice was that one must react to the negative action without losing general sense of the actor’s well-being. According to his teaching, the reason why you are taking countermeasures to their misdeeds has to do with the aggressor’s own well-being. His Holiness explained that in the long term committing these negative or aggressive actions is harmful for the aggressor. This understanding is the practical attitude to have in these situations, according to him. But of course with everything, too much is not good. His Holiness let us know that it is unrealistic to use too much compassion.

To summarize this last point, the Dalai Lama used an example where a Buddhist mindset can indeed help one get closer to achieving inner peace. He asked the audience hypothetically what we would do if someone committed an angry or aggressive act against us. How would we react? To restate, in the Buddhist view, His Holiness explained, the act itself is what should be reacted to, not the person who sends the action your way. The angry action, after all is just a reflection of your and the aggressors karmic actions in this life and the last. So in order to develop inner peace in a world that is so competitive and fast-paced we should ask why the negative action was committed in our direction, but remain compassionate to the person who acted aggressively towards us. In this way we may forgive those who do harm to us, remain compassionate towards them, and work to understand negative disturbances in our lives. Sounds simple, right?

Their second question was something like, “what do you do in your free time?” He kind of chuckled a bit, and said, “nothing”. For those of you who were on the edge of your seats wondering about this, and dying to ask him yourself, His Holiness does not grab a beer and watch the game, does not play monopoly or scrabble with the extended family, doesn’t hit the cinema for a film and a rare bag of sour patch kids, and doesn’t beat his parliament in racquetball on the weekends.

Then it was our turn. Our first question was for advice on what we as future leaders, policy makers, and conscious citizens should do to create peace and positive change in the world. I was a little bit surprised when he deferred to his answer to the first question of the audience, saying that he had already explained it then. At first I didn’t understand why he thought he had answered the question already, seeing as how it was completely different from “how do we find inner peace?” I asked my host father about it, and he explained that to someone who hasn’t practiced Buddhism, and who only has the most minimal understanding of the Dharma, His Holiness’ simple English can seem, well, simple. But the more you understand about the philosophy behind the ideas, and how it works in conjunction with the Tibetan Buddhist worldview, the more those few words sound like prophecy. So I think that his answer to our question comes down to the same philosophical base of the first question of the British School group: Compassion as a means for inner peace and the well-being of your neighbors, or the “we”. As “future leaders” it will be in our best interest, then, to have our neighbors best interest in mind when we make career choices, advise financial decisions, or write policy briefs.

The next question came from Justin Landers, who is working on a promotional video for the Sarah College for Higher Tibetan Studies and the Institute for Buddhist Dialectics, to help raise funds for operational costs and improvements. He briefly explained his aims and asked His Holiness to give a statement concerning the significance of these institutions to the Tibetan community, and asked how those studying under their curriculums could use their experiences to better fulfill his wishes. He thought for a few moments, rocked slightly and gazed up at the ceiling, then quickly turned to Geshe-la Kelsang Damdul, assistant director of the Institute for Buddhist Dialectics and said,
“Did you ask him?”, after which he burst into laughter with the rest of the room, chalking the question up to a plug by the assistant director. The Dalai Lama does have a quick wit, and a wonderful laugh.

Now, with the crowds full attention he composed his answer. There were two things he wanted to address. He began by explaining the 1973 establishment date of the school of Buddhist Dialectics. He said that he and his administration at that time felt that young Tibetans that went through the Tibetan general school, established in 1960, were very bright and that many had shown interest in studying Buddhist philosophy. His Holiness was aware, however, that they didn‘t want to join a big monastic institution; that they were a little hesitant. So the institution was started mainly for those young Tibetans who had basic [modern/moral] education. There were other clientele that were interested in Buddhist studies and philosophy, specifically Europeans and Americans. His Holiness praised the small school for its productions up until now, and said that they have been “quite satisfactory”.

His Holiness paused a moment before continuing, and then turned his attention to the Sarah College. He spoke generally, mentioning the new programs, teacher training, and groups of students from western universities that have been coming to study there. Like the Institute for Buddhist Dialectics, said His Holiness, the Sarah College has become quite useful, and can make some contribution in terms of the promotion of general human value, and of better knowledge about the human mind, and human emotion, and how one can better tackle these different emotions. He said that he makes these claims of moral and psychological achievement as a part of Buddhist science, not a part of Buddhist religion. This was the first part of his answer.

The second part concerned the importance of the dialectic system that has been established for Tibetan discourse on science, philosophy, and religion. there is a special technique that comes from an ancient institution in Tibet. I apologize, but could not quite get the name right. His Holiness talked about the founder of Buddhism and his methods of reasoning. He commented on the Tibetan Buddhist tradition as it is used to emphasize studies and learning, not just meditation, and that the style of learning and disciplined study is one that uses a well established system of dialectics. But, the Dalai Lama said, neither English nor Chinese yet employ a similar system of dialectics that is so functional a method for the investigation of truth. His Holiness sought to clarify by making sure we knew that it was not the Buddhist tradition he was speaking of, but the technique to explain or to articulate Buddhist, philosophical, and scientific concepts.

The Tibetan leader expressed his hope that Tibetan dialectics could be introduced to the fields of medicine, modern medicine, economics, political science, and especially law. Using this dialectic system, he said, one’s understanding becomes more precise, and his/her method of explanation to others become more precise, and again His Holiness emphasized, especially in the field of law. A smile peeled across his face as he mused about the sharp mind a lawyer can develop by employing the Tibetan system of argument and debate, and how the practitioner can develop a very sharp mind. With that kind of mind, His Holiness said,
“lawyers win!” He erupted into laughter with the rest of us before returning to his normal poise.

He looked at the camera for his concluding remarks. He reestablished his opinion that the dialectic system for logical argument be used in other world languages. He said that in this way the dialectical school can make some contribution, as can the young students, to the world community. Quickly he turned to Dr. Sidky and fired off,
“what do you think?” To which Dr. Sidky immediately responded,
“Absolutely.”

Please note that my interpretation of the message given to us by His Holiness the Dalai Lama, when I am not simply reporting what was said and such interpretation is used, is my own. Please feel free to email me at miamitibetanstudies@gmail.com with questions, comments, arguments, or refutations of my take on the parts of the dialogue that were not specifically explained to us then and there. Thanks as always,
Zack