Based on our readings this week, why do you think the Dalai Lama has become so popular in America and Europe? After all, the Buddhism that we’ve studied in this course seems distant, both conceptually and historically, from most western religions. What do you think people are responding to in his writing? This is slightly more of an opinion question than in previous weeks, but a good answer should make extensive reference to the course readings.
RIVERHEADBOOKS amemberof PenguinPutnamInc. 375HudsonStreet NewYork,NY10014 Copyright©1999byHisHolinessTheDalaiLama Allrightsreserved.Thisbook,orpartsthereof,maynot bereproducedinanyformwithoutpermission. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData ChapterTwo NOMAGIC,NOMYSTERY INCALLINGFORASPIRITUALREVOLUTION,AMIadvocatingareligioussolutiontoourproblemsafter all? No. As someone nearing seventy years of age at the time of writing, I have accumulated enough experiencetobecompletelyconfidentthattheteachingsoftheBuddhaarebothrelevantandusefulto humanity.Ifapersonputsthemintopractice,itiscertainthatnotonlytheybutothers,too,willbenefit. Mymeetingswithmanydifferentsortsofpeople theworldoverhave,however,helpedmerealize that there are other faiths, and other cultures, no less capable than mine of enabling individuals to lead constructive and satisfying lives. What is more, I have come to the conclusion that whether or not a person isareligiousbelieverdoesnotmattermuch.Farmore important is that theybeagoodhuman being. I say this inacknowledgmentof the fact that thoughamajorityof theearth’snearly sixbillionhuman beingsmayclaimallegiancetoonefaithtraditionoranother,theinfluenceofreligiononpeople’slivesis generallymarginal,especially in thedevelopedworld. It isdoubtfulwhethergloballyevenabillionare what I would call dedicated religious practitioners, that is to say, people who try, on a daily basis, faithfully to follow the principles and precepts of their faith. The rest remain, in this sense, non- practicing.Thosewhoarededicatedpractitionersmeanwhilefollowamultiplicityofreligiouspaths.From this, it becomes clear that, given our diversity, no single religion satisfies all humanity. We may also concludethatwehumanscanlivequitewellwithoutrecoursetoreligiousfaith. Thesemayseemunusualstatements,comingastheydofromareligiousfigure.Iam,however,Tibetan beforeIamDalaiLama,andIamhumanbeforeIamTibetan.SowhileasDalaiLamaIhaveaspecial responsibilitytoTibetans,andasamonkIhaveaspecialresponsibilitytowardfurtheringinterreligious harmony,asahumanbeingIhaveamuchlargerresponsibilitytowardthewholehumanfamily—which indeedweallhave.Andsincethemajoritydoesnotpracticereligion,Iamconcernedtotrytofindaway toserveallhumanitywithoutappealingtoreligiousfaith. Actually,Ibelievethatifweconsidertheworld’smajorreligionsfromthewidestperspective,wefindthat theyareall—Buddhism,Christianity,Hinduism,Islam,Judaism,Sikhism,Zoroastrianism,andtheothers— directed toward helping human beings achieve lasting happiness. And each of them is, inmy opinion, capableoffacilitatingthis.Undersuchcircumstances,avarietyofreligions(eachofwhichpromotesthe samebasicvaluesafterall)isbothdesirableanduseful. Not that I always felt like this. When I was younger and living in Tibet, I believed in my heart that Buddhismwasthebestway.Itoldmyselfitwouldbemarvelousifeveryoneconverted.Yetthiswasdueto ignorance.WeTibetanshad,ofcourse,heardofotherreligions.Butwhatlittleweknewaboutthemcame fromTibetan translations of secondary, Buddhist sources.Naturally, these focused on those aspects of otherreligionswhicharemoreopentodebatefromaBuddhistperspective.Thiswasnotbecausetheir Buddhistauthorswisheddeliberatelytocaricaturetheiropponents.Rather,itreflectedthefactthatthey hadnoneed toaddressall thoseaspectswithwhich theyhadnoargumentsince, in India,where they wrote, theworks theywerediscussingwere available in their entirety.Unfortunately, thiswasnot the caseinTibet.Therewerenotranslationsoftheseothersscripturesavailable. AsIgrewup,Iwasgraduallyabletolearnmoreabouttheotherworldreligions.Especiallyaftergoing into exile, I began to meet people who, having dedicated their entire lives to different faiths—some through prayer and meditation, others through actively serving others—had acquired a profound experience of their particular tradition. Such personal exchanges helped me recognize the enormous valueofeachofthemajorfaithtraditionsandledmetorespectthemdeeply.Forme,Buddhismremains themostpreciouspath.Itcorrespondsbestwithmypersonality.ButthatdoesnotmeanIbelieveittobe thebestreligionforeveryoneanymorethanIbelieveitnecessaryforeveryonetobeareligiousbeliever. Ofcourse,bothasaTibetanandasamonk,Ihavebeenbroughtupaccordingto,andeducatedin,the principles,theprecepts,andthepracticeofBuddhism.Icannot,therefore,denythatmywholethinkingis shapedbymyunderstandingofwhat itmeanstobeafollowerof theBuddha.However,myconcern in thisbookistotrytoreachbeyondtheformalboundariesofmyfaith.Iwanttoshowthatthereareindeed someuniversal ethical principleswhich couldhelp everyone to achieve thehappinessweall aspire to. Some peoplemay feel that in this I am attempting to propagate Buddhism by stealth. But while it is difficultformeconclusivelytorefutetheclaim,thisisnotthecase. Actually,Ibelievethereisanimportantdistinctiontobemadebetweenreligionandspirituality.ReligionI taketobeconcernedwithfaith intheclaimstosalvationofonefaithtraditionoranother,anaspectof which isacceptanceofsomeformofmetaphysicalorsupernaturalreality, includingperhapsan ideaof heaven or nirvana. Connected with this are religious teachings or dogma, ritual, prayer, and so on. SpiritualityItaketobeconcernedwiththosequalitiesofthehumanspirit—suchasloveandcompassion, patience,tolerance,forgiveness,contentment,asenseofresponsibility,asenseofharmony—whichbring happiness to both self and others. While ritual and prayer, along with the questions of nirvana and salvation,aredirectlyconnectedtoreligious faith, these innerqualitiesneednotbe,however.There is thusnoreasonwhytheindividualshouldnotdevelopthem,eventoahighdegree,withoutrecourseto anyreligiousormetaphysicalbeliefsystem.ThisiswhyIsometimessaythatreligionissomethingwecan perhapsdowithout.Whatwecannotdowithoutarethesebasicspiritualqualities. Thosewhopracticereligionwould,ofcourse,berighttosaythatsuchqualities,orvirtues,arefruitsof genuine religious endeavor and that religion thereforehas everything to dowithdeveloping themand with whatmay be called spiritual practice. But let us be clear on this point. Religious faith demands spiritualpractice.Yetitseemsthereismuchconfusion,asoftenamongreligiousbelieversoramongnon- believers, concerningwhat this actually consists in. The unifying characteristic of the qualities I have describedas “spiritual”maybesaid tobe some levelof concern forothers’well-being. InTibetan,we speakofshenpenkyisemmeaning“thethoughttobeofhelptoothers.”Andwhenwethinkaboutthem, weseethateachofthequalitiesnotedisdefinedbyanimplicitconcernforothers’well-being.Moreover, theonewhoiscompassionate,loving,patient,tolerant,forgiving,andsoontosomeextentrecognizesthe potential impactoftheiractionsonothersandorderstheirconductaccordingly.Thusspiritualpractice accordingtothisdescriptioninvolves,ontheonehand,actingoutofconcernforothers’well-being.On theother,itentailstransformingourselvessothatwebecomemorereadilydisposedtodoso.Tospeakof spiritualpracticeinanytermsotherthantheseismeaningless. Mycallforaspiritualrevolutionisthusnotacallforareligiousrevolution.Norisitareferencetoaway oflifethatissomehowotherworldly,stilllesstosomethingmagicalormysterious.Rather,itisacallfora radicalreorientationawayfromourhabitualpreoccupationwithself.Itisacalltoturntowardthewider communityofbeingswithwhomweareconnected,and forconductwhich recognizesothers’ interests alongsideourown. Herethereadermayobjectthatwhilethetransformationofcharacterthatsuchareorientationimpliesis certainlydesirable,andwhileitisgoodthatpeopledevelopcompassionandlove,arevolutionofspiritis hardly adequate to solve the variety and magnitude of problems we face in the modern world. Furthermore,itcouldbearguedthatproblemsarisingfrom,forexample,violenceinthehome,addiction todrugsandalcohol, familybreakup,andsoonarebetterunderstoodandtackledontheirownterms. Nevertheless, given that they could each certainly be solved through people being more loving and compassionatetowardoneanother—howeverimprobablethismayseem—theycanalsobecharacterized asspiritualproblemssusceptibletoaspiritualsolution.Thisisnottosaythatallweneeddoiscultivate spiritualvaluesandtheseproblemswillautomaticallydisappear.Onthecontrary,eachofthemneedsa specific solution. But we find that when this spiritual dimension is neglected, we have no hope of achievingalastingsolution. Why is this?Badnews isa factof life.Eachtimewepickupanewspaper,or turnon the televisionor radio,weare confrontedwith sad tidings.Not adaygoesbybut, somewhere in theworld, something happens thateveryoneagrees isunfortunate.Nomatterwhereweare fromorwhatourphilosophyof life,toagreaterorlesserextent,weareallsorrytohearofothers’suffering. These events can be divided into two broad categories: thosewhich have principally natural causes— earthquakes,drought,floods,andthelike—andthosewhichareofhumanorigin.Wars,crime,violenceof everysort,corruption,poverty,deception,fraud,andsocial,political,andeconomicinjusticeareeachthe consequence of negative human behavior. And who is responsible for such behavior? We are. From royalty,presidents,primeministers,andpoliticiansthroughadministrators,scientists,doctors, lawyers, academics, students, priests, nuns and monks, such as myself, to industrialists, artists, shopkeepers, technicians,pieceworkers,manuallaborers,andthosewithoutwork,thereisnotasingleclassorsector ofsocietywhichdoesnotcontributetoourdailydietofunhappynews. Fortunately, unlike natural disasters, whichwe can do little or nothing about, these human problems, because they are all essentially ethical problems, can be overcome. The fact that there are so many people,againfromeverysectorandlevelofsociety,workingtodosoisareflectionofthisintuition:There arethosewhojoinpoliticalpartiestofightforafairerconstitution;thosewhobecomelawyerstofightfor justice;thosewhojoinaidorganizationstofightpoverty;thosewhocare,bothonaprofessionalandona voluntarybasis,forthevictimsofharm.Indeed,weareall,accordingtoourownunderstandingandin ourownway,tryingtomaketheworld—oratleastourbitofit—abetterplaceforustolivein. Unfortunately,wefindthatnomatterhowsophisticatedandwelladministeredourlegalsystems,andno matterhowadvancedourmethodsofexternalcontrol,bythemselvesthesecannoteradicatewrongdoing. Observethatnowadaysourpolice forceshaveat theirdisposal technologythatcouldbarelyhavebeen imaginedfiftyyearsago.Theyhavemethodsofsurveillancewhichenablethemtoseewhatformerlywas hidden; they have DNA matching, forensic laboratories, sniffer dogs, and, of course, highly trained personnel.Yetcriminalmethodsarecorrespondinglyadvancedsothatreallywearenobetteroff.Where ethical restraint is lacking, therecanbenohopeofovercomingproblems like thoseof risingcrime. In fact,withoutsuchinnerdiscipline,wefindthattheverymeansweusetosolvethembecomesasourceof difficulty itself. The increasing sophistication of criminal and policemethods is a vicious andmutually reinforcingcycle. What,then,istherelationshipbetweenspiritualityandethicalpractice?Sinceloveandcompassionand similar qualities all, by definition, presume some level of concern for others’well-being, they presume ethical restraint. We cannot be loving and compassionate unless at the same time we curb our own harmfulimpulsesanddesires. As to the foundations of ethical practice itself, it might be supposed that here at least I advocate a religiousapproach.Certainly,eachofthemajorreligioustraditionshasawell-developedethicalsystem. However,thedifficultywithtyingourunderstandingofrightandwrongtoreligionisthatwemustthen ask, “Which religion?”Which articulates themost complete, themost accessible, themost acceptable system?Theargumentswouldneverstop.Moreover,todosowouldbetoignorethefactthatmanywho rejectreligiondosooutofconvictionssincerelyheld,notmerelybecausetheyareunconcernedwiththe deeperquestionsofhumanexistence.Wecannotsupposethatsuchpeoplearewithoutasenseofright and wrong or of what is morally appropriate just because some who are anti-religion are immoral. Besides,religiousbeliefisnoguaranteeofmoralintegrity.Lookingatthehistoryofourspecies,wesee that among the major troublemakers—those who visited violence, brutality, and destruction on their fellowhumanbeings—therehavebeenmanywhoprofessedreligiousfaith,oftenloudly.Religioncanhelp us establish basic ethical principles. Yet we can still talk about ethics and morality without having recoursetoreligion. Again,itcouldbeobjectedthatifwedonotacceptreligionasthesourceofethics,wemustallowthat people’s understanding of what is good and right, of what is wrong and bad, of what is morally appropriate and what is not, of what constitutes a positive act and what a negative act must vary according to circumstances and even from person to person. But here letme say that no one should supposeitcouldeverbepossibletodeviseasetofrulesorlawstoprovideuswiththeanswertoevery ethicaldilemma,evenifweweretoacceptreligionasthebasisofmorality.Suchaformulaicapproach couldneverhopetocapturetherichnessanddiversityofhumanexperience.Itwouldalsogivegrounds forarguingthatweareresponsibleonlytotheletterofthoselaws,ratherthanforouractions. Thisisnottosaythatitisuselesstoattempttoconstrueprincipleswhichcanbeunderstoodasmorally binding.Onthecontrary,ifwearetohaveanyhopeofsolvingourproblems,itisessentialthatwefinda waytodoso.Wemusthavesomemeansofadjudicatingbetween,forexample,terrorismasameansto politicalreformandMahatmaGandhi’sprinciplesofpeacefulresistance.Wemustbeabletoshowthat violencetowardothersiswrong.Andyetwemustfindsomewayofdoingsowhichavoidstheextremesof crudeabsolutismontheonehand,andoftrivialrelativismontheother. My own view,which does not rely solely on religious faith or even on an original idea, but rather on ordinarycommonsense, is thatestablishingbindingethicalprinciples ispossiblewhenwe takeasour startingpointtheobservationthatwealldesirehappinessandwishtoavoidsuffering.Wehavenomeans of discriminating between right and wrong if we do not take into account others’ feelings, others’ suffering.Forthisreason,andalsobecause—asweshallsee—thenotionofabsolutetruthisdifficultto sustain outside the context of religion, ethical conduct is not something we engage in because it is somehowrightinitselfbutbecause,likeourselves,allothersdesiretobehappyandtoavoidsuffering. Giventhatthisisanaturaldisposition,sharedbyall,itfollowsthateachindividualhasarighttopursue thisgoal.Accordingly,Isuggestthatoneofthethingswhichdetermineswhetheranactisethicalornot isitseffectonothers’experienceorexpectationofhappiness.Anactwhichharmsordoesviolencetothis ispotentiallyanunethicalact. Isaypotentiallybecausealthoughtheconsequencesofouractionsareimportant,thereareotherfactors toconsider,includingboththequestionofintentandthenatureoftheactitself.Wecanallthinkofthings whichwehavedonethathaveupsetothers,despitethefactthatitwasbynomeansourintentiontodo so.Similarly, it isalsonothard to thinkofactswhich, thoughtheymayappearsomewhat forcefuland aggressiveandlikelytocausehurt,couldyetcontributetoothers’happinessinthelongrun.Disciplining childrenwilloftenfall intothiscategory.Ontheotherhand,thefactthatouractionsmayappeartobe gentledoesnotmeanthattheyarepositiveorethicalifourintentionsareselfish.Onthecontrary,if,for example,ourintentionistomislead,thentopretendkindnessisamostunfortunatedeed.Thoughforce may not be involved, such an act is certainly violent. It does violence not only insofar as the end is harmfultotheotherbutalsointhatitinjuresthatperson’strustandexpectationoftruth. Again, it is not difficult to imagine a case where an individual may suppose their actions to be well intendedanddirectedtowardthegreatergoodofothers,butwheretheyare inrealitytotally immoral. Herewemightthinkofasoldierwhocarriesoutorderssummarilytoexecutecivilianprisoners.Believing thecausetobeajustone,thissoldiermaysupposesuchactionsaredirectedtowardthegreatergoodof humanity. Yet, according to the principle of non-violence I have put forward, such killing would by definitionbeanunethicalact.Carryingouttheseorderswouldthusbegravelynegativeconduct.Inother words,thecontentofouractionsisalsoimportantindeterminingwhethertheyareethicalornot,since certainactsarenegativebydefinition. Thefactorwhichisperhapsmostimportantofallindeterminingtheethicalnatureofanactisneitherits content nor its consequence, however. In fact, since only rarely are the fruits of our actions directly attributabletousalone—whetherthehelmsmanisabletobringhisboattosafetyinastormdependsnot justonhisactions—consequencecouldconceivablybetheleastimportantfactor.InTibetan,thetermfor whatisconsideredtobeofthegreatestsignificanceindeterminingtheethicalvalueofagivenactionis theindividual’skunlong.Translatedliterally,theparticiplekunmeans“thoroughly”or“fromthedepths,” andlong(wa)denotestheactofcausingsomethingtostandup,toarise,ortoawaken.Butinthesensein whichit’susedhere,kunlongisunderstoodasthatwhichdrivesorinspiresouractions—boththosewe intenddirectlyand thosewhichare ina sense involuntary. It thereforedenotes the individual’soverall stateofheartandmind.Whenthisiswholesome,itfollowsthatouractionsthemselveswillbe(ethically) wholesome. From this description, it is clear that it is difficult to translate kun long succinctly. Generally, it is renderedsimplyas“motivation,”butthisclearlydoesnotcapturethefullrangeofitsmeaning.Theword “disposition,”althoughitcomesquiteclose,lackstheactivesenseoftheTibetan.Ontheotherhand,to use the phrase “overall state of heart and mind” seems unnecessarily long. Arguably, it could be abbreviatedto“mind-state,”butthiswouldignorethewidermeaningofmindasitisusedinTibetan.The word for “mind,” lo, includes the ideas of consciousness, or awareness, alongside those of feeling and emotion.Thisreflectsanunderstandingthatemotionsandthoughtscannotultimatelybeseparated.Even theperceptionofaquality,likecolor,isheldtocarrywithinitanaffectivedimension.Noristhereanidea ofpuresensationwithoutanyaccompanyingcognitiveevent.Theinferenceisratherthatwecanidentify differenttypesofemotion.Therearethosewhichareprimarilyinstinctual,suchasrevulsionatthesight ofblood,andtherearethosewhichhaveamoredevelopedrationalcomponent,suchasfearofpoverty. ThereaderisaskedtorememberthispointwheneverIspeakof“mind,”of“motivation,”of“disposition,” orof“statesofmind.” Thatthisisso,thattheindividual’soverallstateofheartandmind,ormotivation,inthemomentofaction is,generallyspeaking,thekeytodeterminingitsethicalcontent,iseasilyunderstoodwhenweconsider howouractionsareaffectedwhenwearegrippedwithpowerfulnegativethoughtsandemotionssuchas hatredandanger.Inthatmoment,ourmindandheart(lo)areinturmoil.Notonlydoesthiscauseusto loseoursenseofproportionandperspective,butwealsolosesightofthelikelyimpactofouractionson others.Indeed,wecanbecomesodistractedthatweignorethequestionofothers,andoftheirrightto happiness,altogether.Ouractionsundersuchcircumstances—thatistosayourdeeds,words,thoughts, omissions,anddesires—willalmostcertainlybeinjuriousofothers’happiness.Andthisinspiteofwhat our long-termintentionstowardothersmaybeorwhetherouractionsareconsciously intendedornot. Considera situationwherewebecomeembroiled in anargumentwitha familymember.Howwedeal withthechargedatmospherewhichdevelopswilldependtoalargeextentonwhatunderliesouractions at thatmoment—in otherwords, ourkun long. The less calmwe are, themore likelywe are to react negatively with harsh words, and themore certain we are to say or do things which later we regret bitterly,eventhoughwefeeldeeplyforthatperson. Or imagine a situation where we inconvenience another in some small way, perhaps by bumping into themaccidentallywhilewalkingalong,andtheyshoutatusforbeingcareless.Wearemuchmorelikely toshrugthisoff ifourdisposition(kunlong) iswholesome, ifourheartsaresuffusedwithcompassion, thanifweareundertheswayofnegativeemotions.Whenthedrivingforceofouractionsiswholesome, our actionswill tend automatically to contribute to others’well-being. Theywill thus automatically be ethical.Further,themorethisisourhabitualstate,thelesslikelywearetoreactbadlywhenprovoked. Andevenwhenwedoloseourtemper,anyoutburstwillbefreeofanysenseofmaliceorhatred.Theaim ofspiritualand,therefore,ethicalpracticeisthustotransformandperfecttheindividual’skunlong.This ishowwebecomebetterhumanbeings. We find that themorewe succeed in transforming our hearts andminds through cultivating spiritual qualities,thebetterablewewillbetocopewithadversityandthegreaterthelikelihoodthatouractions will be ethically wholesome. So if I may be permitted to give my own case as an example, this understandingofethicsmeansthatinstrivingcontinuouslytocultivateapositive,orwholesome,mind- stateItrytobeofthegreatestservicetoothersthatIcanbe.Bymakingsure,inadditiontothis,thatthe content ofmy actions is, so far as I amable tomake them, similarly positive, I reducemy chances of actingunethically.Howeffective this strategy is, that is to say,what theconsequencesare in termsof others’well-being, either in the short-termor the long-term, there is noway to tell. But, providedmy effortsarecontinualandprovidedIpayattention,nomatterwhathappens,Ishouldneverhavecausefor regret.AtleastIknowIhavedonemybest. Mydescription in this chapter of the relationshipbetweenethics and spirituality doesnot address the question of how we are to resolve ethical dilemmas. We will come to that later. Rather, I have been concerned to outline an approach to ethics which, by relating ethical discourse to the basic human experience of happiness and suffering, avoids the problems which arise when we ground ethics in religion. The reality is that the majority of people today are unpersuaded of the need for religion. Moreover,theremaybeconductwhichisacceptabletoonereligioustraditionbutnottoanother.Asto whatImeantbytheterm“spiritualrevolution,”ItrustthatIhavemadeitclearthataspiritualrevolution entailsanethicalrevolution. HIS HOLINESS THE Dalai Lama .. • • • • 'II • • • • • • THE UNIVERSE • • IN A SINGLE ATOM • • • • • THE CONVERGENCE OF SCIENCE • • AND SPIRITUALITY • • • • • • • • + • • .. MoRGAN RoAD BooKs New York 't$ MORGAN ROAD BOOKS Published by Morgan H.oad Books, an imprint of The Doubleday Broadway· Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc. THE UNIVERSE IN A SINGLE ATOM. Copyright© 2005 by The Dalai Lama. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the publisher. For information, address The Doubleday Broadway Pub· lishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc. PIUNTED IN THE UNITED STATES