by Dalai Lama
Selfless love is often misunderstood. It is not a question of neglecting oneself for others’ benefit. In fact, when you benefit others, you benefit yourself because of the principle of interdependence. I want to stress the importance of enlarging your mind and bringing the sufferings of others onto yourself. Altruism changes our temperament, our humor, and our perceptions and allows us to develop a more serene, more even temperament. The opposite of altruism makes us vulnerable to external circumstances.
Egocentrism is against nature, for it ignores interdependence. It is an attitude that closes all the doors, whereas altruism develops profound vision. We should develop the feeling of belonging to a large human family. The causes and conditions of our future are largely in our hands.
The disregard of interdependence by Westerners
GENERALLY, I HAVE BEEN very impressed by Western society; I especially admire its energy, its creativity, and its hunger for knowledge. Still, a certain number of elements in the Western way of life seem worrisome to me. I have noticed, for example, how ready people are to think of everything as completely white or completely black, as either this or that, ignoring the reality of interdependence and relativism. They have a tendency to lose sight of the gray zones between opinions.
Another one of my observations is that there are many people in the West who live very comfortably in large cities, while still remaining isolated from the large mass of humanity. It is surprising that with such material ease and with thousands of brothers and sisters as neighbors, such a large number of people can show real affection only for their cats and dogs. In my view, that denotes a lack of spiritual values. Part of the problem might be the intense competition—a source of fear and profound insecurity—involved in living in these countries.
I Do Not Believe in Ideologies
Humanity is one
THE HUMAN COMMUNITY has reached a critical point in its history. The world today forces us to accept that humanity is one. In the past, the various communities could allow themselves to think that they were separate. But today, as the recent tragic events in the United States have shown,7 what happens in one country affects many other countries. The world is becoming more and more interdependent. In the context of this new interdependence, self-interest requires us to take into account the interests of others. Without understanding and promoting the sense of our universal responsibility, our future itself is threatened. I firmly believe that we must cultivate a greater sense of universal responsibility. We must learn how to work not just for ourselves, our family, or our nation, but for the good of humanity. Universal responsibility is the best possible basis to ensure our personal happiness and world peace. It implies that everyone be given equal access to natural resources, by protecting the environment for future generations. Many problems in the world arise because we have lost sight of the basic humanity that unites all members of the human family. We tend to forget that despite the diversity of race, religion, culture, language, and ideology, we all have an equal and fundamental right to peace and happiness. Each one of us wants to be happy and not to suffer. However, although we theoretically praise pluralism, unfortunately we often fail to put it into practice. In fact, our inability to embrace diversity has become a major source of conflict among peoples.8
Interdependence is a law of nature
INTERDEPENDENCE is a fundamental law of nature. It concerns more than just the more evolved forms of life, for even the smallest insects are social beings who, without the slightest religion, law, or education, survive thanks to mutual cooperation, based on an innate recognition of their interrelatedness. The myriad forms of life as well as the subtlest levels of material phenomena are governed by interdependence. All phenomena in the planet we live on, from the oceans to the clouds, the forests, and the flowers that surround us, survive in dependence according to subtle forms of energy. Without appropriate interaction, they disintegrate and disappear.
A sense of responsibility is born from compassion
IN TIBET WE SAY that many illnesses can be cured exclusively by the remedy of love and compassion. These qualities are the ultimate source of happiness, and we need them in our innermost being.
Unfortunately, love and compassion have been excluded from too many areas of social interaction, for too long a time. Confined to the private sphere of the family, their public expression is deemed embarrassing or even naive. This is tragic, for in my opinion the expression of compassion, far from being a mark of idealism cut off from reality, is the most effective way to serve the interests of others as well as our own.
A mind dedicated to compassion is like an overflowing reservoir: it is a constant source of energy, determination, and goodness. You could compare compassion to a seed. If you cultivate it, it makes an abundance of other excellent qualities blossom, such as forgiveness, tolerance, inner strength, and confidence, allowing us to conquer fear and anxiety. The compassionate mind is like an elixir: it has the strength to turn adverse situations into beneficial circumstances. Therefore, we shouldn’t limit our expression of love and compassion just to our family and friends. Nor is compassion the sole responsibility of the clergy and health care and social workers. It necessarily concerns all domains of the human community.
When a conflict arises in the field of politics, business, or religion, the altruistic approach is often the only possible solution. Sometimes the arguments used as means of reconciliation are themselves the cause of the problem. In such a case, when a solution seems impossible, both parties should remember the basic human nature they have in common. That will help them find a way out of the impasse, and in the long run everyone can reach his goal more easily. It is very likely that no one will be completely satisfied, but if both sides make concessions, at least the danger of the conflict degenerating will be defused. We all know that such compromises are the best way to solve problems. So why don’t we use them more often?
When I consider the lack of cooperation in society, I tell myself it is due to ignorance of our interdependent nature. I am often moved by little insects, like bees. The laws of nature dictate that they work together in order to survive, since they are endowed with an instinctive sense of social responsibility. They have no constitution, laws, police, religion, or moral education, but they faithfully work together because of their nature. There are times when they might fight, but in general the entire colony survives thanks to cooperation. Human beings have constitutions, elaborate legal systems and police forces, religions, remarkable intelligence, and hearts endowed with the ability to love. But despite these extraordinary qualities, in actual practice we lag behind the smallest of insects. In some ways, I feel that we are poorer than the bees.
Although we are social animals, forced to live together, we lack a sense of responsibility toward our fellow humans. Does the fault lie in the basic structures of family and society? In the facilities produced by science and technology? I don’t think so.
I think that despite the rapid advances that civilization has made over the past century, the immediate cause of our present situation is exclusively privileging material progress above all else. We have thrown ourselves so frantically into its pursuit that we have neglected to pay attention to the essential human needs of love, kindness, cooperation, and caring. It is clear to me that an authentic sense of responsibility can emerge only if we develop compassion. Only a spontaneous feeling of empathy toward others can motivate us to act on their behalf.
War is an anachronism
WAR, or any form of organized combat, developed alongside civilization and seems to be part of history and of the human temperament.
However, the world is changing, and we have understood that we cannot solve human problems with weapons. The disputes that result from differences of opinion should be settled gradually through dialogue.
Obviously, wars produce conquerors and conquered, but only temporarily. The victories or defeats resulting from wars cannot last very long. Moreover, our world has become so interdependent
that the defeat of one country has repercussions throughout the rest of the world and leads directly or indirectly to suffering and loss for each one of us.
Today, in such an interdependent world, the concept of war seems anachronistic, stemming from outmoded attitudes. We are always talking about reform and change. Many traditions from the past are no longer adapted to the present and are even counterproductive and have thus been relegated to the dustbins of history. War should also be consigned to the dustbins of history.
Unfortunately, although we’ve entered the twenty-first century, we haven’t made a clean break with past habits: I refer to the belief that we can solve problems with weapons. It is because of this idea that the world continues to experience all sorts of difficulties. But what should we do? What is to be done when the major world powers have already made their decisions? We can wish for a gradual end to the tradition of wars.
Naturally, one doesn’t easily put an end to the militaristic tradition. But think about it. If there is carnage, the men in power or the leaders will have safe shelters; they will escape the painful consequences by finding asylum. But what will happen to the poor people, the children, the old, the sick? They are the ones who will have to bear the brunt.
When weapons speak, they create death and destruction without distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. The missile launched by the enemy does not respect the innocent, the poor, the defenseless—the very people deserving of compassion. As a result, the real losers are the ones who lead a simple life.
The only positive point: those benevolent organizations that bring medical and humanitarian aid and intervene in regions torn apart by conflicts. The development of these organizations is a victory of the heart in the modern era.
Let us hope and pray that there is no war at all, if possible. If a war breaks out, let us pray that there is the least possible carnage and suffering. I do not know if our prayers will bring any aid, in concrete terms, but it is all we can do for now.
This declaration was made in Dharamsala on March 11, 2003, when threats of war in Iraq were looming. Six months later, in October 2003, during teachings given in Paris, the Dalai Lama noted that, in the accusations made against Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, no mention was made of the fact that the dictator’s weapons had been made with the use of Western technology. He pointed out that the greed of the weapons-trafficking governments should be denounced along with the bloodthirsty tyrant.
In January 2009 in Sarnath, the Dalai Lama recalled this example in order to illustrate interdependence and the necessity of every individual becoming aware of the universal responsibility we all share and recognizing that the smallest action affects the world.
Everyone must assume a share of universal responsibility
I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE CREATION of mass movements or in ideologies. And I do not appreciate the fashion of creating an organization in order to promote one idea or another, which implies that one small group is solely responsible for carrying out a given project, to the exclusion of everyone else. In the present circumstances, no one should assume that someone else will solve his problems. Everyone must assume his own share of universal responsibility. This way, as the number of concerned, responsible individuals increases—first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands and even hundreds of thousands—the general atmosphere will be improved.9
The Dalai Lama does not subscribe to ideologies that distance individuals from the awareness necessary to assume their humanity fully. The freshness of his position consists in centering the resolution of problems on the individual and on ethics.
Compassion is the truth of the human being, and it comes about by developing an altruistic attitude on the individual level. On a global level, compassion leads to developing universal responsibility. During a time of globalized history and worldwide civilization, we all assume our share of universal responsibility wherever we live. Every individual action has widespread repercussions. Every person’s field of action has become global, with individual freedom conferring duties as well as rights.
As a result of our interdependence, impoverishing a country, a people, or a culture deprives humanity of an irreplaceable share of its rich diversity. An attack on the basic rights of one human individual becomes an attack on the dignity of all.
What’s more, according to the Dalai Lama, awareness of universal responsibility should extend to the realm of the sciences. For human dignity is flouted not just by the policies of repressive and totalitarian governments or by armed conflicts. The moral integrity of human beings has for decades been facing a new challenge that becomes even more pressing as science and technology continue to make new advances. These disciplines now have the power to manipulate the actual genetic codes of life.
To allow science to assume its responsibility in the service of the human individual, the Dalai Lama has been engaged in a dialogue with scholars of worldwide renown. On the basis of Buddhism, understood as a science of the mind, he has emphasized the convergences between his own contemplative tradition and the contemporary neurosciences. As a result of this dialogue, a definition of ethical principles applicable to the scientific realm has emerged, along with innovative research prospects.
My Dialogue with the Sciences
Why is a Buddhist monk interested in science?
IN RECENT DECADES, we have witnessed prodigious advances in the scientific understanding of the human brain and body, and along with new developments in genetics, the investigation of the functioning of the living organism has now reached the very subtle level of individual genes. Heretofore undreamt-of possibilities for manipulating the very codes of the human being have resulted from this. An entirely new form of reality is now emerging for humanity.
Today the question of the interface between science and humanity is no longer just an academic matter but should assume a sense of urgency for all those who are concerned with the fate of humanity. So it seems to me that a dialogue between the neurosciences and society could help deepen our basic understanding of what it means to be human by defining the responsibilities toward nature that we share with other sentient beings. I am happy to note that, as part of this wider interface, some neuroscientists are showing more and more interest in engaging in deeper conversations with the contemplative disciplines of Buddhism.
I began by approaching the sciences with the curiosity of an insatiable boy who grew up in Tibet. Then I gradually became aware of the colossal importance of science and technology in understanding the contemporary world. Not only did I try to grasp scientific concepts, but I also wanted to explore the wider implications of the recent advances in science for the field of human knowledge and technological ability. The specific realms of science that I have explored over the years are subatomic physics, cosmology, biology, and psychology. The limited understanding I acquired in these disciplines I owe to the hours that Carl von Weizsäcker and the late David Bohm generously shared with me. I am profoundly grateful to them, and I regard them as my professors of quantum mechanics. In biology and the neurosciences, my teachers were Robert Livingstone and Francisco Varela, both now deceased. I also owe a lot to the many eminent scholars with whom I have had the privilege of talking under the auspices of the institute that initiated the “Mind and Life” conferences at my residence in Dharamsala, India, in 1987. These dialogues continued over time, and we have concluded the last one here, in Washington, this week.
I understand that many of you are wondering, “Why is a Buddhist monk so interested in science? What connection can there be between modern science and Buddhism, an ancient Indian philosophical and spiritual tradition? What sort of benefit can a discipline such as the neurosciences gain by engaging in a dialogue with the contemplative Buddhist tradition?”
Although our tradition and contemporary science have evolved from different historical, intellectual, and cultural roots, I believe that at bottom they share a similar philosophical outlook and methodology. On the philosophical level, Buddhism and moder
n science both question any notion of the absolute, whether it presents itself as a transcendent being, an eternal, unchanging principle, such as the soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Buddhism and science prefer to take into account the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and of life, in terms of complex interrelations stemming from the natural law of causality.
As for their methodology, both traditions insist on the role of empiricism. Thus, in Buddhist investigation, out of the three sources of knowledge—experience, reason, and testimony—it is experiential proof that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. That means that, in Buddhist questioning of reality, at least in principle, empirical proof holds sway over scriptural authority, no matter how venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge deduced by reasoning or inference, its validity must ultimately be confirmed by factual experience.
Because of this methodological viewpoint, I have often pointed out to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified discoveries made by modern astronomy should compel us to modify and, in some cases, reject many aspects of traditional cosmology expounded in ancient religious treatises.
Since the primary motive of Buddhist analysis of reality is a fundamental quest to overcome suffering and perfect the human condition, the primary orientation of our investigative tradition has been to understand the human mind and the different ways it functions. The presupposition is that by acquiring a more profound understanding of the psyche, we will find the way to transform our thoughts, emotions, and their underlying propensities so as to define a healthier, more satisfying way of living.