The following is a report of the speech given by the Dalai Lama when he visited my city. I have had the fortune of attending it after a certain degree of difficulty. Finally, I arrived at the venue fifteen minutes late for the event I had been planning to attend since three months.
My attempt to elaborate what I jotted down on my notebook during the speech and what I understood out of it is purely my understanding of what I heard, and what my mind processed, based on the preset cogs of dogmas within my brain. If any interpretation or idea is represented wrongly, it is wholly my imperfection, and the reader should not attribute it to the holy soul, the Dalai Lama.
=====================================================================
As I entered, he asked the enrapt audience if they thought whether ethics were essentially based on religious faith. He paused a second for the audience to take cognisance, and said that he does not think so. Then, he went on to explain the meaning of ethics, and he said that ethics were what a person perceived as good, bad, right or wrong. He continued, saying that actions or motivations that bring happiness or joy are ethics. He then went onto explain the purity of mother's love, and how it is reciprocated by the child. He pointed the mother's selflessness when she even risks her life in order to protect an offspring, and went on to note how it is applicable to the animal world as well. He gave the example of butterflies or moths or salmon which lay eggs, and leave the young to hatch, feed and live by themselves. He said that there is no bond between the parent and the child in these cases. He mentioned that this is nature's way.
Continuing his topic of parent-child relationship, he explored the origins of the feelings of bonding in a new born, when he/she is suckling - the time when the child feels content, and safe. He said that this feeling within them would remain for the rest of the child's life. He added at this point that the child's affection towards the mother would remain within the child for the rest of his/her life. He gave out an idea that this feeling of contentment is what guides a person towards setting human values. The Dalai Lama emphatically stated that the basic human values do not come from religious tenets, but from natural factors, thus supporting his earlier stated point that ethics need not be based on religious principles.
He gave the example of Nazis and their leaders Hitler and Speer, who he proclaimed were probably brought up the same way as other children, and they might have continued to build up on the values they had been imparted, but they chose otherwise. He gave this example, stressing the universality of human values.
Moving on, he spoke about what brings happiness to a man. He said that anger and hatred never give happiness, they are born out of fear, and that they only give rise to insecurity and suspicion. On the other hand, he said that feelings like compassion, affection and friendship bring happiness. A person's inner strength and self-confidence automatically reduce the feeling of fear, in his opinion. Compassion, honesty and truthfulness, which are the basic human values, build self-confidence. He opined that the acceptance of this is a secular approach. In effect, he summarises that ethics are not based on religion, but rather they are based on basic human values like compassion. He narrated that he had met a neuro-scientist who had told him of his research and found that compassion, peace and calm would do a lot of good for a person's health, and even build up the immune system. He points to the directly proportional relationship between compassion and the immune system. He cautions that there is also an inversely proportional relationship between anger and the immune system.
He jestingly asked if a happy life can be bought at a super market and scoldingly took a dig at people who commit suicide, calling them 'foolish'. He said that life is anyway racing towards death, and that illness, old age, adversities are all parts of life, and that they are to be accepted as such. He seemed to question 'Why then, would one choose to commit suicide?' He stated that a person should prepare his/her mind to accept them, as they could visit anytime. He cautions that if a person is not prepared, surprise would be inevitable.
He said that what is perceived as an unfortunate event can be changed to a fortunate event by changing the way we look at things. So, mental attitude determines happy individual relationships, happy marriage and happy society as a whole. He quoted an ancient Indian Buddhist teacher,saying that if a person faced a serious problem, the person could (i) stay calm and concentrate on trying to find a solution; (ii) on the other hand, if the person is sure there is no solution to the problem, what is the point in worrying at all? He said it has to be accepted as a part of the person's life. He further states that the human mind is very sophisticated, and that it is a mystery.
He said that compassion gives rise to open mindedness, spiritual reconciliation and normal effective functioning of the brain. He continued, saying that decisions taken in negative emotions always go wrong and we tend to see everything as negative when we are angry. He added that negative thoughts/emotions distort reality.
He stressed that one should make the distinction between positive and negative emotions, as they have a very important role in building inner values. This distinction, he stated can be made by a person only through education. He thinks that the purpose of education should be to reduce disparity between appearance and reality.
He chidingly stated that these days, people spend about 90% of their time on the satisfaction of outside senses. Like a parent counsels a child with words of wisdom after chiding, he continued saying that the satisfaction of sensory experiences - sound, taste, smell, touch or sight would lead a person to believing that he/she is happy. He stressed that this is not true happiness. He said that true happiness is achieved through mental satisfaction, and that it is superior. Pointing the virtues of mental happiness, he said that through mental happiness, physical disabilities can be easily endured, but the vice versa does not hold true. He stated that physical problems can be settled by physical things, like pain in an arm can be cured with a medication. Similarly, he said mental problems can be cured only mentally, which can be achieved by paying more attention to inner values which in turn can only be built through education. Continuing on building basic human values, he said that if a person remains compassionate, honest and truthful, the person would have inner peace, no matter how others saw him/her.
The Dalai Lama thinks that all the religions in the world basically have the same underlying messages, which are compassion, love, contentment, tolerance, self-discipline, forgiveness, etc. He observed that economy, self-interests, money and power are some factors that manipulate religion, and that religion is used for vested interests. He opined that since religion touches the human emotion, manipulating it gives a cunning person the power to control the believers. He said that these people are not sincere religious practitioners and that their aim is money, or power or other material longings.
He moved on to say that the world is like one human family. He said, at the individual level, the concept of one truth, one religion holds. He also stated that when people of different faiths meet, the concept of many religions, many truths comes up. But, he adds that the concept of the following monism on individual level, and pluralism on the society-level is non-contradictory. He then stated that in Buddhist, Jain and old Indian belief, there is no concept of the creator or God. He ventured on the theory of Karma - which states that a person is his/her own master.
At this point, the Dalai Lama caused an eerie silence in the hall when he said that the concept of creator or God needs to be removed, so that the different cultures can co-exist.
While answering a question, the Nobel Peace prize winner said he was 70, and quite experienced. He admitted that he was short tempered, and frustrated as a youth. He noted that he now is older, and importantly, wiser. He said that all these are to be accepted as part of life.
He advised that one should not lose hope and determination. He mentioned an interesting way of looking at things and something that would would give hope. He said that if one experiences failure 9 times, he/she should be hopeful 9 times, and that he/she would be successful the next time. Rather, if the person loses hope the first time itself, or, say the fifth time, he/she would not taste success in the tenth attempt.
When asked about his thoughts on world poverty, he said that poverty should be fought on a 1) national level, 2) global level. He said that even in the capital city of the world's most developed country, USA - in Washington DC, there are lots of poor people, underlining that this is a common problem in the world as a whole. He said that the poor should work hard with their own efforts, without losing hope, or being discouraged. He also stated that the richer sections of the society must be attentive, and help in imparting education, training and equipment to the poorer sections.
He jested, saying that one should work hard to achieve something, and that meditation would not help feed a hungry stomach. He mentioned that he says the same thing to the Tibetans in India. On a sombre note, he said that the richer countries need to change their lifestyle, and that they should develop contentment, and be more considerate.
He pointed that some societies like the former USSR and present China have tried/are trying to force equality between the poor and the rich, but he thinks that this concept has failed/is failing.
To a question on what his message to the world leaders would be in context of the environment-economy with reference to climate change, he immediately stated that he does not have an answer, stunning the audience with his honesty. He later went on to give the following explanation. (which seems to contradict his earlier statement that he does not have an answer)
He said that each leader thinks of his/her own nation first, but they need to think more wholistically. He advised that oneness of the planet should be adopted and that the realisation should dawn upon everybody that the world is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and that the traditional mindset of looking for the interests of one's own country must be improved on. He said that the media should help raise awareness about climate change and that the politicians should follow course to implement corrective action. He observed that the present generation have a moral responsibility of protecting resources for the next generation.
