This teaching was given at the National Tennis Centre, Melbourne, Australia on May 4, 1992.
Two Levels of Spirituality
Brothers and Sisters, I would like to address the topic of spiritual values by defining two levels of spirituality
To
begin, let me say that as human beings our basic aim is to have a happy life;
we all want to experience happiness. It is natural for us to seek happiness. This
is our life's purpose. The reason is quite clear: when we lose hope, the result
is that we become depressed and perhaps even suicidal. Therefore, our very existence
is strongly rooted in hope. Although there is no guarantee of what the future
will bring, it is because we have hope that we are able to continue living. Therefore,
we can say that the purpose of our life, our life's goal, is happiness.
Human
beings are not produced by machines. We are more than just matter; we have feeling
and experience. For that reason, material comfort alone is not enough. We need
something deeper, what I usually refer to as human affection, or compassion. With
human affection, or compassion, all the material advantages that we have at our
disposal can be very constructive and can produce good results. Without human
affection, however, material advantages alone will not satisfy us, nor will they
produce in us any measure of mental peace or happiness. In fact, material advantages
without human affection may even create additional problems. Therefore, human
affection, or compassion, is the key to human happiness.
The First Level of Spirituality:
The Religions of the World and Their Value for Humanity
The
first level of spirituality, for human beings everywhere, is faith in one of the
many religions of the world. I think there is an important role for each of the
major world religions, but in order for them to make an effective contribution
to the benefit of humanity from the religious side, there are two important factors
to be considered.
The first of these factors is that individual practitioners
of the various religions -- that is, we ourselves -- must practice sincerely.
Religious teachings must be an integral part of our lives; they should not be
separated from our lives. Sometimes we go into a church or temple and say a prayer,
or generate some kind of spiritual feeling, and then, when we step outside the
church or temple, none of that religious feeling remains. This is not the proper
way to practice. The religious message must be with us wherever we are. The teachings
of our religion must be present in our lives so that, when we really need or require
blessings or inner strength, those teachings will be there even at such times;
they will be there when we experience difficulties because they are constantly
present. Only when religion has become an integral part of our lives can it be
really effective.
We also need to experience more deeply the meanings and
spiritual values of our own religious tradition -- we need to know these teachings
not only on an intellectual level but also through our own deeper experience.
Sometimes we understand different religious ideas on an overly superficial or
intellectual level. Without a deeper feeling, the effectiveness of religion becomes
limited. Therefore, we must practice sincerely, and religion must become part
of our lives.
The Importance of a Close Relationship Among Religions
The
second factor is concerned more with interaction among the various world religions.
Today, because of increasing technological change and the nature of the world
economy, we are much more dependent on one another than ever before. Different
countries, different continents, have become more closely associated with one
another. In reality the survival of one region of the world depends on that of
others. Therefore, the world has become much closer, much more interdependent.
As a result, there is more human interaction. Under such circumstances, the idea
of pluralism among the world's religions is very important. In previous times,
when communities lived separately from one another and religions arose in relative
isolation, the idea that there was only one religion was very useful. But now
the situation has changed, and the circumstances are entirely different. Now,
therefore, it is crucial to accept the fact that different religions exist, and
in order to develop genuine mutual respect among them, close contact among the
various religions is essential. This is the second factor that will enable the
world's religions to be effective in benefiting humanity.
When I was in Tibet,
I had no contact with people of different religious faiths, so my attitude toward
other religions was not very positive. But once I had had the opportunity to meet
with people of different faiths and to learn from personal contact and experience,
my attitude toward other religions changed. I realized how useful to humanity
other religions are, and what potential each has to contribute to a better world.
In the last several centuries the various religions have made marvelous contributions
toward the betterment of human beings, and even today there are large numbers
of followers of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and so forth.
Millions of people are benefiting from all these religions.
To give an example
of the value of meeting people of different faiths, my meetings with the late
Thomas Merton made me realize what a beautiful, wonderful person he was. On another
occasion I met with a Catholic monk in Monserrat, one of Spain's famous monasteries.
I was told that this monk had lived for several years as a hermit on a hill just
behind the monastery. When I visited the monastery, he came down from his hermitage
especially to meet me. As it happened, his English was even worse than mine, and
this gave me more courage to speak with him! We remained face to face, and I inquired,
"In those few years, what were you doing on that hill!" He looked at
me and answered, "Meditation on compassion, on love." As he said those
few words, I understood the message through his eyes. I truly developed genuine
admiration for this person and for others like him. Such experiences have helped
confirm in my mind that all the world's religions have the potential to produce
good people, despite their differences of philosophy and doctrine. Each religious
tradition has its own wonderful message to convey.
For example, from the
Buddhist point of view the concept of a creator is illogical; because of the ways
in which Buddhists analyze causality, it is a difficult concept for Buddhists
to understand. However, this is not the place to discuss philosophical issues.
The important point here is that for the people who do follow those teachings
in which the basic faith is in a creator, that approach is very effective. According
to those traditions, the individual human being is created by God. Moreover, as
I recently learned from one of my Christian friends, they do not accept the theory
of rebirth and, thus, do not accept past or future lives. They accept only this
life. However, they hold that this very life is created by God, by the creator,
and that idea develops in them a feeling of intimacy with God. Their most important
teaching is that since it is by God's will that we are here, our future depends
upon the creator, and that because the creator is considered to be holy and supreme,
we must love God, the creator.
What follows from this is the teaching that
we should love our fellow human beings -- this is the primary message here. The
reasoning is that if we love God, we must love our fellow human beings because
they, like us, were created by God. Their future, like ours, depends on the creator;
therefore, their situation is like our own. Consequently, the faith of people
who say, "Love God," but who themselves do not show genuine love toward
their fellow human beings is questionable. The person who believes in God and
in love for God must demonstrate the sincerity of his or her love of God through
love directed toward fellow human beings. This approach is very powerful, isn't
it?
Thus, if we examine each religion from various angles in the same way
-- not simply from our own philosophical position but from several points of view
-- there can be no doubt that all major religions have the potential to improve
human beings. This is obvious. Through close contact with those of other faiths
it is possible to develop a broadminded attitude and mutual respect with regard
to other religions. Close contact with different religions helps me to learn new
ideas, new practices, and new methods or techniques that I can incorporate into
my own practice. Similarly, some of my Christian brothers and sisters have adopted
certain Buddhist methods -- for example, the practice of one-pointedness of mind
as well as techniques to help improve tolerance, compassion, and love. There is
great benefit when practitioners of different religions come together for this
kind of interchange. In addition to the development of harmony among them, there
are other benefits to be gained as well.
Politicians and national leaders
frequently talk about "coexistence" and "coming together."
Why not we religious people too? I think the time has come. At Assisi in 1987,
for example, leaders and representatives of various world religions met to pray
together, although I am not certain whether "prayer" is the exact word
to describe the practice of all these religions accurately. In any case, what
is important is that representatives of the various religions come together in
one place and, according to their own belief, pray. This is already happening
and is, I think, a very positive development. Nevertheless, we still need to put
more effort toward developing harmony and closeness among the world's religions,
since without such effort, we will continue to experience the many problems that
divide humanity.
If religion were the only remedy for reducing human conflict,
but that remedy itself became another source of conflict, it would be disastrous.
Today, as in the past, conflicts take place in the name of religion, because of
religious differences, and I think this is very, very sad. But as I mentioned
earlier, if we think broadly, deeply, we will realize that the situation in the
past is entirely different from the situation today. We are no longer isolated
but are instead interdependent. Today, therefore, it is very important to realize
that a close relationship among the various religions is essential, so that different
religious groups may work closely together and make a common effort for the benefit
of humankind.
Thus, sincerity and faith in religious practice on the one
hand, and religious tolerance and cooperation on the other, comprise this first
level of the value of spiritual practice to humanity.
The
Second Level of Spirituality:
Compassion as the Universal Religion
The
second level of spirituality is more important than the first because, no matter
how wonderful any religion may be, it is still accepted only by a very limited
number of people. The majority of the five or six billion human beings on our
planet probably do not practice any religion at all. According to their family
background they might identify themselves as belonging to one religious group
or another -- "I am Hindu"; "I am Buddhist"; "I am Christian"
-- but deep down, most of these individuals are not necessarily practitioners
of any religious faith. That is all right; whether or not a person embraces a
religion is that person's right as an individual. All the great ancient masters,
such as Buddha, Mahavira, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed, failed to make the entire
human population spiritually minded. The fact is that nobody can do that. Whether
those nonbelievers are called atheists does not matter. Indeed, according to some
Western scholars, Buddhists are also atheists, since they do not accept a creator.
Therefore, I sometimes add one more word to describe these nonbelievers, and that
is "extreme"; I call them extreme nonbelievers. They are not only nonbelievers
but are extreme in their view in that they hold that spirituality has no value.
However, we must remember that these people are also a part of humanity, and that
they also, like all human beings, have the desire to be happy -- to have a happy
and peaceful life. This is the important point.
I believe that it is all
right to remain a nonbeliever, but as long as you are a part of humanity, as long
as you are a human being, you need human affection, human compassion. This is
actually the essential teaching of all the religious traditions: the crucial point
is compassion, or human affection. Without human affection, even religious beliefs
can become destructive. Thus, the essence, even in religion, is a good heart.
I consider human affection, or compassion, to be the universal religion. Whether
a believer or a nonbeliever, everyone needs human affection and compassion, because
compassion gives us inner strength, hope, and mental peace. Thus, it is indispensable
for everyone.
Let us, for example, examine the usefulness of the good heart
in daily life. If we are in a good mood when we get up in the morning, if there
is a warm-hearted feeling within, automatically our inner door is opened for that
day. Even should an unfriendly person happen along, we would not experience much
disturbance and may even manage to say something nice to that person. We could
chat with the not-so-friendly person and perhaps even have a meaningful conversation.
But on a day when our mood is less positive and we are feeling irritated, automatically
our inner door closes. As a result, even if we encounter our best friend, we feel
uncomfortable and strained. These instances shows how our inner attitude makes
a great difference in our daily experiences. Therefore, in order to create a pleasant
atmosphere within ourselves, within our families, within our communities, we have
to realize that the ultimate source of that pleasant atmosphere is within the
individual, within each of us -- a good heart, human compassion, love.
Once
we create a friendly and positive atmosphere, it automatically helps to reduce
fear and insecurity. In this way we can easily make more friends and create more
smiles. After all, we are social animals. Without human friendship, without the
human smile, our life becomes miserable. The lonely feeling becomes unbearable.
It is a natural law -- that is to say, according to natural law we depend on others
to live. If, under certain circumstances, because something is wrong inside us,
our attitude toward fellow human beings, on whom we depend, becomes hostile, how
can we hope to attain peace of mind or a happy life? According to basic human
nature, or natural law, affection-compassion-is the key to happiness.
According
to contemporary medicine, a positive mental state, or peace of mind, is also beneficial
for our physical health. If we are constantly agitated, we end up harming our
own health. Therefore, even from the point of view of our health, mental calmness
and peacefulness are very important. This shows that the physical body itself
appreciates and responds to human affection, human peace of mind.
Basic
Human Nature
If we look at basic human nature, we see that our nature is
more gentle than aggressive. For example, if we examine various animals, we notice
that animals of a more peaceful nature have a corresponding body structure, whereas
predatory animals have a body structure that has developed according to their
nature. Compare the tiger and the deer: there are great differences in their physical
structures. When we compare our own body structure to theirs, we see that we resemble
deer and rabbits more than tigers. Even our teeth are more like theirs, are they
not? They are not like a tiger's. Our nails are another good example -- I cannot
even catch a rat with my human fingernails alone. Of course, because of human
intelligence, we are able to devise and use various tools and methods to accomplish
things that would be difficult to accomplish without them. Thus, as you can see,
because of our physical situation we belong to the gentle- animal category. I
think this is our fundamental human nature as shown by our basic physical structure.
Compassion
and Conflict Resolution
iven our current global situation, cooperation is
essential, especially in fields such as economics and education. The concept that
differences are important is now more or less gone, as demonstrated by the movement
toward a unified Western Europe. This movement is, I think, truly marvelous and
very timely. Yet this close work between nations did not come about because of
compassion or religious faith, but rather because of necessity. There is a growing
tendency in the world toward global awareness. Under current circumstances a closer
relationship with others has become an element of our very survival. Therefore,
the concept of universal responsibility based on compassion and on a sense of
brotherhood and sisterhood is now essential. The world is full of conflicts --
conflicts because of ideology, because of religion, even conflicts within families:
conflicts based on one person wanting one thing and another wanting something
else. So if we examine the sources of these many conflicts, we find that there
are many different sources, many different causes, even within ourselves.
Yet, in the meantime, we have the potential and ability to come together in harmony.
All these other things are relative. Although there are many sources of conflict,
there are at the same time many sources that bring about unity and harmony. The
time has come to put more emphasis on unity. Here again there must be human affection.
For example, you many have a different ideological or religious opinion from someone
else. If you respect the other's rights and sincerely show a compassionate attitude
toward that person, then it does not matter whether his or her idea is suitable
for yourself; that is secondary. As long as the other person believes in it, as
long as that person benefits from such a viewpoint, it is his or her absolute
right. So we must respect that and accept the fact that different viewpoints exist.
In the realm of economics as well, one's competitors must also receive some profit,
because they too have to survive. When we have a broader perspective based on
compassion, I think things become much easier. Once again, compassion is the key
factor.
Demilitarization
Today,
our world situation has eased considerably. Fortunately, we can now think and
talk seriously about demilitarization, or at least the idea of demilirarization.
Five years ago, or perhaps even as recently as two years ago, it was difficult
even to think about it, but now the Cold War between the former Soviet Union and
the United States is over. With regard to the United States, I always tell my
American friends, "Your strength comes not from nuclear weapons but from
your ancestors' noble ideas of freedom, liberty, and democracy." When I was
in the United States in 1991, I had the opportunity of meeting with former President
George Bush. At that time we discussed the New World Order, and I said to him,
"A New World Order with compassion is very good. I'm not so sure about a
New World Order without compassion." I now believe that the time is ripe
to think and talk about demilitarization. There are already some signs of weapons
reduction and for the first time, denuclearization. Step by step, we are seeing
a reduction in weapons, and I think our goal should be to free the world -- our
small planet -- from weapons. This does not mean, however, that we should abolish
all forms of weapons. We may need to keep some, since there are always some mischievous
people and groups among us. In order to take precautions and be safeguarded from
these sources, we could create a system of regionally monitored international
police forces, not necessarily belonging to any one nation but controlled collectively
and supervised ultimately by an organization like the United Nations or another
similar international body. That way, with no weapons available, there would be
no danger of military conflict between nations, and there would also be no civil
wars.
War has remained, sadly, a part of human history up to the present,
but I think the time has come to change the concepts that lead to war. Some people
consider war to be something glorious; they think that through war they can become
heroes. This usual attitude toward war is very wrong. Recently an interviewer
remarked to me, "Westerners have a great fear of death, but Easterners seem
to have very little fear of death." To that I half-jokingly responded, "It
seems to me that, to the Western mind, war and the military establishment are
extremely important. War means death -- by killing, not by natural causes. So
it seems that, in fact, you are the ones who do not fear death, because you are
so fond of war. We Easterners, particularly Tibetans, cannot even begin to consider
war; we cannot conceive of fighting, because the inevitable result of war is disaster:
death, injuries, and misery. Therefore, the concept of war, in our minds, is extremely
negative. That means we actually have more fear of death than you. Don't you think?"
Unfortunately, because of certain factors, our ideas about war are incorrect.
Therefore, the time has come to think seriously about demilitarization.
I
felt this very strongly during and after the Persian Gulf crisis. Of course, everybody
blamed Saddam Hussein, and there is no question that Saddam Hussein is negative
-- he made many mistakes and acted wrongly in many ways. After all, he is a dictator,
and a dictator is, of course, something negative. However, without his military
establishment, without his weapons, Saddam Hussein could not function as that
kind of dictator. Who supplied those weapons? The suppliers also bear the responsibility.
Some Western nations supplied him with weapons without regard for the consequences.
To think only of money, of making a profit from selling weapons, is really
terrible. I once met a French woman who had spent many years in Beirut, Lebanon.
She told me with great sadness that during the crisis in Beirut there were people
at one end of the city making a profit selling weapons, and that every day, at
the other end of the city, other-innocent-people were being killed with those
very weapons. Similarly, on one side of our planet there are people living a lavish
life with the profits made from selling arms, while innocent people are getting
killed with those fancy bullets on the other side of our planet. Therefore, the
first step is to stop selling weapons. Sometimes I tease my Swedish friends: "Oh,
you are really wonderful. During the last period of conflict you remained neutral.
And you always consider the importance of human rights and world peace. Very good.
But in the meantime you are selling many weapons. This is a little bit of a contradiction,
isn't it?"
Therefore, since the time of the Persian Gulf crisis I myself
made an inner pledge -- a commitment that for the rest of my life I will contribute
to furthering the idea of demilitarizarion. As far as my own country is concerned,
I have made up my mind that in the future, Tibet should be a completely demilirarized
zone. Once again, in working to bring about demilitarization, the key factor is
human compassion.
Conclusion: The Meaning of Compassion
I
have talked a great deal about compassion without explaining its precise meaning.
I would like to conclude by explaining the meaning of compassion, which is often
misunderstood. Genuine compassion is based not on our own projections and expectations,
but rather on the rights of the other: irrespective of whether another person
is a close friend or an enemy, as long as that person wishes for peace and happiness
and wishes to overcome suffering, then on that basis we develop genuine concern
for his or her problem. This is genuine compassion.
Usually when we are concerned
about a close friend, we call this compassion. This is not compassion; it is attachment.
Even in marriage, those marriages that last a long time do so not because of attachment
-- although it is generally present -- but because there is also compassion. Marriages
that last only a short time do so because of a lack of compassion; there is only
emotional attachment based on projection and expectation. When the only bond between
close friends is attachment, then even a minor issue may cause one's projections
to change. As soon as our projections change, the attachment disappears -- because
that attachment was based solely on projection and expectation.
It is possible
to have compassion without attachment -- and similarly, to have anger without
hatred. Therefore, we need to clarify the distinctions between compassion and
attachment, and between anger and hatred. Such clarity is useful in our daily
life and in our efforts toward world peace. I consider these to be basic spiritual
values for the happiness of all human beings, regardless of whether