PLEASURE IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF LIFE BUT HAPPINESS(*) IS



INTRODUCTION


I’d like to share with you part of the last chapter of my doctoral thesis at the University of Cambridge (ENGLAND) which revolves on happiness from a linguistic perspective. In the early 1980s, I was given the permission to converse with the Dalai Lama at his home in Dharamsala in India as part of my dissertation. Although my thesis is about Linguistics, the last part of it centres on pleasure as opposed to happiness from a linguistic point of view.



HAPPINESS IS YOUR BIRTHRIGHT

“I believe that the very purpose of our life is to seek(*) happiness. That is clear. Whether one believes in religion or not, whether one believes in this religion or that religion, we are all seeking something better in life. So, I think, the very notion of our life is towards happiness…”

With this words, spoken by the Dalai Lama cut to the heart of his message. But his claim that the purpose of life was happiness raised a question in my mind then. Later, when we were conversing, I asked, “Are you happy?”

“Yes,” he said. He paused, then added, “Yes . . . definitely.”
There was a quiet sincerity in his voice that left no doubt – a sincerity that was reflected in his expression and in his eyes.

“But is happiness a reasonable goal for most of us?” I asked. “Is it really possible?”

“Yes. I believe that happiness can be achieved through training the mind.”
On a basic human level, I couldn’t help but respond to the idea of happiness as an achievable goal. However, I had been burdened by notions such Freud’s belief that “one feels inclined to say that the intention that man should be ‘happy’ is not included in the plan of ‘Creation.’ ” This type of training had led many professions to the grim conclusion that the most one could hope for was “the transformation of hysteric misery into common unhappiness.” From that standpoint, the claim that there was a clearly defined path to happiness seemed like quite a radical idea. As I looked back over my years of training, I could rarely recall having heard the word “happiness” even mentioned as an objective in life. Of course, there were plenty of talks, conferences and workshops relieving people's symptoms of depression or anxiety, or resolving internal conflicts or relationship problems, but never with the expressly stated goal of becoming happy.

The concept of achieving true happiness has, in the West, always seemed ill-defined, elusive, ungraspable. Even the word “happy” is derived from the Icelandic word happ, meaning luck or chance. Most of u, it seems, share this view of the mysterious nature of happiness. In those moments of joy that life brings, happiness feels like something that comes out of the blue. To the Western mind, it didn’t seem the sort of thing that one could develop, and sustain, simply by train-
ing the mind”
- - - - - - -
* Although this is the Dalai Lama’s word, I quite disagree with it now as I came to understand more about the issue of happiness. I personally think we don’t “seek” what we already have.
- - - - - - - -



When I raised that objection, the Dalai Lama was quick to explain, “When I say ‘training the mind,’ in this context I’m not referring to ‘mind’ merely as one’s cognitive ability or intellect. Rather, I’m using the term in the sense of the Tibetan word Sem, which has a much broader meaning, closer to ‘psyche’ or ‘spirit’; it includes intellect and feeling, heart and mind. By bringing about a certain inner discipline, we can undergo a transformation of our attitude, our entire outlook and approach to living.

“When we speak of this inner discipline, it can of course involve many, many methods. But generally speaking, one begins by identifying those factors which lead to happiness and those factors which lead to suffering. Having done this, one then sets about gradually eliminating those factors which lead to suffering and cultivating those factors which lead to happiness. That is the way.”

The Dalai Lama claims to have found some measure of personal happiness. And through the week of our conversation/”interview”, I often witnessed how his personal happiness can manifest as a simple willingness to reach out to others, to create a feeling of affinity and goodwill, even the briefest of encounters.

One morning the Dalai Lama was walking an outside patio on his way back to his home, surrounded by usual retinue. Noticing one of an Inn’s housekeeping staff standing by, he paused to ask her, “Where are you from?” For a moment she appeared taken aback by this foreign-looking man in the maroon robes and seemed puzzled by the deference of the entourage. Then she smiled and answered shyly, “Vietnam.” He briefly chat with her a few moments and then walked on, leaving her with a look of excitement and pleasure on her face. The next morning at the same time, she appeared at the same spot with another of the housekeeping staff, and the two of them greeted him warmly. The interaction was brief, but the two of them appeared flushed with happiness as they returned to work. Everyday after that, they were joined by a few more of the housekeeping staff at the designated time and place, until by the end of the week there were nearly a dozen of maids in their crisp grey-and-white uniforms forming a receiving line that stretched along the length of the path.

Our days are numbered. At this very moment, many thousands are born into the world, some destined to live only a few days or weeks, and then tragically succumb to illness or other misfortune. Others are destined to push through to the century mark, perhaps even a bit beyond, and savour every taste life has to “offer”: triumph, despair, joy, hatred, and love. We never know. But whether we live a day or a century, a central question always remains: What is the purpose of life? What makes our lives meaningful?

The purpose of our existence is to feel and be happy. It seems like common sense, and Western thinkers from Aristotle to William James have agreed with this idea. But isn’t a life based on “seeking” personal happiness by nature self-centred, even self-indulgent? Not necessarily. In fact, survey after survey has shown that it is unhappy people who tend to be most self-focused and are often socially withdrawn, brooding, and even antagonistic. Happy people, in contrast, are generally found to be more sociable, flexible, and creative and are able to tolerate life’s daily frustrations more easily than unhappy people. And, most important, they are found to be more loving and forgiving than unhappy people.

Researchers have devised some interesting experiments demonstrating that happy people exhibit a certain quality of openness, a willingness to reach out and help others. They managed, for instance, to induce a happy mood in a test subject by arranging to have the person unexpectedly find money in a phone box. Posing as a stranger, one of the experiments then walked by and “accidentally” dropped a load of papers. The investigators wanted to see whether the subject would stop to help the stranger. In another scenario, the subjects’ spirits were lifted by listening to a comedy album, and then they were approached by some in need (also in cahoots with the experimenter) wanting to borrow money. The investigators discovered that the subjects who were feeling happy were more likely to help someone or to lend money than another “control group” of individuals who were presented with the same opportunity to help but whose mood had not been boosted ahead of time.

While these kinds of experiments contradict the notion that the pursuit and achievement of personal happiness somehow lead to selfishness and self-absorption, we can all conduct our own experiment in the laboratory of our own daily lives. Suppose, for instance, we’re stuck in traffic. After twenty minutes it finally begins moving again at around parade speed. We see someone in another car signalling that she wants to pull into our lane ahead of us. If we’re in a good mood we are more likely to slow down and wave them on ahead. If we’re feeling miserable, our response may be simply to speed up and close the gap. “Well, I’ve been stuck here waiting all this time; why shouldn’t they.”

We begin, then, the basic premise that the purpose of life is to be happy. It is a vision of happiness as a real objective, one that we can take positive steps towards achieving. And as we begin to identify the factors that lead to a happier life, we will learn how the search for happiness offers benefits not only for the individual but for the individual’s family and for society at large as well.


THE SOURCES OF HAPPINESS

Twenty or so years ago, a friend of mine had an unexpected windfall. Eighteen months before that time she had quit her job as a nurse to go to work for two friends who were starting a small health-care company, my friend emerged from the buyout dripping with stock options – enough to be able to retire at the age of forty-five. I saw her not long ago and asked how she was enjoying her retirement. “Well”, she said, “it’s great being able to travel and do the things that I’ve always wanted to do. But,” she added, “it’s strange, after I’ve got over all the excitement of making all that money, things kinda returned to normal. I mean things are different – I bought a new hose and stuff – but overall I don’t think I’m much happier than I was before.” On hearing her, reminded me of my own life story. I was earning much more than I am now, but I don’t think I was happier then compared to how I feel and am now.

Just around the time that my friend was cashing in on her windfall profits, I had another friend of around the same age who found out he was HIV positive. We spoke about how he was dealing with his HIV status. “Of course, I was devastated at first,” he said. “And it took me almost a year just to come to term with the fact that I had the virus. But over the past year things have changed. I seem to get more out of each day than I ever did before, and on a moment-to-moment basis, I feel happier than I ever have. I just seem to appreciate everyday things more, and I’m grateful that so far I haven’t developed any severe AIDS symptoms and I can really enjoy the thing I have. And even though I’d rather not be HIV positive, I have to admit that in some ways it has transformed my life . . . in positive ways . . .”

“In what ways?” I asked.
“Well, for instance, you know that I’ve always tended to be a confirmed materialist. But over the past year coming to terms with my mortality has opened up a whole new world. I’ve started exploring spirituality for the first time in my life, reading a lot of books on the subject and talking to people . . . discovering so many things that I’ve never even thought about before. It makes me excited about just getting up in the morning, about seeing what the day will bring.”

Both these people and many more people of different personal circumstances illustrate the essential point that happiness is determined by one’s state of mind than by external events. Success may result in a temporary feeling of elation, or tragedy may send us into a period of depression, but sooner or later our overall level of happiness tends to migrate back to a central baseline because it was and is always there all along. Psychologists call this process "adaptation", and we can see how this principle operates in our everyday life; a pay raise, a new car, or recognition from our peers may lift our mood for a while, but we soon return to our customary level of happiness. In the same way, an argument with a friend or partner, a car in the repair shop, or a major injury may put us in a foul mood, but within a matter of days our spirits rebound. Why is this so? Well, because happiness is our true and innate nature.

This tendency isn’t limited to trivial, everyday events but persists even under more extreme conditions of triumph or disaster. Researchers surveying Illinois state lottery winners and British pool winners, for instance, found that the initial high eventually wore off and the winners returned to their usual range of moment-to-moment happiness. And other studies have demonstrated that even those who are struck by catastrophic events such as cancer, blindness, or paralysis typically recover their normal or near-normal level of day-to-day happiness after an appropriate adjustment period.

So, if we tend to return to our characteristic baseline level of happiness no matter what our external conditions are, what determines this baseline? And, more important, can it be modified, set at a higher level? Some researchers have recently argued that an individual’s characteristic level of happiness or well-being is genetically determined, at least to some degree. Studies such as one the one that found that identical twins (sharing the same genetic constitution) tend to have very similar levels of well-being – regardless of whether they were raised together or apart – have led these investigators to postulate a biological set point for happiness, wired into the brain at birth.

But even if genetic makeup plays a role in happiness – and the verdict is still out on how large that role is – there is general agreement among psychologists that no matter what level of happiness we are endowed with by nature, there are steps we can take to work with “the mind factor,” to enhance our feelings of happiness. This is because our moment-to-moment happiness is largely determined by our outlook. In fact, whether we are feeling happy or unhappy at any given moment often has very little to do with our absolute conditions but, rather it is a function on how we perceive our situation, how satisfied we are with what we have.


THE HABIT OF COMPARING

What shapes our perception and level of satisfaction? Our feelings of contentment are strongly influenced by our tendency to compare. When we compare our current situation to our past and find that we’re better off, we feel happy. This happens, for instance, when our income suddenly jumps from £10,000 to £20,000 a year, but it’s not the absolute amount of income that makes us happy, as we soon find out when we get used to our new income and discover that we won’t be happy again unless we’re making £30,000 a year. We also look around and compare ourselves to others. No matter how much money we make, we tend to be dissatisfied with out income, if our neighbour is making more. Professional athletes complain bitterly about annual salaries of £400,000, £800,000 or £1,000,000, citing the higher salary of a team-mate as justification for their unhappiness. This tendency seems to support H.L. Mencken’s definition of a wealthy man: one whose income is £100 a year higher than his wife’s sister’s husband.

So we can see how we compare ourselves to. Of course, we compare other things beside income. Constant comparison with those who are smarter, more beautiful, or more successful than ourselves also tends to breed envy, frustration, and unhappiness. But we can use this same principle in a positive way; we can increase our feeling of life satisfaction by comparing ourselves to those who are less fortunate than us and by reflecting on all the things we have.

Researchers have conducted a number of experiments demonstrating that one’s level of life satisfaction can be enhanced simply by shifting one’s perspective and contemplating how things could be worse. In one study, women at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee were shown images of the extremely harsh living conditions in Milwaukee at the turn of the century or were asked to visualise and write about going through personal tragedies such as being burned or disfigured. After completing this exercise, the women were asked to rate the quality of their own lives. The exercise resulted in an increased sense of satisfaction with their lives. In another experiment at the State University of New York at Buffalo, subjects were asked to complete the sentence “I’m glad I’m not a . . .” After five repetitions of this exercise, the subjects experienced a distinct evaluation in their feelings of life satisfaction. Another group of subjects was asked by the experiment to complete the sentence “I wish I were a . . .” This time, the experiment left the subjects feeling more dissatisfied with their lives.

These experiments, which show that we can increase or decrease our sense of life satisfaction by changing our perspective, clearly point to the supremacy of one’s mental outlook in living a happy life.

The Dalai Lama explains. “Although it is possible to achieve happiness, happiness is not a simple thing. There are many levels. In Buddhism, for instance, there is a reference to the four factors of fulfilment, or happiness: wealth, worldly satisfaction, spirituality and enlightenment. Together they embrace the totality of an individual’s quest for happiness.

“Let us leave aside for a moment ultimate religious spiritual aspirations like perfection and enlightenment and deal with joy and happiness as we understand them in an everyday or worldly sense. Within this context, there are certain key elements that we conventionally acknowledge as contributing to joy and happiness. For example, good health is considered to be one of the necessary factors for a happy life. Another factors that we regard as a source of happiness is our material facilities, or the wealth that we accumulate. An additional factor is to have friendship or companions. We all recognise that in order to enjoy a fulfilled life, we need a circle of friends with whom we can relate to emotionally and trust.

“Now, all of these factors are, in fact, “sources” of happiness. But in order for an individual to be able to fully utilise them towards the goal of enjoying a happy and fulfilled life your state of mind is key. It’s crucial.

“If we utilise our favourable circumstances, such as our good health or wealth, in positive ways, in helping others, they can be contributory factors in achieving a happier life. And of course we enjoy these things – our material facilities, success, and so on. But without the right mental attitude, without attention to the mental factor, these things have very little impact on our long-term feelings of happiness. For example, if harbour hateful thoughts or intense anger somewhere deep down within yourself, then it ruins your health, thus it destroys one of the factors. Also, if you are mentally unhappy or frustrated, then physical comfort is not of much help. On the other hand, if you can maintain a calm, peaceful state of mind, then you can be a very happy person even if you have a poor health. Or, even if you have wonderful possessions, when you are in an intense moment of anger or hatred, you feel like throwing them, breaking them. At that moment your possessions mean nothing. Today there are societies that are very developed materially yet amongst them there are many people who are not very happy. Just underneath the beautiful surface of affluence there is a kind of mental unrest, leading to frustration, unnecessary quarrels, reliance on drugs, sex or alcohol, and in the worst case, suicide. So there is no guarantee that wealth alone can give you the joy or fulfilment that you are seeking. The same can be said of your friends too. When you are in an intense state anger or hatred, even a very close friend appears to you as somehow sort of frosty, or cold, distant, intolerable, nasty an quite annoying.

“All of this indicates the tremendous influence that the mental state, the mind factor has on our experience of daily life. Naturally, then, we have to take that factor very seriously.

“So leaving aside the perspective of spiritual practice, even in worldly terms, in terms of our enjoying a happy day-to-day existence, the greater the level of calmness of our mind, the greater our peace of mind, the greater our ability to enjoy a happy and joyful life.”

The Dalai Lama paused for a moment as if to let that idea settle, then added, “I should mention that we can speak of a calm state of mind or peace of mind, we shouldn’t confuse that with a totally insensitive, apathetic state of mind. Having a calm or peaceful state of mind doesn’t mean being totally spaced out or completely empty. Peace of mind or a calm state of mind is rooted I affection and compassion. There is a very high level of sensitivity and feeling there.”

Summarising, he said, “As long as there is a lack of the inner discipline that brings calmness of mind, no matter what external facilities or conditions you have, they will never give the feeling of joy and happiness that you are seeking. On the other hand, if you possess this inner quality, a calmness of mind, a degree of stability within, then even if you lack various external facilities that you would normally consider necessary for happiness, it is still possible to live a happy and joyful life.”


INNER CONTENTMENT

Crossing the car park on my way to meet the Dalai Lama one afternoon, I stopped to admire a brand-new Toyota Land Cruiser, the type of car I had been wanting for a long time. Still thinking of that car as I began my session, I asked. “Sometimes it seems that our whole culture, especially Western culture, is based on material acquisition; we’re surrounded, bombarded with adverts for the latest things to buy, the latest car and so on. It’s difficult not to be influenced by that. There are so many things we want, thing we desire. It never seems to stop. Can you speak a bit about desire?”

“I think there are two kinds of desire,” the Dalai Lama replied. “Certain desires are positive. A desire for happiness. It’s absolutely right. The desire for peace. The desire for a more harmonious world, a friendlier world. Certain desires are very useful.

“But at some point, desires can become unreasonable. That usually leads to rouble. Now, for example, sometimes I visit supermarkets. I really love to see supermarkets, because I can see many beautiful things. So, when I look at all these different articles, I develop a feeling of desire, and my initial impulse might be, ‘Oh I want this; I want that.’ Then, the second thought that arises, I ask myself. ‘Oh, do I really need this?’ The answer is usually ‘no.’ If you follow after that first desire, that initial impulse, then very soon your pockets will empty. However, the other level of desire, based on one’s essential needs of food, clothing and shelter, is something more reasonable.

“Sometimes, whether a desire is excessive or negative depends on the circumstances or society in which you live. For example, if you live in a prosperous society where a car is required to help you manage in your daily life, then of course there’s nothing wrong in desiring a car. But if you live in a poor village in India where you can manage quite well without a car but you still desire one, even if you have the money to buy it, it can ultimately bring trouble. It can create an uncomfortable feeling among your neighbours and so on. Or, if you’re living in a more prosperous society and have a car but keep wanting more expensive, fast cars, that leads to the same kind of problems.”

“But” I argued, “I can’t see how wanting or buying a more expensive, fast car leads to problems for an individual, as long as they can afford it. Having a more expensive, fast car than your neighbours might be a problem for them – they might be jealous and so on – but having a new car would give you, yourself, a feeling of satisfaction and enjoyment” (having in mind that Toyota Land Cruiser).

The Dalai Lama shook his head and replied firmly, “No . . . Self satisfaction alone cannot determine if a desire or action is positive or negative. A murderer may have a feeling of satisfaction at the time he is committing the murder, but that doesn’t justify the act. All the non-virtuous actions – lying, stealing, sexual misconduct, and so on – are committed by people who may be feeling a sense of satisfaction at the time. The demarcation between a positive or negative desires or actions is not whether it gives you an immense feeling of satisfaction but whether it ultimately results in positive or negative consequences. For example, in the case of wanting more expensive possessions, if that is based on a mental attitude that just wants more and more, then eventually you’ll reach a limit of what you can get; you’ll come up against reality. And when you reach that limit, then you’ll lose all hope, sink down into depression, and so on. That’s one danger inherent in that type of desire.

“So I think that this kind of excessive desire leads to greed – an exaggerated for desire, based on over expectation. And when you reflect upon the excesses of greed, you’ll find that it leads an individual to a feeling of frustration, disappointment, a lot of confusion, and a lot of problems. When it comes to dealing with greed, one thing that is quite characteristic is that although it arrives by the desire to obtain something, it is not satisfied by obtaining. Therefore, becomes sort of limitless, sort of bottomless, and that leads to trouble. One interesting thing about greed is that although the underlying motive is to seek satisfaction, the irony is that even after obtaining the object of your desire, you are still not satisfied. The true antidote of greed is contentment. If you have a strong sense of contentment, it doesn’t matter whether you obtain the object or not; either way, you are still content.”

So, how can we achieve inner contentment? There are two methods. One method is to obtain everything that we want and desire – all the money, houses, and cars, the perfect mate; and the perfect body. The Dalai Lama has already pointed out the advantage of this approach; if our wants and desires remain unchecked, sooner or later we will run up against something that we want but can’t have. The second, and more reliable, method is not to have what we want but rather to want and appreciate what we already have.

The other night, I was watching a television interview with Christopher Reeve, the actor who was thrown from a horse in 1994 and suffered a spinal cord injury that left him completely paralysed from the neck down, requiring a mechanical ventilator even to breathe. When questioned by the interviewer about how he dealt with the depression resulting from his disability, Reeve revealed that he had experienced a brief period of complete despair while in the intensive care unit of the hospital. He went on to say, however, that these feelings of despair passed relatively quickly, and he now sincerely considered himself to be a “lucky guy.” He cited the blessings of a loving wife and children but also spoke gratefully about the rapid advances of modern medicine (which he estimates will find a cure for spinal cord injury within the next decade), stating that if he had been hurt just a few years earlier, he probably would have died from his injuries. While describing the process of adjusting to his paralysis, Reeve said that while his feelings of despair resolved rather quickly, at first he was still troubled by intermittent pangs of jealousy that could be triggered by another’s innocent passing remarks such as, “ 'I’m just gonna run upstairs and get something.' In learning to deal with these feelings," he said, "I realized that the only way to go through life is to look at your assets, to see what you can still do; in my case, fortunately I didn’t have any brain injury, so I still have a mind I can use.” Focusing on his resources in this way, Reeve has opted to use his mind to increase awareness and educate the public about spinal cord injury, to help others, and has plans to continue speaking as well as to write and direct films.


INNER WORTH

We’ve seen how working on our mental outlook is a more effective means of achieving happiness than seeking it through external sources such as wealth, position, or even physical health. Another internal source of happiness, closely linked with an inner feeling of contentment, is a sense of self-worth. In describing the most reliable basis for developing that sense of self-worth, the Dalai Lama explained:

“Now in my case, for instance, supposed I had no depth of human feeling, no capacity for easily creating good friends. Without that, when I lost my own country, when my political authority in Tibet came to an end, becoming a refugee would have been very difficult. While I was in Tibet, because of the way the political system was set up, there was a certain degree of respect given to the office of the Dalai lama and people related to me accordingly, regardless of whether they had true affection towards me or not. But if that was the only basis of people’s relation towards me, then when I lost my country, it would have been extremely difficult. But there is another source of worth and dignity from which you can relate to other fellow human beings. You can relate to them because you are still a human being, within the human community. You share the bond. And that human bond is enough to give rise to a sense of worth and dignity. That bond can become a source of consolation in the event that you lose everything else.”

The Dalai Lama stopped for a moment to take a sip of tea, then shaking his head he added, “Unfortunately, when you read history, you’ll find cases of emperors or kings in the past whop lost their status due to some political upheaval and were forced to leave the country, but the story afterwards wasn’t that positive for them. I think without that feeling of affection and connection with other fellow human beings, life becomes very hard and unbearable.

“Generally speaking, you can have two different types of individuals. On the other hand, you can have a wealthy, successful person, surrounded by relatives and so on. If that person’s source of dignity and sense of worth is only material, then so long as his fortune remains, maybe that person can sustain a sense of security. But the moment the fortune wanes, the person will suffer because there is no other refuge. On the other hand, you can have another person enjoying similar economic status and financial success, but at the same time, that person is warm and affectionate and has a feeling of compassion. Because that person has another source that gives him or her a sense of dignity, another anchor, there is less chance of that person’s becoming depressed if his or her fortune happens to disappear. Through his type of reasoning you can see the very practical value of human warmth and affection in developing an inner sense of worth.”

Although the Dalai Lama spoke of two types of individuals, I would add a third one. Someone who is the opposite of the first one, the Dalai Lama spoke of, this type of individual can very well manage his situation if they have the attributes of the second one even without the material success.


HAPPINESS Vs PLEASURE, THRILL AND FUN

Here is the central theme of the last chapter of my dissertation on Linguistics.

Ordinarily, most people confuse thrill, fun and pleasure for happiness. Are these words contradictory to happiness? If for you thrill, fun and pleasure are happiness, then yes! But thrill, fun and pleasure are not happiness! What are they then? They’re simply thrill, fun and pleasure, they’re not happiness. Often times people say, “I got what I wanted” or “…was looking for, I’m happy!” This is not happiness. This is simply getting what you want. Happiness goes beyond getting what one wants and desires. You can be perfectly happy even if you cannot get what you want in life for happiness has nothing to with it.

Several months after the Dalai Lama’s conversation with me, I went back to his home in Dharamsala. It was a particularly hot a humid July afternoon, and I arrived at his home drenched in sweat only a short hike from the village. Being accustomed to dry climate after so many years in the West, I found the humidity to be almost unbearable that day, and I wasn’t in the best of moods as we sat down to begin our conversation. He on the other hand, seemed to be in great spirits. Shortly into our conversation, we turned to the topic of pleasure. At one point in the discussion, he made a crucial observation:

“Now sometimes people confuse happiness with pleasure. For example, not long ago I was speaking to an Indian audience at Rajpur. I mentioned that the purpose of life was happiness, so one member of the audience said that Rajneesh teaches that our happiest moment comes during sexual activity, so through se one can become the happiest,” the Dalai Lama laughed heartily. “He wanted to know what I thought of that idea. I answered that from my point of view, the highest happiness is when one reaches the stage of Liberation, at which there is no more suffering. That’s genuine, lasting happiness. True happiness relates more to the mind and heart. Happiness that depends mainly on physical pleasure is unstable; one it’s there, the next day it may not be.”

On the surface, it seemed like a fairly obvious observation; of course, happiness and pleasure were and is still two different things. And yet, we human beings are often quite adept at confusing the two. People ask me if depression, which is the absence of pleasure and happiness are contradictory. My answer is yes and no. If for you happiness is pleasure, fun, thrill, joy, getting what you want, yes it is. But pleasure, fun, thrill, joy and getting what you want is not happiness! What are they? They’re simply pleasure, fun, thrill, joy getting what you want. They’re not happiness. What I observe from people when they got what they wanted say, “I got it!” or “I’ve made it, I’m happy!” This is not happiness! This getting what one wants, not happiness! One more thing, pleasure is created by outside “trigger” whereas happiness is not caused by anything or anyone! Happiness is uncaused! Pleasure loses its effect just as an aspirin does and eventually wanes.

Not long after I returned to Europe during one of my Life Coaching sessions with a client, I was to have a concrete demonstration of just how powerful that simple realisation can be.

Mary Anne was a young single professional working as a counsellor in the Chelsea area (London). Although she enjoyed her job working with troubled youth, for some time she had become interestingly dissatisfied with living in that area. She often complained about the growing population, the traffic and the oppressive heat in the summer. She had been offered a job in a beautiful small town in the mountains. In fact, she had visited that town many times and had always dreamed of moving there. It was more than perfect. The only problem was the fact that the job she was offered involved an adult clientele. For weeks, she had been struggling with the decision whether to accept the new job. She just could make up her mind. She tried making up a list of pros and cons, but the list was annoying even.

She explained, “I know I wouldn’t enjoy the work as much as my job here, but that would be more than compensated for by the pure pleasure of living in that town! I really love it there. Just being there makes me feel good. And I’m so sick of the heat there. I just don’t know what to do.”

Her mention of the term “pleasure” reminded me of the Dalai Lama’s words, and, probing a bit, I asked, “Do you think that moving there would bring you greater happiness or greater pleasure?”
She paused for a moment, uncertain what to make of the question. Finally she answered, “I don’t know ... You know (I think it would bring me more pleasure than happiness . . . ) Ultimately, I don’t think I’d really be happy working with that clientele. I really do get a lot of satisfaction working with the kids at my job . . .”

Simply reframing her dilemma in terms of “Will it bring me happiness?” seemed to provide certain clarity. Suddenly it became much easier to make her decision. She decided to remain in Chelsea. Of course, she still complained about the summer heat. But having made the conscious decision to remain there on the basis of what she felt would ultimately make her happier, somehow made the heat more bearable. Certainly, yes; if someone feels happy rather than feels pleasure, virtually everything become much more bearable.

Everyday we are faced with numerous decisions and choices. And try as we may, we often don’t choose the thing that we know is “good for us” that makes us feel and be happy. Part of this is related to the fact that the “right choice” is often the difficult one – the one that involves some sacrifice of our pleasure. Most people I know would rather opt for feeling pleasure than feeling happy. They give them a kick.

In every century, men and women, including many church ministers and priests and nuns I know and come to my Seminars have struggled with trying to define the proper role that pleasure should play in their lives – a legion of philosophers, “theologists” as I call them (‘theologians’ for many), and psychologists, all exploring our relationship with pleasure. In the third century B.C., Epicurus based his system of ethics on the bold assertion that “pleasure is the beginning and end of the blessed life.” But even Epicurus acknowledged that the unbridled devotion to sensual pleasures could sometimes if not often times lead to pain instead. In the closing years of the 19th century, Sigmund Freud was busy formulating his own theories about pleasure. According to Freud, the fundamental motivating force for the entire psychic apparatus was the wish to relieve the tension caused by unfulfilled instinctual drives; in other words, our underlying motive is to seek pleasure rather than happiness. Pleasure is more motivator than happiness. Pleasure is a “quick fix”, a temporary “fix”; happiness is a permanent, everlasting inner stability. In the 20th century, many researchers have chosen to sidestep more philosophical speculations, and, instead, a host of neuroanatomists have taken to poking around the brain’s hypothalamus and limbic regions with electrodes, searching for the spot that produces pleasure when electrically stimulated.

None of us really need dead Greek philosophers, nineteenth century psychoanalysts, or twenty-first century scientists to help us understand pleasure. We know it when we feel it. We know it in the touch or smile of a loved one, in the luxury of a hot bath on a cold rainy afternoon, in the beauty of a sunset. But many of us also know pleasure in the frenetic rhapsody of a cocaine rush, the ecstasy of a heroin high, the revelry of an alcohol buzz, the bliss of unrestrained sexual excess, the exhilaration of a winning streak in Las Vegas. These are also very real pleasures – pleasures that many in our society must come to terms with.

Although there are no easy solutions to avoiding these destructive pleasures, fortunately we have a place to begin: the simple reminder that what we are seeking is happiness. As the Dalai Lama points out, that is an unmistakable fact. If we approach our choices in life keeping that in mind, it is easier to give up the things that are ultimately harmful to us, even if those things bring us momentary pleasure. This pleasure, I would like to remind you, many mistake it with happiness. The reason why it is unusually so difficult to “just say no!” is found in the word “no”; that approach is associated with a sense of rejecting something, of giving something up, of denying ourselves.

But there is a better approach: framing any decision we face by asking ourselves, “Will it bring me happiness?” That simple question can be a powerful tool in helping us skilfully conduct all areas of our lives, not just in the decision whether to indulge in drugs, or sex or that fourth piece of banana cream pie or whatever. It puts a new slant on things. Approaching our daily decisions and choices with this question in mind shifts the focus from what we are denying ourselves to what we are seeking – ultimate happiness. A kind of happiness, as defined by the Dalai Lama, that is stable, persistent, permanent and ever-lasting! A state of happiness that remains, despite life’s ups and downs and normal fluctuations of mood, as part of the very fabric of our being. It remains with you, that you carry with you even after you leave your body in this physical world for it is recorded in your subconscious.

This perspective, it’s easier to make the “right decision” because we are acting to give ourselves something, not denying or withholding something from ourselves – an attitude of moving towards rather than moving away, an attitude of embracing life rather than rejecting it. This underlying sense of moving towards happiness can have a very profound effect; it makes us more receptive, more open to the joy and happiness of living.


TRAINING THE CONSCIOUSNESS FOR HAPPINESS: The Path to Happiness

In identifying one’s mental state as the prime factor in achieving happiness, of course that doesn’t deny that our basic physical needs for food, clothing, and shelter must be met. But once these basic needs are met, the message in very clear: we don’t need more money, we don’t need greater success or fame, we don’t need the perfect body or even the perfect mate – right now, at this very moment, we have a mind, which is all the basic equipment we need to achieve that which is that we want: complete, undiluted happiness.

In presenting this approach to working with the mind, the Dalai Lama began, “When we refer to ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness,’ there are many different varieties. Just like external conditions or objects, some things are very useful, some are very harmful, and some are neutral. So when dealing with external matter, usually we first try to identify which of these different substances or chemicals are helpful, so we can take care to cultivate, increase, and use them. And those substances which are harmful, we get rid of. So similarly, when we talk about mind, there are thousands of different thought or different ‘minds’. Among them, some are very helpful; those, we should try to reduce

“So, the first step in seeking happiness is learning. We first have to learn how negative emotions and behaviours are harmful to us and how positive emotions are useful. And we must realise how these negative emotions are not only very bad and harmful to one personally but harmful to society and the future of the whole world as well. That kind of realisation enhances our determination to face and overcome them. And then, there is the realisation of the beneficial aspects of the positive emotions and behaviours. Once we realise that, we become determined to cherish, develop, and increase those positive emotions no matter how difficult that is. There is a kind of spontaneous willingness from within. So through this process of learning, of analysing which thoughts and emotions are beneficial and which are harmful, we gradually develop a firm determination to change, feeling ‘Now the secret to my own happiness, my own good future, is within my own hands. I must not miss that opportunity!’

In Buddhism, the principle of causality is accepted as a natural law. In dealing with reality, you have to take that law into account, So for instance, in the case of everyday experiences, if there are certain types of events that you do not desire, then the best method of ensuring that that event does not take place is to make sure that that the causal conditions that normally give rise to that event no longer arise. Similarly, if you want a particular event or experience to occur, then the logical thing to do is to seek and accumulate the causes and conditions that give rise to it.

“This is also the case with mental states and experiences. If you desire happiness, you should seek the causes that give rise to it, and if you don’t desire suffering, then what you should do is to ensure that the causes and conditions that would give rise to it no longer arise. An appreciation of this causal principle is very important.

“Now, we have spoken of the supreme importance of the mental factor in achieving happiness. Our next task, therefore, is to examine the variety of mental states that we experience. We need to clearly identify different mental states and make a distinction, classifying them according to whether they lead to happiness or not.”

“Can you give some specific examples of different mental states and describe how you would classify them?” I asked.
The Dalai Lama explained, “Now for instance, hatred, jealousy, anger, and so on are harmful. We consider them negative states of mind because they destroy our mental happiness; once you harbour feelings of hatred or ill feeling towards someone, once you yourself are filled by hatred or negative emotions, the other people appear to you as also hostile. So as a result there is more fear, greater inhibition and hesitation, and a sense of insecurity. These things develop, and also loneliness in the midst of a world perceived as hostile. All these negative feelings develop because of hatred. On the other hand, mental states such as kindness, love and compassion are definitely very positive. They are very useful . . .”

“I’m just curious,” I interrupted. “You mention that there are thousands of different states of mind. What would be your definition of a psychologically healthy or well-balanced person? We might use such a definition as a guideline in determining which mental states to cultivate and which ones to eliminate.”
He laughed, then with his characteristic humility he responded. “As a doctor in Linguistics to be, you might have a better definition of a psychologically healthy person.”

“But I mean from your standpoint.”
“Well, I would regard a compassionate, warm, kind-hearted person as healthy. If
you maintain a feeling of compassion, loving kindness, then something automatically opens your inner door. Through that, you can communicate much more easily with other people. And that feeling of warmth creates a kind of openness. You’ll find that all human beings are just like you, so you’ll be able to relate to them more easily.

"That gives you a spirit of friendship. Then there’s less need to hide things, and as a result, feelings of fear, self-doubt, and insecurity are automatically dispelled. Also, it creates a feeling of trust from other people. Otherwise, for example, you might find someone who is very competent, and you know that you can trust that person’s competence. But if you sense that person is not kind, then you have to hold something back. You feel that ‘Oh, I know that person can do things, but can I really trust them?’ so you will always have a certain apprehension which creates a kind of distance from them.

“So, anyway, I think that cultivating positive mental states like kindness and compassion definitely leads to better psychological health and happiness.”

From this perspective the Dalai Lama is offering, I came into a conclusion that we should see what blocks happiness, our happiness. Once you see what’s blocking it, you’ll have it, you’ll feel it, you’ll be happy. What I normally observe in people when “seeking” happiness is that they invest so much time, money and effort trying to “find” (what’s already there) happiness externally and materially. What I think we should do is turn inwards and look and reflect in our inner “garden” and see if you can ‘see’, ‘touch’ and ‘feel’, ‘smell’, ‘savour’ the sweet aroma of that “flower” that has always been there waiting for us to be re-discovered and enjoy it. Many people can’t simply enjoy these things inside them and hence are busy looking for them through sex, drugs, alcohol, entertainments, holidays, and so on and they are wasting their time, money and effort doing so. When you turn inwards, you can easily ‘see’ the ‘weeds’ – the negative mental states the Dalai Lama was referring to nearly all the time – that are preventing you from accessing that beautiful ‘flower’ you’ve always been searching all through your misspent life.
Resuming our conversation the next afternoon, I asked, “If happiness is simply a matter of cultivating more positive mental states like kindness and so on, why are so many people unhappy?”

“Achieving genuine happiness may require bringing about a transformation in your outlook, your way of thinking, and this is not a simple matter,” he said. “It requires the application of so many different factors from different directions. You shouldn’t have the notion, for instance that there is just one, a secret, and if you can get that right, then everything will be okay. It is similar to taking proper care of the physical body; you need a variety of vitamins and nutrients, not just one or two. In the same way, in order to achieve happiness, you need a variety of approaches and methods to deal with and overcome the varied and complex negative mental states. And if you are seeking to overcome certain negative ways of thinking, it is not possible to accomplish that simply by adopting a particular thought or practising a technique once or twice. Change takes time. Even physical change takes time. For instance, if you’re moving from one climate to another, the body needs time to adapt to the new environment. And in the same way, transforming your mind takes time. There are a lot of negative mental traits, so you need to address and counteract each one of these. That isn’t easy. It requires the repeated application of various techniques and taking time to familiarise yourself with the practices. It’s a process of learning. “But I think that as time goes on, you can make positive changes.”

The Dalai Lama recommends a simple but working technique. “Everyday as soon as you get up, you can develop a sincere, positive motivation, thinking ‘I will utilise this day in a more positive way. I should not waste this very day.’ And then, at night before bed, check what you have done, asking yourself, ‘Did I utilise this day as I planned?’ If it went accordingly, then you should rejoice. If it went wrong, then reflect what went wrong and revise the action plan taken for another day.

"So, through methods such as this, you can gradually strengthen the positive aspects of the mind.

“Now, for example, in my own case, as a Buddhist monk, I believe in Buddhism and through my on experience I know that these Buddhist practices are very helpful to me. However, because of habituation, through many previous lifetimes, certain things may arise, like anger or attachment. So now what I do is: first learn about the positive value of the practices, then build up determination, and then try to implement them. At he beginning, the implementation of the positive practices is very small, so the negative influences are still very powerful. However, eventually, as you gradually build up the positive practices, the negative behaviours are automatically diminished. So, actually the practice of Dharma(*) is a constant battle within, replacing previous negative conditioning or habituation with new positive conditioning.”

Continuing he said, “No matter what activity or practice we are pursuing, there isn’t anything that isn’t made easier through constant familiarity and training. Through training, we can change; we can transform ourselves. Within Buddhist practice there are various methods of trying to sustain a calm mind when some disturbing event happens. Through repeated practice of these methods we can get to the point where some disturbance may occur but the negative effects on our mind remain on the surface, like the waves that may ripple on the surface of an ocean but don’t have much effect deep down. And, although my own experience may be very little, I have found this to be true in own small practice.
“So, if I receive some tragic news, at that moment I may experience some disturbance within my mind, but it goes away very quickly. Or, I may become irritated and develop some anger, but again, it dissipates very quickly. There is no effect on the deeper mind. No hatred. This was achieved through gradual practice; it didn’t happen overnight.”

Certainly not the Dalai Lama has been engaged in training his mind since he was four years old.
The systematic training of the mind – the cultivation of happiness, the genuine inner transformation by deliberately selecting and focusing on positive mental states and challenging negative mental states – is possible because of the very structure and function of the brain. We are born with brains that are genetically hardwired with certain instinctual behaviour patterns; we are predisposed mentally, emotionally, and physically to respond to our environment in ways that enable us to survive. These basic sets of instructions are encoded in countless innate nerve cell activation,
- - - - - -
(*) The term Dharma has many connotations but no precise English equivalent. It is most often used to refer to the teachings and doctrine of the Buddha, including the scriptural tradition as well as the way of life and spiritual realisations that result from the application of the teachings. Sometimes Buddhists use the word in a more general sense – to signify spiritual or religious practices in general, universal spiritual law or the true nature of phenomena – and use the term Buddhadharma to refer more specifically to the principles of practices of the Buddhist path. The Sanskrit word Dharma, a term very often used by the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, is derived from the etymological root meaning “to hold,” and in this context the word has a broader meaning; any behaviour or understanding that serves “to hold one back” or protect one from experiencing suffering and its causes.
- - - - - -



patterns, specific combinations of brain cells that fire in response to any given event experience, or thought. But the wing in our brains is not static, not irrevocably fixed. Our brains are also adaptable. Neuroscientists have documented that fact that the brain can design new patterns, new combinations of nerve cells and neurotransmitters (chemicals that transmit messages between nerve cells) in response to new input. In fact, our brains are malleable, ever changing, reconfiguring their wiring according to new thoughts and experiences. And as a result of learning, the function of individual neuron themselves change, allowing electrical signals to travel along them more readily. Scientists call the brain’s inherent capacity to change “plasticity”.

This ability to change the brain’s wiring, to grow new neural connections, has been demonstrated in experiments such as one conducted by Doctors Avi Karni and Leslie Underleider at the national Institutes of Mental Health. In that experiment, the researchers had subjects perform a simple motor task, a finger tapping exercise, and identified the parts of the brain involved in the task by taking a MRI brain scan. The subjects then practised the finger exercise daily for four weeks, gradually becoming more efficient and quicker at it. At the end of the four-week period, the brain scan was repeated and showed that the area of the brain involved in the task had expanded; this indicated that the regular practice and repetition of the task had recruited new nerve cells and changed the neural connections that had originally been involved in the task.

The remarkable feature of the brain appears to be the physiological basis for the possibility of transforming our minds. By mobilising our thoughts and practising new ways of thinking we can reshape our nerve cells and change the way our brains work through positive, elevated thoughts. It is also the basis for the idea that inner transformation begins with learning (new input) and involve the discipline of gradually replacing our “negative conditioning and programming” (corresponding with our present characteristic nerve cell activation patterns) with “positive conditioning or programming” (forming new neural circuits). Thus, the idea of training the mind for happiness becomes a very real possibility.


ETHICAL DISCIPLINE

In a later discussion related to training the mind for happiness, the Dalai Lama pointed out. “I think that ethical behaviour is another feature of the kind of inner discipline that leads to a happier existence. One could call this ethical discipline. Great spiritual teachers like the Buddha advises us to perform wholesome actions and avoid indulging in unwholesome actions. Whether our action is wholesome or unwholesome depends on whether that action or deed arises from a disciplined or undisciplined state of mine. It is felt that a disciplined mind leads to happiness and undisciplined mind leads to suffering unhappiness, and in fact it is said that bringing about discipline within one’s mind is the essence of the Buddha’s teaching.”

"When I speak of discipline,” the Dalai Lama went on, “I’m referring to self-discipline, not discipline that’s externally imposed on you by someone else. Also, I’m referring to discipline that’s applied in order to overcome your negative qualities. A criminal gang may need discipline to perform a successful robbery, but that discipline is useless.”

The Dalai Lama stopped speaking for a moment and seemed to be reflecting, gathering his thoughts. Or, perhaps he was simply searching for a word in English. I don’t know. But thinking about our conversation as he paused that afternoon, something about all this talk concerning the importance of learning and discipline began to strike me as being rather tedious when contrasted with the lofty goals of true happiness, spiritual growth and complete internal transformation. It seemed that the quest for happiness should somehow be a more spontaneous process.

Raising this issue, I interjected, “You describe the negative emotions and behaviours as being ‘unwholesome’ and the positive behaviours as ‘wholesome’. Further you’ve said that an untrained or undisciplined mind generally results in negative or unwholesome behaviours, so we have to learn and train ourselves to increase our positive behaviours. So far, so good.

“But the thing that bothers me is that your very definition of negative or unwholesome behaviours is those behaviours which lead to suffering. And you define a wholesome behaviour as one that leads to happiness. You also start with the basic premise that all beings naturally want to avoid suffering and gain happiness – that desire is innate; it does not have to be learned. The question the is: If it’s natural for us to want to avoid suffering, why aren’t we spontaneously and naturally more and more repulsed by the negative or unwholesome behaviours as we grow older? And if it is natural to want to gain happiness, why aren’t we spontaneously and naturally more and more drawn to wholesome behaviours and thus become happier as our life progresses? I mean, if these wholesome behaviours naturally lead to happiness and we want happiness, should that occur as a natural process? Why should we need so much education, training and discipline for that process to occur?”

Shaking his head, the Dalai Lama replied, “Even in conventional terms, in our everyday life, we consider education as a very important factor for ensuring successful and happy life. And knowledge does not come by naturally, we have to train, we have to go through a kind of systematic training programme and so forth. And we consider this conventional education and training to be quite hard; otherwise why would students look forward so much to vacation? Still, we know that this type of education is quite vital for ensuring a happy and successful life.

“In the same way, doing wholesome deeds may not come naturally, but we have to consciously train towards it. This is so, particularly in modern society, because there is a tendency to accept that the question of wholesome deeds and unwholesome deeds – what to do and what is not to be done – is something that is considered to be within the purview of religion. Traditionally, it has been considered the responsibility of religion to prescribe what behaviours are wholesome and what are not. However, in today’s society, religion has lost its prestige and influence to some degree. And at the same time, no alternative, such as secular ethics, has come to replace it. So there seems to be less attention paid to the need to lead a wholesome way of life. It is because of this that we need to make some special effort and consciously work towards gaining that kind of knowledge. For example, although I personally believe that our human nature is fundamentally gentle and compassionate, I feel it is not enough that this is our underlying nature; we must also develop an appreciation and awareness of that fact. And changing how we perceive ourselves, through learning and understanding, can have a very real impact on how we interact with others and how we can conduct our daily live.”

Playing devil’s advocate, I countered, “Still, you use the analogy of conventional academic education and training. Linguistically,” I said, “that one thing. But if you are talking about certain behaviours that you cal ‘wholesome’ or positive, leading to happiness, and other behaviours leading to suffering, why does it take so much learning to identify which behaviours are which and so much training to implement the positive behaviours and eliminate the negative? I mean, if you put your hand in a fire, you get burned. You pull your hand back and you’ve learned that this behaviour leads to suffering. You don’t need extensive learning or training to learn not to touch the fire again.

“So why aren’t all behaviours or emotions that lead to suffering like that? For instance, you claim that anger and hatred are clearly negative emotions and ultimately lead to suffering. But why does one have to be educated about the harmful effects of anger and hatred in order to eliminate them? Since anger immediately causes an uncomfortable emotional state in oneself, and it is certainly easy to feel that discomfort directly, why doesn’t one just naturally and spontaneously avoid it in the future?”

As the Dalai Lama listened intently to my arguments, his intelligent eyes widened slightly, as if he were mildly surprised, or even amused, at the naïveté of my questions. Then, with a hearty laugh, full of goodwill, he said:

“When you talk of knowledge leading to freedom or resolution of a problem, you have to understand that there are many different levels. For example, let’s say that human beings in the Stone Age didn’t know how to cook meat but they still had the biological need to eat, so they just ate like a wild animal. As humans progress, they learned how to cook and then how to put in different spices to make the food more tasty and then they came up with more diverse dishes. And even up to our present age, if we are suffering from a particular illness and through our knowledge we learn that a certain type of food is not good for us, even though we might have the desire to eat it, we restrain ourselves from eating it. So it is clear that the more sophisticated the level of our knowledge is, the more effective we will be in dealing with the natural world.

“You also need the ability to judge the long-term and short-term consequences of your behaviours and weigh the two. For example, in overcoming anger, although animals may experience anger, they cannot understand that anger is destructive. In the case of human beings, however, there is a different level, where you have a kind of self-awareness that allows you to reflect and observe that when anger arises, it hurts you. Therefore, you can make a judgement that anger is destructive. You need to be able to make that inference. So it’s not as simple as ‘putting your hand in a fire and then being burned’ as you put it and just learning in the future never do this again. The more sophisticated your level of education and knowledge about what leads to happiness and what causes suffering, the more effective you will be in achieving happiness. So, it is because of this that I think education and knowledge are crucial.”

Sensing, I suppose, my continued resistance to the idea of simple education as a means of internal transformation, he observed, “One with our current society is that we have an attitude towards education as if it is there to simply make you more clever, make you more ingenious. Sometimes it even seems as if those who are not highly educated, those who are less sophisticated in terms of their educational training, are more innocent and more honest. Even though our society does not emphasise this, the most important use of knowledge and education is to help us understand the importance of engaging in more wholesome actions and bringing about discipline within our minds. The proper utilisation of our intelligence and knowledge is to effect changes from within to develop a good heart.”



RECLAIMING OUR INNER STATE OF HAPPINESS, OUR FUNDAMENTAL NATURE

“Now, we are made to seek happiness. And it is clear that feelings of love, affection, closeness and compassion bring happiness. I believe that everyone of us has the basis to be happy, to access the warm and compassionate states of mind bring happiness.” The Dalai Lama asserted. “In fact, it is one of my fundamental beliefs that not only do we inherently possess the potential for compassion but I believe that the basic or underlying nature of human beings is gentleness.”

“What do you base that belief on?” I asked.
“The Buddhist doctrine of ‘Buddha Nature’ provides some grounds for the belief that the fundamental nature of all sentient beings is essentially gentle and not aggressive(*). But one can adopt this view without having to resort to the Buddhist doctrine of ‘Buddha Nature’. There are also other grounds on which I base this belief. I think the subject of human affection or compassion isn’t just a religious matter; it’s an indispensable factor in one’s day-to-day life.

“So. First, if we look at the very pattern of our existence from an early age until our (physical) death, we can see the way in which we are fundamentally nurtured by other’s affection. It begins at birth. Our very first act after birth is to suck our mother’s or someone else’s milk. That is an act of affection, of compassion. Without that act, we cannot survive. That’s clear. And that action cannot be fulfilled unless there is a mutual feeling of affection. From the child’s side, if there is no feeling of affection, no bond, towards the person who is giving the milk, then the child may not suck the milk. And without affection on the part of the mother or someone else, then the milk may not come freely. So that’s the way of life. That’s reality.

“Then, our physical structure seems to be more suited to feelings of love and compassion. We can see how a calm, affectionate, wholesome state of mind has beneficial effects on our health and physical well-being. Conversely, feelings of frustration, fear, agitation and anger can be destructive to our health.

“We can also see that our emotional health is enhanced by feeling of affection. To understand this, we only need to reflect on how we feel when others show us warmth and affection. Or, observe how our own affectionate feelings or attitudes automatically and naturally affect us from within, how they make us feel. These gentle emotions and positive behaviours that go with them lead to a happier family and community life.

“So, I think that we can infer that our fundamental human nature is one of gentleness. And if this is the case, then it makes all the more sense to try to live a way of life that is more in accordance with this basic gentle nature of our being.”

“If our essential nature is kind and compassionate,” I asked, “I’m just wondering how you account for all the conflicts and aggressive behaviours that are all around us.”

The Dalai Lama nodded thoughtfully for a moment before replying, “Of course we can’t ignore the fact that conflicts and tensions do exist, not only within an individual mind but also within the family, when we interact with other people, and at the societal level, the national level, and the global level. So, looking at this, some people conclude that human nature is basically aggressive. They may point to human history, suggesting that compared to other mammals’, human behaviour is much more aggressive. Or, they may claim, ‘Yes, compassion is a part of our
mind. But anger is also a part of our mind. They are equally a part of our nature; both are more or less at the same level.’ Nonetheless,” he said firmly, leaning forward in his chair, straining with alertness, “it is still my firm conviction that human nature is essentially affectionate, gentle. That is the predominant feature of human nature. Anger, violence and aggression may certainly arise, but I think it’s on a secondary or more superficial level; in a sense, they arise when we are frustrated in our efforts to achieve love and affection. They are not part of our most basic, underlying nature.
- - - - - - -
(*) In Buddhist philosophy, “Buddha Nature” refers to an underlying, basic, and most subtle nature of mind. This state of mind, present in all human beings, is completely unattained by negative emotions or thoughts.
- - - - - - -



“So, although aggression can occur, I believe that these conflicts aren’t necessarily because of human nature but rather a result of the human intellect – unbalanced human intelligence, misuse of our intelligence, our imaginative faculty. Now in looking at human evolution, I think that compared to some other animals’, our physical body may have been very weak. But because of the development of human intelligence, we were able to use many instruments and discover many methods to conquer adverse environmental conditions. As human society and environmental conditions gradually became more complex, this required a greater and greater role of our intelligence and cognitive ability to meet the ever-increasing demands of this complex environment. So, I believe that our underlying or fundamental nature is gentleness, and intelligence is a later development. And I think that if that human ability, that human intelligence, develops in an unbalanced way, without being properly counterbalanced with compassion, then it can become destructive. It can lead to disaster.

“But, I think it’s important to recognise that if human conflicts are created by misuse of human intelligence, we can also utilise our intelligence to find ways and means to overcome these conflicts. When human intelligence and human goodness or affection are used together, all human actions becomes constructive. When we combine a warm heart with knowledge and education, we can learn to respect others’ views and rights. This becomes the basis of a spirit of reconciliation that can be used to overcome aggression and resolve our conflicts.”

The Dalai Lama paused and glanced at his watch. “So,” he concluded, “no matter how much violence or how many bad things we have to go through, I believe that the ultimate solution to our conflicts, both internal and external, lies in returning to our basic or underlying human nature, which is gentle and compassionate.”

Looking again at his watch, he began to laugh in a friendly way, so common in him. “So… we’ll stop here … it’s been a long day!” He gathered up his shoes which he has slipped off during our conversation and retired to his room.



THE QUESTION OF HUMAN NATURE

Over the past few decades, the Dalai Lama’s view (as some brothers and sisters’ from Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University or simply Brahma Kumaris for short. Students here are called Brahma Kumars and Brahma Kumaris or simply BKs I came to meet) of the underlying compassionate nature of human beings seems to be slowly gaining ground in the West, although it has been a struggle. The notion that human behaviour is essentially egoistic, that fundamentally we are all out for ourselves, is deeply ingrained basically in Western thought. The idea that not only are we inherently selfish but also that aggression and hostility are part of basic human nature has dominated our culture for centuries. Of course, historically there were plenty of people with the opposite view. For instance, in the mid 1970s David Hume wrote a lot about the “natural benevolence” of human beings. And a century later even Charles Darwin himself attributed an “intrinsic of sympathy” to our species. But for some reason the more pessimistic view of humanity has taken root in our culture, at least since the 17th century, under the influence of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, who had a pretty dark view of the human species. He saw the human race as being violent, competitive, in continual conflict, and concerned only with self-interest. Hobbes, who was famous for discounting any notion of human basic kindness, was once caught giving money to a beggar on the street. When questioned about this ‘generous’ impulse, he claimed. “I’m not doing this to help him. I’m just doing this to relieve my own distress at seeing the man’s poverty.”

Similarly, in the earlier part of this century, the Spanish-born philosopher George Santayana wrote that "Generous, caring impulse, while they may exist, are generally weak, fleeting and unstable in human nature but, “dig a little beneath the surface and you’ll find a ferocious, persistent, profoundly selfish man.” Unfortunately, Western science and psychology grabbed hold of ideas like that, then sanctioned, and even encouraged, this egoistic view. Beginning in the earliest days of modern scientific psychology, there was a general underlying assumption that all human motivation is ultimately egoistic, based purely on self-interest.

After implicitly accepting the premise of our essential selfishness, a number of very prominent scientists over the past hundred years have added to this a belief in the essential aggressive nature of humans. Freud claimed that, “the inclination to aggression is an original, self-subsisting, instinctual disposition.” In the latter half of this century, two writers in particular, Robert Ardrey and Konrad Lorenz, looked at patterns of animal behaviour in certain predators species and concluded that humans were basically predators as well, with an innate or instinctive drive to fight over territory.

In recent years, however, the tide appears to be turning on this profoundly pessimistic view of humanity, coming closer to the Dalai Lama’s view of our underlying nature as gentle and compassionate. Over the past two or three decades, there have been literally hundreds of scientific studies indicating that aggression is not essentially innate and that violent behaviour is influenced by a variety of biological, social, situational and environmental factors. Perhaps the most comprehensive statement on the latest research was summarised in the 1986 (a year after having interviewed the Dalai Lama) Seville Statement on Violence that was drawn up and signed by twenty top scientists from around the world. In that statement, thy of course acknowledged that violent behaviour does occur, but they categorically stated that it is scientifically incorrect to say that we have an inherited tendency to make war or act violently. The behaviour is not genetically programmed into human nature. They said that even though we have the neural apparatus to act violently, that behaviour isn’t automatically activated. There’s nothing in our neurophysiology that compels us to act violently. In examining the subject of basic human nature most researchers in the field currently feel that fundamentally we have the potential to develop into gentle, caring people or violent, aggressive people; the impulse that gets emphasised is largely a matter of training.

Contemporary researchers have refuted not only the idea of humanity’s innate aggression, but the idea that humans are innately selfish and egoistic has also come under attack. Investigators such as C. Daniel Batson or Nancy Eisenberg at Arizona State University have conducted numerous studies over the past few years that demonstrate that humans have a tendency towards altruistic behaviour. Some scientists, such as sociologist Dr Linda Wilson, seek to discover why this is so. She has theorised that altruism may be part of our basic survival instinct – the very opposite to ideas of earlier thinkers who theorised that hostility and aggression were the hallmark of our survival instinct. Looking at over a hundred natural disasters, Dr Wilson found a strong pattern of altruism amongst disaster victims, which seemed to be part of the recovery process. She found that working together to help each other tended to ward off later psychological problems that might have resulted from the trauma.

The tendency to closely bond with others, acting for the welfare of others as well as oneself, may be deeply rooted in human nature, forge in the remote past as those who bonded together and became part of a group had an increased chance of survival. This need to form close social ties persists up to the present day. The 1986 Seville Statement on Violence research, Dr C Daniel Batson and Nancy Eisenberg, Dr Linda Wilson and studies conducted by Dr Larry Scherwitz all corroborate the original peaceful nature of human beings present in the Golden and Silver Ages around three thousand years ago. It is only in the Copper Age that violent behaviours started and became gradually more and more intense as we approached present age, the Iron Age.

In studies such as one conducted by Dr Larry Scherwitz, examining the risk factors for coronary heart disease, it has been found that there people who were most self-focused or self-centred) those who referred to themselves using the persona pronoun “I”, the object pronoun “me”, the possessive pronoun “mine” and possessive adjective “my” most often in an interview) were more likely to develop coronary heart disease, even when other health-threatening behaviours were controlled. Scientists are discovering that those who lack social ties seem to suffer from poor health, higher level of unhappiness, and a greater vulnerability to stress.

Reaching out to help others may be a fundamental to our nature as communication. One could draw an analogy with the development of language which, like the capacity for compassion and altruism, is one of the magnificent features of the human race. Particular areas of the brain are specifically devoted to the potential for language and linguistic purposes. If we are exposed to the correct environmental conditions, that is, a society that speaks, then those discreet areas of the brain begin to develop and mature and our capacity for language grows. In the same way, all humans may be endowed with the “seed of compassion.” When exposed to the right conditions – at home, in society at large, and later perhaps through our own pointed efforts – that “seed” will flourish. With this idea in mind, researchers are now seeking to discover the optimal environmental conditions that will allow the seed caring and compassion to ripen in children. They have identified several factors: having parents who are able to regulate their own emotions, who model caring behaviour, who set appropriate limits on the children’s behaviour, who communicate that a child is responsible for his or her own behaviour, and who use reasoning to help direct the child’s attention to affective or emotional states and the consequences of his or her behaviour on others.

Revising our basic assumptions about the underlying nature of human beings, from hostile to helpful can open up new possibilities. If we begin by assuming the self-interest model of all human behaviour, then an infant serves as a perfect example, as “proof”, of that theory. At birth, infants appear to be programmed with only one thing on their minds: the gratification of their own needs – food, physical comfort, and so on. But if we suspend that basic egoistic assumption, a whole new picture begins to emerge. We could just as easily say that an infant is born programmed for only one thing: the capacity and purpose of bringing pleasure and joy (not happiness) to others. By just observing a healthy infant whether black, white, yellow or red, with oblique eyes or rounded eyes, it would hard to deny the underlying gentle nature of human beings. And from this new vantage point, we could make a good case that the capacity to bringing pleasure to another, the caregiver, is inborn. For example, in a newborn infant from any corner of the world the sense of smell is developed to perhaps only five per cent that of an adult and the sense of taste is developed very little. But what does exist of these senses in the newborn is geared towards the smell and taste of breast milk. The act of nursing not only provides nutrients for the baby; it also serves to relieve tension in the breast. So, we could say that the infant is born with an innate capacity to bring pleasure to the nursing mother or person, by relieving the tension in the breast. I’ve seen instances where nursing mothers’ breast-feed another nursing mother’s baby when her breast milk is not sufficient for her child. An infant is also biologically programmed to recognise and respond to faces, and there are few people who fail to find genuine pleasure in having a young baby gazing innocently into their eyes and smile. Some ethologists have formulated this into a theory, suggesting that when an infant smiles at the caregiver whether it’s her mother or not; or looks directly into its eyes, the infant is following a deeply ingrained “biological blueprint”, instinctively “releasing” gentle, tender, caring behaviours from the caregiver, who is also obeying an equally compelling instinctual mandate. As more investigators strike out to objectively discover the nature of human being, the notion of the infant as a little bundle of selfishness, and eating and sleeping machine, is yielding to a vision of a being that comes into the world with an innate mechanism to please others, requiring only the proper environmental conditions to allow the underlying and natural “seed of compassion” to germinate and grow.

Once we conclude that the basic nature of humanity is compassionate rather than aggressive, our relationship and to the world and our perception of it around us changes immediately. Seeing others as basically compassionate instead of hostile and selfish helps us relax, trust, live at ease. It makes us happier.



REFLECTING ON THE PURPOSE OF LIFE

As the Dalai Lama sat in his home at Dharamsala that week, exploring human nature and examining the human mind with the scrutiny of a Ph. D. holder to be, one simple truth seemed to shine through and illuminate every discussion: the purpose of our life. The simple statement can be used as a powerful tool in helping us navigate through life’s daily problems. From that perspective, our task becomes one of discarding the things that lead to suffering and accumulating the thing that lead to happiness. The method, the daily practice, involves gradually increasing our awareness and understanding of what truly leads to happiness and what doesn’t.

When life becomes too complicated and we feel overwhelmed, it’s often useful just to stand back and remind ourselves of our overall purpose, our overall goal. When faced with a feeling of stagnation and confusion, it may be useful to take an hour, an afternoon, or several days or weeks to simply reflect on what it is that will truly bring us happiness, and then reset our priorities on the basis of that. This can put our life back in proper context, allow a fresh perspective, and enable us to see which direction to take.

From time to time we are faced with pivotal decisions that can affect the entire course of our lives. We may decide, for instance, to get married, to have children, or to stay single for life, or to embark on a course of study to become a solicitor, and artist, or an electrician, or a dust collector, a seminar facilitator, or a Life Coach, a medical doctor, a Ph D holder, a CEO, or whatever or even none of these, but just earn a living from any means. The firm resolve is to become happy – to learn about the factors that lead to happiness and take positive steps to build a happier life – can be such a decision. The turning-towards happiness as a valid goal and the conscious decision to seek happiness is a systematic manner can profoundly change the rest of our lives.

The Dalai Lama’s understanding of the factors that ultimately lead to happiness is based on a lifetime methodically observing his own mind dispassionately, exploring the nature of human condition, and investigating these things within a framework first established by The Buddha over twenty-five centuries ago. And from this background, the Dalai Lama has come to some definite conclusions about which activities and thoughts are most worthwhile. He summarised his beliefs in the following words that can be used as a meditation.

“Sometimes when I meet old friends, it reminds me of how quickly time passes. And it makes me wonder if we’ve utilised our time properly or not. Proper utilisation of time is so important. While we have this body, and especially his amazing human brain, I think every minute is something precious. Our day-to-day existence is very much alive with hope, although there is no guarantee of our future. There is no guarantee that tomorrow at this time we will be here physically. But still we are working for that purely on the basis of hope. So, we need to make the best use of our time. I believe that the proper utilisation of time is this: if you can, serve other people, other sentient beings through your good wishes, elevated feelings as well as physically. If not, at least, refrain from harming them mentally, emotionally and physically. (I added the words in italics, not in bold and underlined). I think that is the whole basis of my philosophy.

“So, let us reflect on what is truly of value in life, what gives meaning to our lives, and set our priorities on the basis of that. The purpose of our life needs to be positive. We weren’t born with the purpose of causing trouble, harming others. For our life to be of value, I think we must develop basic good human qualities – warmth, kindness, compassion. Then our life becomes meaningful and more peaceful – happier.”



LONELINESS AND REACHING OUT


I entered the sitting room of the Dalai Lama’s receiving room, and he motioned for me to sit down. As tea was poured, he slipped off a pair of butterscotch-coloured Rockports and settled comfortably into an oversized chair.

“So?” he asked in a casual tone but with an inflection that said he was for anything. He smiled, but remained silent waiting.

Moments before, while sitting the receiving room waiting for our session to begin, I had absently picked up a copy of a local alternative newspaper that had been turned to the “Personals” section. I had briefly scanned the densely packed adverts, page after page of people searching, desperately hoping to reach out to another human being. Still thinking about those adverts as I sat down to begin my meeting with the Dalai Lama, I suddenly decided to set aside my list of prepared questions and asked, “Do you ever get lonely?”

He simply and naturally said, “No”. I was unprepared then for this response. I assumed that this response would be along the lines of, “Of course … every once in a while everyone feels some loneliness…” Then I was planning on asking him how he deals with lone loneliness. I never expected in those years to confront anyone who never felt lonely.
“No?” I asked again, incredulous.
“No.”
“What do you attribute that to?”

He thought for a moment. “I think one factor is that I look at any human being from a more positive angle; I try to look for their positive aspects. This attitude immediately creates a feeling of affinity, a kind of connectedness.

“And it may partly be because on my part, there is less apprehension, less fear, that if I act in a certain way, perhaps the person will lose respect or think that I am strange. So because that kind of openness, I think it’s the main factor.”

Struggling to comprehend the scope and difficulty of adopting such an attitude, I asked, “But how would you suggest that a person achieve the ability to feel that comfortable with people, not have that fear or apprehension of being disliked or judged by other people? Are specific methods that an average person could use to develop this attitude?”

“My basic belief is that you first need to realise the usefulness of compassion,” he said with a tone of conviction. “That’s the key factor. Once you accept the fact that compassion is not something childish or sentimental, once you realise that compassion is something worthwhile, realise its deeper value, then you immediately develop an attraction towards it, a willingness to cultivate it.

"And once you encourage the thought of compassion in your mind, once that though becomes active, then your attitude towards others changes automatically. If you approach others with the thought of compassion, that will automatically reduce fear and allow an openness with other people. It creates a positive, friendly atmosphere. With that attitude, you can approach a relationship in which you, yourself, initially create the possibility of receiving affection or a positive response from the other person. And with that attitude, even if the other person is unfriendly or doesn’t respond to you in a positive way, then at least you’ve approached the person with a feeling of openness that gives you a certain flexibility and the freedom to change your approach as needed. That kind of openness at least allows the possibility of having a meaningful conversation with them. But without the attitude of compassion, if you are feeling closed, irritated, or indifferent, then you can even be approached by your best friend and you just feel uncomfortable.

“I think that in many cases people tend to expect the other person to respond to them in a positive way first, rather than taking the initiative themselves to create that possibility. I feel that’s ‘wrong’; it leads to problems and can act as a barrier that just serves to promote a feeling of isolation from others. So if you wish to overcome that feeling of isolation and loneliness, I think that your underlying attitude makes a tremendous difference. And approaching others with the thought of compassion in your mind is the best way to do this.”

My surprise about the Dalai Lama’s claim that he was never lonely was in direct proportion to my belief in the pervasiveness of loneliness in our society. This belief wasn’t born merely from an impressionistic scene of my own loneliness or the thread of loneliness that seemed to run as an underlying theme throughout the fabric of my student life then. In the past twenty years, psychologists have begun to study loneliness in a scientific manner, conducting a number of surveys and studies on the subject. One of the most striking findings of these studies is that virtually all people report that they do experience loneliness, either currently or in the past. In one large survey, one fourth of U.S. and around the same number or a bit more of British adults reported that they had felt extremely lonely at least once within the previous two weeks. Although we often think of chronic loneliness as an affliction particularly widespread amongst elderly, isolated in empty apartments or flats or in the back wards of nursing homes, research suggests that teenagers and young adults are just as like to report they are lonely as the elderly.

Because of the widespread occurrence of loneliness investigators have begun to examine the complex variables that may contribute to loneliness. For instance, they have found that lonely individuals often have problems with self-disclosure, have difficulty communicating with others, are poor listeners and lack social skills such picking up conversational cues (knowing when to nod, to respond appropriately, or to remain silent). This research suggest that one strategy for overcoming loneliness would be to work on improving these social skills The Dalai Lama’s strategy, however, seemed to bypass working on social skills or external behaviours, in favour of an approach that cut directly to the heart – realising the value of compassion and then cultivating it.

Despite my initial surprise, as I listened to him speak with such conviction, I came to firmly believe that he was never lonely. And there was evidence to support his claim. Often enough, I had witnessed his first interaction with a complete stranger, which was invariably positive. It started to become clear that these positive interactions weren’t accidental or simply the result of a naturally friendly personality. I sensed that he had spent a great deal of time thinking about the importance of compassion, carefully cultivating it, and using it to enrich and soften the ground of his everyday experience, making that soil fertile and receptive to positive interactions with others. – a method that can, in fact, be used by anyone who suffers from loneliness.



DEPENDENCE ON OTHERS Vs SELF RELIANCE

“Within all beings there is the seed of perfection. However compassion is required in order to activate that seed which is inherent in our hearts and minds…” With this, the Dalai Lama introduced the topic of compassion to a hushed assembly. Addressing an audience of fifteen hundred people, counting among them a fair proportion of dedicated students of Buddhism, he then began to discuss the Buddhist doctrine of the Field of Merit.
In the Buddhist sense, Merit is described as positive imprints on one’s mind, or “mental continuum,” that occurs as a result of positive actions. The Dalai Lama explained that a Field of Merit is a source of foundation from which a person can accumulate Merit. According to Buddhist theory, it is a person’s stores of Merit that determine favourable conditions for one’s future rebirths. He explained that Buddhist doctrine specifies two Fields of Merit: the field of the Buddhas and the field of other sentient beings. One method of accumulating Merit involves generating respect, faith and confidence in the Buddhas, the Enlightened Beings. The other method involves practising actions like kindness, generosity, tolerance and so on and conscious restraint from negative actions like killing, stealing and lying. That second method of acquiring Merit requires interaction with other people, rather than interaction with the Buddhas. On that basis, the Dalai Lama pointed out, other people can be of great help to us in accumulating Merit.

The Dalai Lama’s description on other people as a Field of Merit had a beautiful, lyrical quality to it that seemed to lend itself to a richness of imagery. His lucid reasoning and the conviction behind his words combined to give special power and impact to his talk that evening. As I looked around the room, I could see that many members of the audience were visibly moved. I, myself, was less enthralled. As a result of our earlier conversations I was in the rudimentary stages of appreciating the profound importance of compassion, yet I was still heavily influenced by years of rational, scientific conditioning that made me regard any talk of kindness and compassion as being a bit too sentimental for my taste as I used to be most of the time in the left part of my brain, the part that is more of reasoning, of finding facts, rather than the right part of it which is more of a creative, intuitive and emotional. As he spoke, my mind began to wander as it is used to. I started furtively looking around the room, searching for famous, interesting, or familiar faces. Having eaten a large meal just before the talk, I started to get sleepy. I drifted in and out. At one point in the talk, my mind tuned in to hear him say “…the other day I spoke about the factors necessary to enjoy a happy and joyful life. Factors such as good health, material goods, friends and so on. If you closely investigate, you’ll find that all of these depend on other people. To maintain good health, you rely on medicines made by others and health care provided by others. If you examine all of the material facilities that you use for the enjoyment of life, you’ll find that there are hardly any of these material objects that have had no connection with other people. If you think carefully, you’ll see that all of these goods come into being as a result of the efforts of many people, either directly or indirectly. Many people are involved in making those things possible. Needless to say, when we’re talking about good friends and companions as being another necessary factor for a happy life, we are talking about interaction with other sentient beings, other human beings.

“So you can see that all of these factors are inextricably linked with other people’’ efforts and co-operation. Others are indispensable. So, despite the fact that the process of relation to others might involve hardships, quarrels and cursing, we have to try to maintain an attitude of friendship and warmth in order to lead a way of life in which there is enough interaction with other people to enjoy a happy life.”

As he spoke, I felt an instinctive resistance. Although I’ve always valued and enjoyed my friend and family, I’ve considered myself to be an independent person. In fact, I had and still am living “on my own”, I mean, I have never shared a flat or a room to live in a long-term basis for over for decades. If ever I did in the past, it was only for a couple or so weeks. I was and am always living alone, just by myself. Self-reliant. Prided myself on this quality in fact. Secretly, I’ve tended to regard overly dependent people with a kind of contempt – a sign of weakness.

Yet that afternoon, as I listened to the Dalai Lama, something happened. As “Our Dependence on Others was not my favourite topic (inn fact, I didn’t fancy about it at all!), my mind started to wander again, as nearly usual especially if the topic being discussed is far from my personal self-interest and I found myself absently removing a loose thread from my shirt sleeve. Tuning in for a moment, I listened as he mentioned the many people who are involved in making all our material possessions. As he said this, I began to think about how many people were involved in making my shirt. I stared by imagining the people who grew the cotton. Next, the salesperson who sold the farmer the tractor to plough the field. Then, for that matter, the hundreds or even thousands of people involved in manufacturing the tractor, including the people who mine d the ore to make the metal for each part of the tractor. And all the designers of the tractor. Then , of course, the people who processed the cotton, the people who wove the cloth, and the people who cut, dyed, and sewed the cloth. The cargo workers and van drivers who delivered the shirt to the shop and the salesperson who sold the shirt to me. It occurred to me that virtually every aspect of my life came about as the results of others’ efforts. My precious self-reliance was a complete illusion, a fantasy. As this realisation dawned on me, I was overcome with a profound sense of interconnectedness and interdependence of all beings. I felt a softening. Something. I don’t know. It made me want to cry. We often confuse ourselves with being dependent and feeling dependent which are two very different things. We all want to feel independent, but we are never ever become independent. We always depend on someone else in terms of labour some time or the other.


INTIMACY

Our need for other people is paradoxical. At the same time that our culture is caught up in the celebration of fierce independence, we also yearn for intimacy, connection and reaching out with a special loved and dear one. We focus all our energy to finding the one person who we hope will heal our loneliness yet prop up our illusion that we are still independent. Though this connection is difficult to achieve with even one person, I would find out that the Dalai Lama is capable of and recommends maintaining closeness with as many people as possible. In fact, his aim is to connect and reach out with everyone.

Meeting with him in his home late one afternoon, I began, “In your public talk yesterday afternoon you spoke of the importance of others, describing them as a Field of Merit. But in examining our relationship with others, there are really so many different ways in which we can relate to one another, different kind of relationships …”

“That’s very true,” said the Dalai Lama.
“For instance, there’s a certain type of relationship that’s highly valued in the West,” I observed. “That is a relationship that’s characterised by a deep level of intimacy between two people, having one special person with whom you can share your deepest feelings, fear, and so on. People feel that unless they have a relationship of this kind (often times, both physical attractions and sexual attractions tainted with some sort of emotional attachment, which has nothing to do with what pure, undiluted, universal and brotherly love is all about), that there is something missing in their lives . . . In fact, Western psychotherapy often seeks to help people learn how to develop the type of intimate relationship . . .”

“Yes, I believe that kind of intimacy can be seen as something positive,” the Dalai Lama agreed. “I think if someone is deprived of that kind of intimacy that it can lead to problems . . .”

“I’m just wondering then . . ., I continued, “When you were growing up in Tibet, you were not only considered to be a deity. I assume that people were in awe of you, perhaps even a bit nervous or frightened to be in your presence. Didn’t that create a certain emotional distance from others, a feeling of isolation? Also, being separated from your family, being raised as a monk from an early age, and as a monk never marrying and so on – didn’t all these things contribute to a feeling of separation from others? Do you ever feel that you missed out on developing a deeper level of personal intimacy with others or with one special person, such as a spouse?”
Without hesitation, he replied, "No! I never felt a lack of intimacy. Of course my father passed away many years ago, but I felt quite close to my mother, my teachers, my tutors and others. And with many of these people I could share my deepest feelings, fears and concerns. When I was in Tibet, on state occasions and at public events there was a certain formality, a certain protocol was observed, but that wasn’t always the case. At another times, for example, I used to spend time in the kitchen and I became quite close to some of the kitchen staff and we could joke or gossip or share things and it would be quite relaxed without the sense of formality or distance.

“So, when I was in Tibet or since I’ve become a refugee, I’ve never felt a lack of people with whom I can share thing with. I think a lot of this has to do with my nature. It’s easy for me to share with others; I’m not just good at keeping secrets!” he laughed. “Of course sometimes this can be a negative trait. For example, there may be some discussion in the Kashag(*) about confidential things, and then I’ll immediately discuss these things with others. But on a personal level, being open and sharing things can be very useful. Because of this nature I can make friends more easily, and it’s not just a matter of knowing people and having superficial exchange but of really sharing my deepest problems and suffering. And it’s the same thing when I hear good news; I immediately it with others. So, I feel a sense of intimacy and connection with my friends. Of course it’s sometimes easier for me to establish a connection with others because they’re often happy to share their suffering or joy with the ´Dalai Lama,´ ´His Holiness the Dalai Lama,´ ” he laughed again, making light of his title. “Anyway, I feel this sense of connection, of sharing, with many people. For instance, in the past, if I felt disappointed or unhappy with Tibetan government policy or I was concerned with other problems, even the threat of Chinese invasion, then I would return to my rooms and share with this with the person who sweeps the floor. From one point of view it may seem quite silly to some that the Dalai Lama, the head of the Tibetan government, facing some international or national problems, would share them with a sweeper.” He laughed once again. “But personally I feel it is very helpful because then the other person participates and we can face the problem or suffering together head on.”
- - -- - -

(*)

Th Cabinet of the Tibetan government-in-exile.
- - - - - -



EXPANDING OUR DEFINITION OF INTIMACY

Virtually all researchers in the field of human relationships agree that intimacy is central to our existence. The influential British psychoanalyst Hohn Bowlby wrote that “intimate attachments to other human beings are the hub around which a person’s life revolves . . . From these intimate attachments a person draws their strength and enjoyment of life and, through what they contribute they give strength and enjoyment to others. These are matters about which current science and traditional wisdom are at one.”

It is clear that intimacy promotes both physical and psychological well-being. In looking at the health benefits of intimate relationships, medical researchers have found that people who have close friendships, people whom they can turn to for affirmation, empathy and affection, are more likely to survive health challenges such as heart attacks and major surgery and are less likely to develop diseases such as cancer and respiratory infections. For example, one study of over a thousand heart patients at Duke University Medical Center found that those who lacked a spouse or close confidant were three times more likely to die within five years of the diagnosis of heart disease as those who were married o r had a close friend. Another study of thousands of residents in Alameda County, California, over a nine-year period showed that those with more social support and intimate relationships had lower death rates overall and lower rates os cancer. . And a study at the University of Nebraska School of Medicine and several hundred elderly people found that those with an intimate relationship had better immune function and lower cholesterol levels. Over the course of the past several years there have been at least half a dozen massive investigations conducted by a number of different researchers looking at the relationship between intimacy and health. After interviewing thousands of people, the various investigators all seem to have reached the same conclusion: close relationships do, in fact, promote health.

Intimacy is equally as important in maintaining good emotional health. The psychoanalyst and social philosophers Erich Fromm claimed that humankind’s most basic fear is the threat of being separated from other humans. He believed that the experience of separateness, first encountered in intimacy, is the source of all anxiety in human life. John Bowlby agreed, citing a good deal of experimental evidence and research to support the idea that separation from one’s caregivers – usually the mother or father – during the latter part of the first year of life, inevitably creates fear and sadness in babies. He felt that separation and interpersonal loss are at the very roots of human experiences of fear, sadness and sorrow.

So, given the vital importance of intimacy, how do we set about achieving intimacy in our daily lives? Following the Dalai Lama’s approach, it would seem reasonable to begin with learning – with understanding what intimacy is, seeking a workable definition and model of intimacy. In looking to science for the answer, however, it seems that despite the universal agreement amongst researchers about the importance of intimacy, that seems to be where the agreement ends. Perhaps the most striking feature of even a cursory review of the various studies on intimacy is the wide diversity of definitions and theories about exactly what intimacy is.

At the most concrete end of the spectrum is the author Desmond Morris, who writes about intimacy from the perspective of a zoologist trained in ethology. I n his book, Intimate Behaviour, Morris defines intimacy: “to be intimate means to be close . . . In my terms of, the act of intimacy occurs whenever two individuals come into bodily contact.” After defining intimacy in term of purely physical contact, he then goes on to explore the countless ways in which humans come into physical contact with one another, from a simple path on the back to the most erotic sexual embrace. He sees touch as the vehicle through which comfort one another and are comforted, via hugs or clasps of the hand and, when those avenues are not available to us, more indirect means of physical contact such as a manicure. He even theorises that the physical contacts we have with objects in our environment, from cigarettes to jewellery to hugging a pillow to waterbeds, act as substitutes for intimacy.

Most investigators are not so concrete in their definitions of intimacy, agreeing that intimacy is more than just physical closeness. Looking at the root of the word intimacy, from the Latin intima meaning “inner” or “innermost,” they most often subscribe to a broader definition, such as the one offered by Dr Dan McAdams, author of several books on the subject of intimacy. “The desire for intimacy is the desire to share one’s innermost self with another.”

But definitions of intimacy don’t stop there. On the opposite end of the spectrum from Desmond Morris stand experts such as the father/son psychiatrist team, Drs Thomas Patrick Malone and Patrick Thomas Malone. In their book, The Art of Intimacy, they define intimacy as “the experience of connectivity”. Their understanding of intimacy begins with thorough examination of our “connectivity” with other people, but they do not, however, limit their concept of intimacy to human relationships. Their definition so brad, in fact, that it includes our relationship with inanimate objects – trees, stars, and even space.

Concepts of the most ideal for of intimacy also vary throughout the world and history. The romantic notion of that “One Special Person” with whom we have passionate intimate relationship is a product of our time and culture. But this model of intimacy is not universally accepted amongst all cultures. For instance, the Japanese seem to rely more on friendship to gain intimacy, whereas Americans seek it more in romantic relationships with a boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse. In noting this, some researchers have suggested that Asians who tend to be less focused on personal feelings such as passion (in fact, you can hardly see husbands and wives holding hands in public streets than Westerners. Amongst Asians, too, when they visit their parents, siblings, uncles and aunts, for instance, you don’t see them hugging or kissing each other unlike Americans, especially Mediterranean) and are more concerned with the practical aspects of social attachments appear less vulnerable to the kind of disillusionment that leads to the crumbling of relationships.

In addition to variations amongst cultures, concepts of intimacy have also dramatically changed over time. In colonial America, the level of physical intimacy and proximity was generally greater than it is today, as family and even strangers shared close spaces and slept together in one room and used a common room for bathing, eating and sleeping. Yet the customary level of communication among spouses are quite formal by today’s standards – not much different from the way acquaintances or neighbours spoke to one anther. Only a century later, love and marriage became highly romanticised and intimate self-disclosure was expected to be an ingredient in any loving partnership.

Ideas of what considered to be private and intimate behaviour have also changed over time. In sixteenth-century Germany, for instance, a new husband and wife were expected to consummate their marriage on a bed carried by witnesses who would validate the marriage.

How people express their emotions has also changed. In the Middle Ages it was considered normal to be publicly express a wide range of feelings with great intensity and directness – joy, rage, fear, piety and even pleasure to torturing and killing enemies. Extremes of hysterical laughter, passionate weeping and violent rage were expressed much more than would be expected in our society. But the commonplace expression of emotions and feelings in that society ruled out the concept of emotional intimacy; if one is to display all emotions openly and indiscriminately, then there are no private feelings left to express to a special few.

Clearly, the notions we take for granted about intimacy are not universal. They change over time and are often shaped by economic, social and cultural conditions. And it is easy to become confused by the variety of different contemporary Western definitions of intimacy – with manifestations ranging from a haircut to our relationship and Neptune’s moons. So where does this leave us in our quest to understand what intimacy is? I think that the implication is clear.

There is incredible diversity among human lives, infinite variations among people with respect to how they can experience a sense of closeness. This realisation alone offers us a great opportunity. It means that at this very moment we have vast resources of intimacy available to us. Intimacy is all around us.

Today, so many of us are oppressed by a feeling of something missing in our lives, intensely suffering from a lack of intimacy. This is particularly true when we go through the inevitable periods in our life when we’re not involved in a romantic relationship or when the passion wanes from a relationship. There’s a widespread notion in our culture that deep intimacy is best achieved within the context of a passionate romantic relationship – that Special Someone who we set apart from all others. This can be profoundly limiting viewpoint, cutting us off from other potential sources of intimacy, and the cause of much misery and unhappiness when the Special Someone isn’t there.

But we have within our power the means to avoid this; we need only courageously expand our concept of intimacy to include all the other forms that surround us on a daily basis. By broadening our definition of intimacy, we open ourselves to discovering many new and equally satisfying ways of connecting with others. This brings us back to my initial discussion of loneliness with the Dalai Lama, a discussion triggered by a chance perusal of the “Personals” section of the newspaper. It makes me wonder. At the very moment that those people were composing their adverts, struggling to find just the right words that would bring romance into their lives and end the loneliness, how many of those people were already surrounded by friends, family or acquaintances – relationships that could easily be cultivated into genuine and deeply satisfying intimate relationships? Many, I would suggest. If what we seek in life is happiness and intimacy is an important ingredient of a happier life, then it clearly make sense to conduct our lives on the basis of a model of intimacy that includes as many forms of connection with others as possible. The Dalai Lama’s model of intimacy is based on a willingness to open ourselves to many others, forming genuine and deep bonds based on our common humanity.



DEEPENING OUR CONNECTION TO OTHERS

One afternoon following his public lecture, I arrived at the Dalai Lama’s receiving room for my weekly appointment. I was a few minute early. An attendant discreetly glided into the hallway to relate that His Holiness was occupied in a private audience and would be several more minutes. I assumed my familiar post outside his waiting room door and used the time to review my notes in preparation for our session, trying at the same time to avoid the suspicious gaze of a security guard – the same look perfected by convenience shop clerks for use on junior high school students loitering around the magazine racks.

Within a few moments, the door opened and a well-dressed middle aged couple were shown out. They looked familiar. I remembered that I had been briefly introduced to the several days earlier. I had been told that the wife was a well-known heiress and the husband an extremely wealthy, high-powered Manhattan solicitor. At the time of introduction we had only exchanged a few words, but they had both struck me as unbelievably haughty. As they emerged from the dalai Lamas receiving room, I noted a startling change. Gone was the arrogant manner and smug expressions before an ordinary Ph. D holder to be at the University of Cambridge, and in their place were two faces suffused with tenderness and emotion. They were like two children. Streams of tears ran down both faces. Although the Dalai Lama’s effect on others was not always so dramatic, I noticed that invariably others responded to him with some shift of emotion. I had long marvelled at his ability to bond with others, whatever their walk of life, and establish a deep and meaningful emotional exchange.


ESTABLISHING EMPATHY

While we had spoken of the importance of human warmth and compassion during our conversations in Dharamsala, it wasn’t until weeks later that I had an opportunity to explore human relationships with him in greater detail. By that time I was very eager to see if we could discover an underlying set of principles that he uses in his interactions with others – principles that might be applied to improve any relationship, whether it be with strangers, family, friends or lovers. Anxious to begin, I jumped right in:

“Now, on the topic of human relationship . . . what would you say is the most effective method or technique of connecting with others in a meaningful way and of reducing conflicts with others?”
He glared at me for a moment. It wasn’t an unkindly glare, but it made me feel as if I had just asked him to give me the precise chemical composition of moon dust.

After a brief pause, he responded, “Well, dealing with others is a very complex issue. There is no way that you can come up with one formula that could solve all problems. It’s a bit like cooking. If you are cooking a very delicious meal, a special meal, then there are various stages in the cooking. You may have to first boil the vegetables separately and then you have to fry them and then you combine them in a special way, mixing in spices and so on. And finally, the end result would be this delicious product. Similarly here, in order to be skilful in dealing with others, you need many factors. You can’t just say, ‘This is the method’ or ‘This is the technique’.

It wasn’t exactly the answer I was looking for I thought he was being evasive and felt that surely he must have something more concrete to offer. I pressed on: “Well, given that there is no single solution to improving our relationships, there are perhaps some more general guidelines that might be useful.”

The Dalai Lama thought for a moment before replying “Yes. Earlier we spoke of the importance of approaching others with the thought of compassion in one’s mind. That is crucial Of course, just telling someone, ‘Oh, it’s very important to be compassionate; you should have more love’ isn’t enough. A simple prescription like that alone isn’t going to work. But one effective means of teaching someone how to be more warm and compassionate is to begin by using reasoning to educate the individual about the value and practical benefits of compassion, and also having them and so on. In a sense this primes them, so there will be more of an effect as they proceed in their efforts to be more compassionate.

“Now in looking at the various means of developing compassion, I think that empathy is an important factor. The ability to appreciate another’s suffering. In fact, traditionally, one of the Buddhist techniques for enhancing compassion involves imagining a situation where there is a sentient being suffering – for instance, like a sheep about to be slaughtered by the butcher. And then try to imagine the suffering that the sheep may be going through and so on . . .” The Dalai Lama stopped for a moment to reflect, absently running a string of prayer beads through his fingers. He commented, “It occurs to me that if we were dealing with someone who was very cold and indifferent, then this kind of technique may not be very effective. It would be as if you were to ask the butcher to do this visualisation: the butcher is so burdened, so used to the whole thing, that it wouldn’t have any impact. So, for example, it would be very difficult to explain and utilise that technique for some Westerners who are accustomed to hunting and fishing for fun, as a form of recreation …”

“In that case,” I suggested, “it might not be an effective technique to ask a hunter to imagine the suffering of his prey, but you might be able to awaken feelings of compassion by beginning with having him visualise his favourite hunting dog caught in a trap and squealing with pain . . .”

“Yes, exactly . . .” agreed the Dalai Lama. “I think depending on the circumstances one might modify that technique. For instance, the person may not have a strong feeling of empathy towards animals but at least may have some empathy towards a close family member or friend. In that case the person could visualise a situation were the beloved person is suffering or going through tragic situation and then imagine how he or she would respond to that, react to that. So one can attempt to increase compassion by trying to empathise with another’s feelings or experience.

“I think that empathy is important not only as a means of enhancing compassion, but I think that generally speaking, when dealing with others on any level, if you’re having some difficulties, it’s extremely helpful to be able to try to put yourself in the other person’s place and see how you would react to the situation. Even if you have no common experience with the other person or have a very different lifestyle, you can try to do this through imagination. You may need to be slightly creative. This technique involves the capacity to temporarily suspend insisting on your own viewpoint but rather to look from the other person’s perspective, to imagine what would be the situation if you ere in his shoes, how you would deal with this. This helps you develop and awareness and respect for another’s feelings, which is an important factor in reducing conflicts and problems with other people.”

Our interview that afternoon was brief. I had been fitted into the Dalai Lama’s busy schedule at the last minute, and like several of our conversations, it occurred late in the day. Outside, the sun was beginning to set, filling the room with a bittersweet dusky light, turning the pale yellow walls a deep amber and illuminating the Buddhist icons in the room with rich golden hues. The Dalai Lama’s attendant silently entered the room, signalling the end of our session. Wrapping up the discussion, I asked, “I know that we have to close, but do you have any other words of advice or methods that you use to help establish empathy with others?”

Enclosing the words the words he had spoken in Dharamsala many weeks before, with a gentle simplicity he answered, “Whenever I meet people I always approach them from the standpoint of the most basic things we have in common. We each have a physical structure, a mind, emotions. We are all born in the same way, and we all die. All of us want happiness and do not want to suffer. Looking at others from this standpoint rather than emphasising secondary differences such as the fact that I am a Tibetan, or a different colour, religion, or cultural background, allows me to have a feeling that I’m meeting someone just the same as me. I find that relating to others on that level makes it much easier to exchange and communicate with one another.” With that, he rose, smiled, clasped my hand friendly, and retired for the evening.

The following day, we continued our discussion.
“We spoke a great deal about the importance of compassion in human relationships, and yesterday we discussed the role of empathy in improving our ability to relate to one another . . .”

“Yes,” the Dalai Lama nodded.
“Besides that, can you suggest any additional specific methods or techniques to help one deal with other people?”
“Well, as I mentioned yesterday, there is no way that you can come up with one or two simple techniques that can solve all problems. Having said that, however, I think there are some other factors that can help one deal with others more skilfully. First, it is helpful to understand and appreciate the background of the people you are dealing with. Also, being more open-minded and honest are useful qualities when it comes to dealing with others.”

I waited, but he didn’t say anything more.
“Can you suggest any other methods of improving our relationships?”
The Dalai Lama thought for a moment. “No,” he laughed. I felt that these particular bits of advice were too simplistic, commonplace really. Still, as that seemed to be all ha had to say on the subject for the moment, we turned to other topics.

That day, in the evening, I was invited at the home of some Tibetan friends in Dharamsala. My friends arranged an evening that proved to be quite lively. The meal was excellent, featuring a dazzling array of special dishes and starring. Tibetan Mo Mos, a tasty meat dumpling. As dinner wore on, the conversation became more animated. Soon, the guests were swapping off-colour stories about the most embarrassing thing they ever did while drunk. Several guests had been invited to the gathering, including a well-known couple from Germany, the wife of an architect and the husband a writer, author of a dozen books.

Having an interest in books, I approached the author and began a conversation. I asked about his writing. His replies were short and perfunctory, his manner blunt and standoffish. Thinking him rather unfriendly, even snobbish, I took an immediate dislike to him. Well, at least I made an attempt to connect with him, I consoled myself, and, and satisfied that he was simply a disagreeable person, I turned to conversation with some of the more amiable gusts.
The following day, I ran into a friend at a café of the village and over tea I recounted the events of the evening before.

“. . . I really enjoyed everyone, except for Rolf, that writer . . . He seemed so arrogant or something . . . so unfriendly.”

“I’ve known him for several years,” my friend said, “. . . I know that he comes across that way, but it’s just that he’s a bit shy, a bit reserved at first. He really is a wonderful person if you get to know him . . .” I wasn’t convinced. My friend continued, explaining, “. . . even though he is successful writer, he has had more than his share of difficulties in his life. Rolf has really suffered a lot. His family suffered tremendously at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. And he’s had two children, whom he has been very devoted to, born with some rare genetic disorder that he left them extremely physically and mentally handicapped. And instead of becoming bitter or spending his life playing the martyr, he dealt with problems by reaching out to others and spent many years devoting himself to working with the handicapped as a volunteer. He really is quite special if you get to know him.”

As it turned out, I met Rolf and his wife once again at the end of that week, at a small strip field serving as the local airport. We were scheduled on the same flight to Delhi, which turned out to be cancelled. The next flight to Delhi wasn’t for several days, so we decided to share a car to Delhi, a gruelling ten-hour ride. The few bit of background information that my friend shared with me had changed my feeling towards Rolf, and on the long ride down to Delhi I felt more open towards him. As a result, I made an effort to sustain a conversation with him. Initially, his manner remained the same. But with just that little bit of openness and persistence, I soon discovered that, as my friend had said, his standoffishness was more likely due to shyness than snobbery. As we rattled through the sweltering, dusty, northern Indian countryside, moving ever deeper into conversation, he proved to be a warm, genuine human being and a stalwart travelling companion.
By the time we reached Delhi, I realised that the Dalai Lama’s advice to “understand the background of people” was not as elementary and superficial as it first appeared. Yes, it was simple perhaps, but not simplistic. Sometimes it is the most basic and straightforward of advice, the kind that we tend to dismiss as naïve, that can be the most effective means of enhancing communication.

Several days later I was still in Delhi on a two-day stopover before returning to England. The change from the tranquillity of Dharamsala was jarring, and I was I n a foul mood. Besides battling the stifling heat, the pollution, and the crowds, the pavements swarmed with a common species of urban predator dedicated to the Street Swindle. Walking the scorching Delhi streets, a foreigner, a Target, an acquired Westerner mentality, approached by a half dozen hustlers per block, it felt as if I had “CHUMP” tattooed on my forehead. It was demoralising.

The morning, I fell for a common two-man street scam. One partner splattered a splotch or ed paint on my shoes while I was looking. Down the block, his confederate, an innocent looking shoeshine boy, brought the paint to my attention and offered to shine my shoes at the usual going rate. He deftly shined the shoes within minutes. When finished, he calmly demanded a huge sum – two months wages for many in Delhi. When I balked, he claimed that he was the price he had quoted me. I objected again, and the boy began to bellow, drawing a crowd, crying that I was refusing to pay him for services already rendered. Later that day I learned that this was a common scam played on unsuspecting tourists; after demanding a huge sum, the shoeshine boy deliberately raises a fuss, drawing a crowd with the intention of extorting the money from the tourists by embarrassment and the desire to avoid a scene.

That afternoon I lunched with a colleague at my hotel. The events of the morning were quickly forgotten as she enquired about my recent series of interviews with the Dalai Lama. We became engrossed in a discussion about the Dalai Lama’s ideas regarding empathy and the importance of taking the other person’s perspective. After lunch we jumped into a cab and set off to visit some mutual friends. As the cab pulled away, my thoughts returned to the shoeshine scam that morning, and as dark images rustled in my mind, I happened to glance at the metre.

“Stop the taxi! ” I yelled. My friend jumped at the sudden outburst. The taxi driver scowled at me in the rearview mirror but kept driving.
“Pull over!” I demanded, my voice now quivering with a trace of hysteria. My friend appeared shocked. The taxi stopped I pointed at the metre, furiously stabbing at the air “You didn’t rest the metre! There was over twenty rupees on the metre when we started!”

“So sorry, sir,” he said with a dull indifference that further infuriated me, “I forgot to reset. . . . I will restart . . . .”
“You’re not restarting anything!” I exploded “I’m fed up with you people trying to pad fares, drive around in circles or do whatever you can to rip people off . . . I’m just . . . just fed up!” I sputtered and fumed with a sanctimonious intensity. My friend looked embarrassed. The taxi driver merely stared at me with the same defiant expression found most often amongst the sacred cows that strolled out into the middle of a busy Delhi street and stopped, with the seditious intent to hold up traffic. He looked at me as if my outburst was merely tiresome and boring. I threw a few rupees into the front seat, and without further comment opened the car door for my friend and followed her out.

Within a few minutes we hailed another taxi and were on our way again. But I couldn’t let it drop. As we drove through the streets of Delhi, I continued to complain about how “everyone” in Delhi was out to cheat tourists and that we were nothing but quarry. My colleague listened silently as I ranted and raved. Finally she said, “Well, twenty rupees is only around 20p. Why get so worked up?”

I seethed with pious indignation. “But it’s the principle that counts!” I proclaimed. “I can’t see how you can be so calm about this whole thing anyway it happens all the time. Doesn’t it bother you?”

“Well,” she said slowly, “it did for a minute, but I started thinking about what we were talking about at lunch, about the Dalai Lama saying how important it is to see things from another’s perspective. While you were getting worked up, I tried to think about what I might have in common with the cabdriver. We both want food to eat, to sleep well, to feel good, to be loved, and so on. Then, I tried to imagine myself as the cabdriver. I sit in a stifling cab all day without air conditioning, maybe I’m angry and jealous of rich foreigners. . . . and the best way I can come up with to make things ‘fair’, to be happy, is to derive ways to cheat people out of their money. But the thing is, even when it works and I squeeze a few extra rupees out of an unsuspecting tourist, I can’t imagine that it’s a very satisfying way to be happier or a very satisfying life. . . . I mean, the more I imagined myself as the cabdriver, somehow the less angry I as at him. His life just seemed sad. . . . I mean, I still don’t agree with what he did and we were right to get out of the cab, but I just couldn’t get worked up enough to hate enough for it. . . .”

I was silent. Startled, in fact, at how little I had actually absorbed from the Dalai Lama. By that time I was beginning to develop an appreciation of the practical value of his advice, such as “understanding another’s background,” and of course I found his examples of how he implemented these principles in his own life to be inspiring. But as I thought back over our series of discussions beginning in Dharamsala, I realised that right from the beginning our interviews had taken on a clinical tone, as if I was asking him about human anatomy, only in this case, it was the anatomy of the human mined and spirit. Until that moment, however, it hadn’t occurred to me to apply his ideas fully to my own life, at least not right now – I always had a vague intention of trying to implement his ideas in my life at some point in the future, perhaps when I had more time.


EXAMINING THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF A RELATIONSHIP

My conversations with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala had begun with a discussion about the sources of happiness. And despite the fact that he has chosen to live his life as a monk, studies have shown that marriage is a factor that can, in fact, bring happiness – providing the intimacy and close bonds that enhance health and overall life satisfaction. There have been many thousands of surveys of Americans and Europeans that show that generally, married people are happier and more satisfied with than single or widowed people – or especially compared to divorced people. One survey found that six in ten Americans who rate their marriage as “very happy” also rate their life as a whole as “very happy”. In discussing the topic of human relationships, I thought it important to bring up the subject of that common source of happiness.
(TO BE CONTINUED...)




THE VALUE AND BENEFITS OF COMPASSION

Defining Compassion

As our conversations progressed, I discovered that the development of compassion plays a greater role in the Dalai Lama’s life than simply a means of cultivating a feeling of warmth and affection, a means of improving our relationship with others. It became clear, in fact, that as a practising Buddhist, the development of compassion was an integral part of his spiritual path.

“Given the importance that Buddhism places on compassion as an essential part of one’s development," I asked, “Can you more clearly define what you mean by ‘compassion’?”

The Dalai Lama replied, “Compassion can be roughly defined in terms of a state of mind that is non-violent, non-harming and non-aggressive. It is a mental attitude based on the wish for others to be free of their suffering and is associated with a sense of commitment, responsibility and respect towards THE OTHER.

“In discussing the definition of compassion, the Tibetan word Tse-wa, there is also a sense to the word of its being a state of mind that can include a wish for good things for oneself. In developing compassion, perhaps one could begin with the wish that oneself be free, and then take that natural feeling towards oneself and cultivate it, enhance it, and extend it out to include and embrace others.

“Now, when people speak of compassion, I think that there’s often a danger of confusing compassion with attachment. So when we discuss compassion, we must first make a distinction between ‘two types’ of love or compassion. One kind of compassion is tinged with attachment – the feeling of controlling someone, or loving someone so that person will love you back. This ordinary type of love or compassion is quite partial and biased. And a relationship based on that alone is unstable. That kind of partial relationship, based on perceiving and identifying the person as a friend, may lead to a certain emotional attachment and feeling of closeness. But if there is a slight change in the situation a disagreement perhaps, or if your friend does something to make you angry, then all of a sudden your mental projection changes; the concept of ‘my friend’ is no longer there. Then you’ll find the emotional attachment evaporating, and instead of that feeling of love and concern, you may have a feeling of hatred. So, that kind of love, based on attachment, can be closely linked with hatred.

“But there is a second type of compassion that is free from such attachment. That is genuine compassion. That kind of compassion isn’t so much based on the fact that this person or that person is dear to me. Rather, genuine compassion is based on the rationale that all human beings have an innate desire to be happy and overcome suffering, just like myself. And, just like myself, they have the natural right to fulfil this fundamental aspiration. On the basis of the recognition of this equality and commonality, you develop a sense of affinity and closeness with others. With this as a foundation, you can feel compassion regardless of whether you view the other person as a friend or an enemy. It is based on the other’s fundamental rights rather than your own mental projection. Upon this basis, then, you will generate love and compassion. That’s genuine compassion.

“So, one can see how making the distinction between these two kinds of compassion and cultivating genuine compassion can be quite important in or day-to-day life. For instance, in marriage there is generally a component of emotional attachment. But I think that if there is a component of genuine compassion as well, based on mutual respect as two human beings, the marriage tends to last a long time. In the case of emotional attachment without compassion, the marriage is more unstable and tends to end more quickly.”

The idea of developing a different kind of compassion, a more universal compassion, a kind of generic compassion divorced from personal feeling, seemed like a tall order. Turning it over in my mind, as if thinking aloud, I asked, “But love or compassion is a subjective feeling. It seems that the emotional tone or feeling of love or compassion would be the same whether it was ‘tinged with attachment’ or ‘genuine’. So if the person would experience the same emotion or feeling in both types why is it important to distinguish between the two?”

With a decisive tone, the Dalai Lama answered, “First, I think that there is a different quality between the feeling of genuine love, or compassion, and love based on attachment. It’s not the same feeling. The feeling of genuine compassion is much stronger, much wider; it has a very profound quality. Also, genuine love and compassion are much more stable, more reliable. For example, if you see an animal intensely suffering, like a fish writhing with a hook in its mouth, you might spontaneously experience a feeling of not being able to bear its pain. That feeling isn’t based on a special connection with that particular animal, a feeling of ‘Oh, that animal is my friend.’ In that case you’re basing your compassion simply on the fact that that being also has a feeling, can experience pain. So, that type of compassion, not mixed with desire or attachment, is much more sound, and more durable in the long run.”

Moving deeper into the subject of compassion, I continued, “Now in your example of seeing a fish intensely suffering with a hook in its mouth, you bring up a vital point – that it is associated with a feeling of not being able to bear its pain.”
“Yes,” said the Dalai Lama. “In fact, in one sense one could define compassion as the feeling of unbearableness at the sight o other people’s suffering, other sentient being’s suffering. And in order to generate that feeling one must first have an appreciation of the seriousness or intensity of another’s suffering. So, I think that the more fully one understands suffering, and the various kinds of suffering that we are subjected to, the deeper will be one’s level of compassion.”

I raised the question, “Well, I appreciate the fact that greater awareness of other’s suffering can enhance our capacity for compassion. In fact, by definition, compassion involves opening oneself to another’s suffering. Sharing another’s suffering. But there is amore basic question: Why would we want to take on another’s suffering when we don’t even want our own? I mean, most of us go to great lengths to avoid our own pain and suffering, even to the point of taking drugs and so on. Why would we then deliberately take on someone else’s suffering?”

Without hesitation the Dalai Lama responded, “I feel that there is a significant difference between your own suffering and the suffering you might experience in a compassionate which you take upon yourself and share other people’s suffering – a qualitative difference.” He paused, and then as if effortlessly targeting my own feelings at the moment, he continued, “When you think about your own suffering there is a feeling of being totally overwhelmed. There is a sense of being burdened, of being passed under something – a feeling of helplessness. There’s a dullness, as if almost your faculties have become numb.

“Now, in generating compassion, when you are taking on another’s suffering, you may also initially experience a certain degree of discomfort, a sense of uncofortableness or unbearableness. But in the case of compassion, the feeling is much different, underlying the uncomfortable feeling is a very high level of alertness and determination because you are voluntarily and deliberately accepting another’s suffering for a higher purpose. There is a feeling of connectedness and commitment, a willing to reach out to others, a feeling of freshness rather than dullness. This is similar to the case of an athlete. While undergoing rigorous training, an athlete may suffer a lot – working out, sweating, straining. I think it be quite a painful and exhausting experience. But the athlete doesn’t see it as a painful experience. The athlete would take it as a great accomplishment, an experience associated with a sense of joy. But if the same person were subjected to some other physical work that was not part of their athletic training, then the athlete would think, ‘Oh, why have I been subjected to this terrible ordeal?’ So the mental attitude makes a tremendous difference."

These few words, spoken with such conviction, lifted and uplifted me from an oppressed feeling to one of a feeling of the possibility of the resolution of suffering, of transcending suffering.

“You mention that the first step in generating that kind of compassion is an appreciation of suffering. But are there any other specific Buddhist technique used to enhance one’s compassion?”

“Yes. For example in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism we find two principal techniques for cultivating compassion. These are known as the ‘seven-point cause and effect’ method and the ‘exchange and equality of oneself with others’. The ‘exchange and equality’ method is the technique that you’ll find in the eighth chapter of the Shantideva’s Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life,” he said.
- - - - - - - -
ROSS, NLP Spiritual Life Coach
http:// uniqueross.blogspot.com
unicoross@hotmail.com
Tel.: (+34) 619 564 204