The Dalai Lama was recently in Seattle and I regretted the fact that I had not taken the time to schedule attendance at one of his public events, particularly the Dave Matthews Band Concert with the Dalai Lama. I thus considered this a good time to read some of his writings.The Essential Dalai Lama is divided is a compilation of his various works that has been organized and divided into four sections: The Vision, Buddhist Perspectives, Practice and A World In Harmony.
THE VISION
p. 8
"How am I to be happy?" The Dalai Lama is very clear that he understands this to be the key question that preoccupies human existence. I want to agree with that. I really do believe that is my major motive in much of what I do in life. Sometimes my actions make that confusing. For example, I was looking at my personal schedule yesterday and trying to figure out why it is that I don't have any time to go down to Portland to visit my life and my city. I realized that almost all of the time that I am not working, I am watching my kids. I don't really have "free time" in my schedule other than a few hours in the morning prior to going to work. Even my weekends are filled with obligations primarily to my children. How am I to be happy under these circumstances? Then this morning before I woke my children up for school, I looked down at my sleeping Lauren and I came to realize that SHE makes me happy. Most of the time she makes me happier than visiting Portland would make me. Happiness is the goal but sometimes happiness is problematic. I have heard it said many times before, the human personality is like an onion. There are many, many layers to who we are. Ahhh, wouldn't it be grand if life were as simple for us as it is for the pet dog? We would be happy with a good meal, playing in the sun now and then and getting our bellies scratched. Alas, the human experience requires alot more than that. The Jeff Anderson who is father loves his children and will do anything for them. I nurture and cherish that image of myself and so I sacrifice to maintain it. That makes me happy. The Jeff Anderson who gave up Portland and moved away from his family has yet to die. I miss my sister and I miss my hometown. I feel at ease in Portland in a way that I do not anywhere else in the world and this is true even though I have now lived in Washington for over ten years. Happiness is problematic.
p. 9-10
I love the way he approaches the question of dependence versus independence. In this age of psychology with all of the language about function versus dysfunction, we worship the individual and come to be believe that humans are autonomous. The Dalai Lama points out the humans were not meant to live alone, that we are dependent, that this yearning for independence in society has led us into some pretty unreal expectations of ourselves. He looks back to the time when farmers and families would work together to help with the harvest. Today we hire someone instead or we call a contractor. Modern living is "organized so that it demands the least possible direct dependence on others." In lieu of community dependence or "interdependence", our modern society is organized in such a way that we are wholly dependent upon our employers. We fear nothing more than loss of job and yet our employers, unlike our communities or our families usually could give a damned about our personal welfare. The priority is making a profit. The Dalai Lama suggests that this shift explains why we do not consider it important to nurture the happiness of others. It's not that our society moves us towards malevolence towards others. Instead, it moves us towards indifference.
I"m struck as I read this section with the realization that the modern model for living is radically different than the biblical model that I frequently embrace. In the modern model, the power resides only among those who have the money, who own the capital for production, and we are literally a bunch of blood suckers who are trying to survive off of the few. Instead, the Bible talks about the uniqueness and the sacredness of the individual. We are each gifted with special talents and abilities that we use to better our own lives and in turn the lives of all others as we contribute this giftedness back to the world. There is no hierarchy in the biblical model. We all have something infinite within us to contribute to the whole. There's no blood sucking going on in this model.
It would be interesting to do a study on the rise and development of the vampire archetype. How much is that archetype dependent upon the breakdown of the community as the primary source of strength and the rise of industrialist society? When is it that we start thinking of humans as blood suckers? It's funny because we all have a relative or a friend who occasionally sucks us dry and we think of the vampire or the leech yet we are all a bunch of vampires!
p. 13
The Dalai Lama comments that in his travels he has discovered that happiness really is not dependent upon wealth. Why is it, he asks, that the peoples of the developed nations seem less happy than many people in the third world? While cooperation is a necessity in third world countries, it still leads to a level of contentment that we do not share. "The challenge we face is therefore to find some means of enjoying the same degrees of harmony and tranquility as those more traditional communities while benefiting fully from the materials developments of the world as we find it as the dawn of a new millennium. To say otherwise is to imply that these communities should not even try to improve their standard of living." The Dalai Lama suggests that there is room both for a healthy materialism and a healthy spirituality in today's world if we simply learn how to do it. I like this! I'm refreshed by it because I don't have to live like a hypocrite with this thinking. Jesus is constantly demanding that I sell all that I have and give it to the poor. We Christians have found a multitude to take his words and twist them. He's speaking metaphorically, we like to say. But Jesus commands in this situation are based on the same premise as the modern world's: that there is not enough for everyone therefore we need to give up something. That premise is called "the zero sum game". It is the idea that the whole world is like a resource pie that does not grow nor expand. In order for all of us to survive, perhaps we need to cut our slice slightly (or greatly if we are in North America) so that others can have a slice too. The Dalai Lama might be suggesting that the resource pie is not finite, that is does grow. We can produce more to sustain more. I think that might be true. I certainly think that this assumption contains alot of faith in the ability of human creativity to be able to produce more and find solutions to the world's problems.
p. 21
this is a great statement:"On this basis, I will speak today on how a human eing can find happiness as an individual, because I believe the individual is the key to all the rest. For change to happen in any community, the initiative must come from the individual. If the individual cna become a good, calm, peaceful person, this automatically brings a positive atmosphere to the family around him or her. When parents are warm-hearted, peaceful and calm people, generally speaking their children will also develop that attitude and behavior."
p. 22
Dalai Lama affirms that the most important factor in achieving a sense of peace is the ability to feel compassion. He separates this from the kind of love that a person feels for his/her friends because he thinks that the latter involves too much of a sense of attachment or what we would call "favoritism". Compassion and bias are mutually exclusive for him. Additionally, compassion does not include pity because we only pity those who we look down at. He is calling for radically equalitarian relationships with nature and with others.
p. 23
The Dalai Lama has confidence that we can develop that sense of "unbiased compassion" within our lifetimes. Here his confidence sounds very similar to John Wesley's confidence that we all can develop a perfect love for others.
p. 25
One of the most vexing problems of my life is that I truly believe in the power of nonviolence, in patience and longsuffering winning out over anger and selfishness but I consistently see the latter winning out over the former. I am a great believer in nonviolence but I consistently wonder whether nonviolence is as powerful as violence. According to the Dalai Lama, nonviolence consistently wins out because the nonviolent tend to die older and live a happier life. The violent frequently win the petty battles and skirmishes but they never win the wars.
p. 26
Here the Dalai Lam argues against the idea that we need to express our anger. He suggests that we need to learn to let it go. Over time, the anger diminishes, he says. I totally agree with us. From everything I've seen, anger merely fosters more anger until you have an absolute war on your hands. In my thinking, anger is really an emotion for the stupid and it leads to ignorance. Now I have to say that I have been angry on more than one occasion. Everytime I'm angry, however, I really learn lashing out in anger merely makes me look stupid. It is so much better to wait, to hold on, to assess the situation and try to reach a place of understanding.
Okay, that's enough for now. I'm looking forward to getting into the next sections. I really value the qualities that the Dalai Lama is trying to nurture. I can ask all sorts of metaphysical questions about the nature of God, the nature of sin, the actual nature of Jesus Christ, etc., but in many ways they don't matter to me because they aren't fully answerable here and now nor may they ever be. On the question of whether nonviolence is more powerful than violence, I face that conflict every day. On the question of how to deal with anger, I face that question every day. I'm eager to see what some of the methods are the the Dalai Lama proposes to alleviate anger.
THE VISION
p. 8
"How am I to be happy?" The Dalai Lama is very clear that he understands this to be the key question that preoccupies human existence. I want to agree with that. I really do believe that is my major motive in much of what I do in life. Sometimes my actions make that confusing. For example, I was looking at my personal schedule yesterday and trying to figure out why it is that I don't have any time to go down to Portland to visit my life and my city. I realized that almost all of the time that I am not working, I am watching my kids. I don't really have "free time" in my schedule other than a few hours in the morning prior to going to work. Even my weekends are filled with obligations primarily to my children. How am I to be happy under these circumstances? Then this morning before I woke my children up for school, I looked down at my sleeping Lauren and I came to realize that SHE makes me happy. Most of the time she makes me happier than visiting Portland would make me. Happiness is the goal but sometimes happiness is problematic. I have heard it said many times before, the human personality is like an onion. There are many, many layers to who we are. Ahhh, wouldn't it be grand if life were as simple for us as it is for the pet dog? We would be happy with a good meal, playing in the sun now and then and getting our bellies scratched. Alas, the human experience requires alot more than that. The Jeff Anderson who is father loves his children and will do anything for them. I nurture and cherish that image of myself and so I sacrifice to maintain it. That makes me happy. The Jeff Anderson who gave up Portland and moved away from his family has yet to die. I miss my sister and I miss my hometown. I feel at ease in Portland in a way that I do not anywhere else in the world and this is true even though I have now lived in Washington for over ten years. Happiness is problematic.
p. 9-10
I love the way he approaches the question of dependence versus independence. In this age of psychology with all of the language about function versus dysfunction, we worship the individual and come to be believe that humans are autonomous. The Dalai Lama points out the humans were not meant to live alone, that we are dependent, that this yearning for independence in society has led us into some pretty unreal expectations of ourselves. He looks back to the time when farmers and families would work together to help with the harvest. Today we hire someone instead or we call a contractor. Modern living is "organized so that it demands the least possible direct dependence on others." In lieu of community dependence or "interdependence", our modern society is organized in such a way that we are wholly dependent upon our employers. We fear nothing more than loss of job and yet our employers, unlike our communities or our families usually could give a damned about our personal welfare. The priority is making a profit. The Dalai Lama suggests that this shift explains why we do not consider it important to nurture the happiness of others. It's not that our society moves us towards malevolence towards others. Instead, it moves us towards indifference.
I"m struck as I read this section with the realization that the modern model for living is radically different than the biblical model that I frequently embrace. In the modern model, the power resides only among those who have the money, who own the capital for production, and we are literally a bunch of blood suckers who are trying to survive off of the few. Instead, the Bible talks about the uniqueness and the sacredness of the individual. We are each gifted with special talents and abilities that we use to better our own lives and in turn the lives of all others as we contribute this giftedness back to the world. There is no hierarchy in the biblical model. We all have something infinite within us to contribute to the whole. There's no blood sucking going on in this model.
It would be interesting to do a study on the rise and development of the vampire archetype. How much is that archetype dependent upon the breakdown of the community as the primary source of strength and the rise of industrialist society? When is it that we start thinking of humans as blood suckers? It's funny because we all have a relative or a friend who occasionally sucks us dry and we think of the vampire or the leech yet we are all a bunch of vampires!
p. 13
The Dalai Lama comments that in his travels he has discovered that happiness really is not dependent upon wealth. Why is it, he asks, that the peoples of the developed nations seem less happy than many people in the third world? While cooperation is a necessity in third world countries, it still leads to a level of contentment that we do not share. "The challenge we face is therefore to find some means of enjoying the same degrees of harmony and tranquility as those more traditional communities while benefiting fully from the materials developments of the world as we find it as the dawn of a new millennium. To say otherwise is to imply that these communities should not even try to improve their standard of living." The Dalai Lama suggests that there is room both for a healthy materialism and a healthy spirituality in today's world if we simply learn how to do it. I like this! I'm refreshed by it because I don't have to live like a hypocrite with this thinking. Jesus is constantly demanding that I sell all that I have and give it to the poor. We Christians have found a multitude to take his words and twist them. He's speaking metaphorically, we like to say. But Jesus commands in this situation are based on the same premise as the modern world's: that there is not enough for everyone therefore we need to give up something. That premise is called "the zero sum game". It is the idea that the whole world is like a resource pie that does not grow nor expand. In order for all of us to survive, perhaps we need to cut our slice slightly (or greatly if we are in North America) so that others can have a slice too. The Dalai Lama might be suggesting that the resource pie is not finite, that is does grow. We can produce more to sustain more. I think that might be true. I certainly think that this assumption contains alot of faith in the ability of human creativity to be able to produce more and find solutions to the world's problems.
p. 21
this is a great statement:"On this basis, I will speak today on how a human eing can find happiness as an individual, because I believe the individual is the key to all the rest. For change to happen in any community, the initiative must come from the individual. If the individual cna become a good, calm, peaceful person, this automatically brings a positive atmosphere to the family around him or her. When parents are warm-hearted, peaceful and calm people, generally speaking their children will also develop that attitude and behavior."
p. 22
Dalai Lama affirms that the most important factor in achieving a sense of peace is the ability to feel compassion. He separates this from the kind of love that a person feels for his/her friends because he thinks that the latter involves too much of a sense of attachment or what we would call "favoritism". Compassion and bias are mutually exclusive for him. Additionally, compassion does not include pity because we only pity those who we look down at. He is calling for radically equalitarian relationships with nature and with others.
p. 23
The Dalai Lama has confidence that we can develop that sense of "unbiased compassion" within our lifetimes. Here his confidence sounds very similar to John Wesley's confidence that we all can develop a perfect love for others.
p. 25
One of the most vexing problems of my life is that I truly believe in the power of nonviolence, in patience and longsuffering winning out over anger and selfishness but I consistently see the latter winning out over the former. I am a great believer in nonviolence but I consistently wonder whether nonviolence is as powerful as violence. According to the Dalai Lama, nonviolence consistently wins out because the nonviolent tend to die older and live a happier life. The violent frequently win the petty battles and skirmishes but they never win the wars.
p. 26
Here the Dalai Lam argues against the idea that we need to express our anger. He suggests that we need to learn to let it go. Over time, the anger diminishes, he says. I totally agree with us. From everything I've seen, anger merely fosters more anger until you have an absolute war on your hands. In my thinking, anger is really an emotion for the stupid and it leads to ignorance. Now I have to say that I have been angry on more than one occasion. Everytime I'm angry, however, I really learn lashing out in anger merely makes me look stupid. It is so much better to wait, to hold on, to assess the situation and try to reach a place of understanding.
Okay, that's enough for now. I'm looking forward to getting into the next sections. I really value the qualities that the Dalai Lama is trying to nurture. I can ask all sorts of metaphysical questions about the nature of God, the nature of sin, the actual nature of Jesus Christ, etc., but in many ways they don't matter to me because they aren't fully answerable here and now nor may they ever be. On the question of whether nonviolence is more powerful than violence, I face that conflict every day. On the question of how to deal with anger, I face that question every day. I'm eager to see what some of the methods are the the Dalai Lama proposes to alleviate anger.
2 comments:
Hello, Jeff.
I really enjoyed reading this. I want to go out and get that book now. It seems like I would really like it. Keep posting!
So, I just went back to a really long comment you left me on 43T and I'm about to send you an e-mail answering every one of the million questions that arose in that comment. lol
-Bethany from 43T
Post a Comment