This is tape TRC 89-2. The East-West Foundation presents Harmonia Mundi, Worlds in Harmony, October 1989 in Newport Beach, California. This is a forum dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Everyone who was in a group, most people did go to groups, and we've heard some questions and you'll be hearing those during the session as well as those from the panel. So why don't we just begin. Could you perhaps speak a little just to see if the audience will hear you. Some people are saying that they couldn't quite understand what you were saying earlier and it might be a mic problem. They won't, they won't, testing. Oh testing, testing. Is that, is that clear in the back?

[01:11]

What did he say? Okay why don't we just proceed with some questions that have been discussed. Yes we'll hear from from the audience. Your Holiness, there are several questions, in fact there are a large number of questions and statements and issues which came from the different, the 30 groups that we had, and Dan and I have done our best to boil those down and condense them into the essence of what came up this morning. And the first one is really two or three questions that are very similar or related to each other, and that is, is suffering an essential element, an essential part of life? That is, is suffering inevitable or is it something that we are creating by the dualistic way we think about the

[02:19]

world, and also is, can some good come out of suffering? Based on, for this question, based on different belief systems that individuals might have, answers could be different according to individual. You know, from Buddhist viewpoint, so long our main mind dominated by ignorance or negative emotion, then the suffering, one form or another, always there. Of course

[03:26]

there is some, some suffering which we ordinary people do not recognize as a suffering. So you know, in Buddhist teachings, sufferings are spoken of at three different levels. One type of suffering is very obvious, physical sensations like pain, and the other level of sufferings is the suffering of change, which normally we associate with happiness, pleasure. And then the third level of suffering is the pervasive suffering of conditioning. But these sufferings do have one positive

[04:31]

aspect, which is by being aware of the sufferings, then this can inspire within oneself a wish to be free of suffering, look forward to liberation from suffering. But the sufferings by themselves are not desirable, something that is totally undesirable. So it's really how we use the suffering. I would like to raise another question in this connection, which is that everybody knows that suffering by all human beings, indeed all sentient creatures, one might say, throughout history, has been part of the sentient condition, whether of other creatures or humans. However, I have come reluctantly to the conclusion that at this moment of history, we stand in a place where there is

[05:38]

something absolutely unique in human history, which is that the risks that are being taken by the people who really hold the power of the world in their hands, mostly men I might add, that it's true that the risks that are being taken for an amazing level of suffering, which has never been known in history, to include possibly the end of all human experience and perhaps of sentient creatures of all kinds, that this is a unique moment about suffering. So that I don't think it's in the way proper to simply ask the question, is suffering something we must accept as part of existence, really, because we stand, in my opinion, in a unique place in all history. I'm wondering what you would say to that. Then I think here maybe

[06:42]

usually I make a distinction, the man-made suffering and the suffering of another another form. Then, you see, the man-made suffering definitely, if we adopt certain, how to say, an attitude, and if not completely eliminate, definitely we can reduce. So in that field, you see, everyone is concerned, isn't it? The other type of suffering, then something, something, I don't know, something that I think is mainly concerning about individual, according to individual faith and individual practice. We had people who wanted to find, to see ways of telling the difference between being able to tune in, to be aware of other people's suffering, or distinguishing that from

[07:50]

really feeling their own suffering and projecting it on the other people, when they were really feeling other people's suffering. I don't know.

[08:58]

The rest of you, yeah, yeah. It would be good if the rest of you also could respond. Open up. This awareness is inviting the rest of you, the rest of us to respond. Comment on this question. The two kinds of suffering. Well, the question is, how do you know you're reacting to someone else's suffering, or to your own, which you project onto them? It is, I mean, there are such things. But then, how to tell the difference? Any suggestions? Well, you know, I'm not surprised that His Holiness says, I don't know, ask them to help, because the fact is that, whereas I imagine most of the people in this room are in the helping profession one way or another, not all, but most, that that question confronts us daily in our clinical work, which is, how do I tell the difference between whether I'm simply reading

[10:13]

into this person's feelings, something I'm feeling and I'm suffering about, or whether this is something truly in this other human being? I would only say to that, that since suffering is a fairly universal experience to begin with, you can't go too far wrong, means that to simply say, this is my feeling and I'm pretending it's this person's feeling, is probably never altogether true, because suffering is suffering, after all. I would say, though, that sometimes, at least in my own experience, which extends over more years than I care to think about, one of the guidelines, it seems to me, is that if you feel this person is suffering about this, and you say what you think, then you can tell by the response from that person,

[11:18]

whether you are simply reading something into their feelings, or whether they are responding in such a way which says, you're right, and now let me tell you, and they go on with this and this which suggests that it's something in them as well, at least as well as in you. That's a guideline, which I find very useful. This question about, am I feeling my own pain, or am I feeling the world's pain, comes up a great deal. And I think we cannot really categorically separate, because we are interconnected. And when we see the suffering of our brothers and sisters, of other countries, of other species, in our own place, we are part of the culture that is doing that.

[12:21]

Just as we were walking in here, Stephen was saying, I am very tired because all year Andrea and I have been working with sexually abused women, and you were feeling pain. Is it your pain or the women's pain? See, if there's a place in me that the pain can stick to, it will. That's a good answer. When we were working with people who were dying for 10 years anyhow, the naturalness of death, not much resistance. People die with pain in the body. But when we started to work with people who had voluntarily been tortured, that somebody's heart, somebody's mind had been so closed, so unsensitive. You mean purposely rather than voluntarily?

[13:23]

Purposely. That they could, that there was a voluntary, there was a voluntary suffering. Involuntary suffering of dying, we all die. We aren't all tortured though. And I found in myself that... Stephen, I don't think you mean voluntary. Excuse me, I just want to clarify. Created. The torturer. It was created. Some other person chose to inflict the torture. That's the difference. One... Yes. The person did not volunteer to receive it. No, right. One person intended to hurt another. Well, there's no intention of harm and death. It's just a process. And I saw in myself as we worked more with people who had been hurt intentionally by others. More fatigue. That it stuck to me more. There were more places in myself that fought injustice, that felt uncomfortable with the suffering we all are involved in.

[14:29]

This train of suffering. This conspiracy of suffering. And I think I found it stuck to me more where there was that quality of someone willing to hurt another. Intending even. Intending. Exactly. I was wondering, did it also... Oh, I'm sorry. This is very true. Because you sort of live the experience and you sympathize... You involve yourself personally in the suffering of the dying person. Oh, that's a very good thing. I think very good.

[15:30]

Could we... Your Holiness, when you say it's very good... Yes. You mean it's very good to be so personally involved that you feel the pain of the person you're working with? Yes. The person is actually sharing the other person's suffering. But Stephen was saying that he felt it so much that he was feeling... He couldn't go on with the work. Well, that he was very tired to go on with the work. Are we talking about the difference between pain and suffering here? Pain is a given. If you're born, you have a body that has nerves. If you bump it into something, it hurts. We're born with a desire system. We don't seem to accumulate it as much as reinforce what's already there. I've got a... Hold on. Yes? The difference between pain and suffering. Right. That's what I... They translate virtually equivalent in English. Pain is a given. If you have a body and you hit it against something, it hurts.

[16:37]

Is it... Is suffering our response to pain? Could one just live in the pain and not be suffering? I'm saying both physical and emotional. Compared to the sensations of... Now, first of all, let us define between pain and suffering. Pain here, we are talking in terms of physical sensations. Pain in terms of sensations, whereas suffering in terms of mental responses that you experience as a result of the pain. Now, if we define in that way, then one could say that mental suffering and mental happiness, mental joy

[17:39]

are more acutely felt than physical sensations of pleasure or pain. Therefore, it is possible that by the force of mental pleasure or mental suffering, it's possible to overwhelm the force of physical sensations. So? But... So, your main question is? So, His Holiness' answer to your question, whether it's possible to, in spite of having experience of pain, whether we can avoid suffering, his answer is yes, definitely yes. Mm-hmm. But sometimes, for example, I think, certainly, you see, physical pain, I think actually voluntarily, how to say, accept sometimes. Now, for example, in order to, how to say, to have healthy body,

[18:45]

it's too much exercise. During that moment, you may feel very tired, isn't it? And even if it's some joint, you may feel pain. But these pains, you see, there is some, how to say, reason, you see, to accept these things. So, mentally, no suffering, isn't it? Instead of having a mental suffering as a result of these physical pains, when you see muscles growing up, you might even feel happy. I found myself reacting to Stephen, who, in working with abused women, is having much more of a hard time of it than working with people who are dying. And I think about how it might be because it is done by people like us,

[19:50]

and in this case, it's done by men to women. And whenever I listen to suffering that is inflicted by a human being on another human being, there is a different feeling about how could a person like me do this awful thing to another person like me. And the ease, you say easily, it can be done easily. And it's appalling. And whenever we are in cultures where power over others is part of this essentialness of it, it seems as if there is some pleasure in having power, expressing power, which unfortunately often has to do with inflicting pain on other people. And this seems to be in the area of man-made, or human-made, but essentially in our culture, man-made pain, which you were describing as something that is unnecessary in suffering.

[20:52]

This brings to me the question of how much we should try to change the world to make it different. Huh? Hello? Hello? Yes, hello, yes? Huh? Huh? Although the answer might seem quite sort of...

[22:08]

Um... The answer might seem sort of a little bit simplistic, but speaking from a Buddhist point of view as a monk, all of these... The mind believes, the mind believes. All these things, I mean, happen due to level of altruism, compassion, a sense of responsibility, or the genuine sense of brotherhood, sisterhood. So you consider something superior, and whenever opportunity there, you exploit the other's right. So essentially, the level is more, I think, more of the altruism. This is epidemic. In the world. And he asks, shall we try to change this? Is there any use in trying to change this?

[23:12]

So you see, people eventually, I think... My idea is, you see, through education, through various means, through media, through education, through family life. You see? Educate or make deeper awareness, right? And if not our present generation, but the coming future generations, with the mind, to introduce the necessity of these altruistic mind and attitude. That's the question of survival, not the question of luxury. Oh, present them clearly. His Holiness's view is that in order to awaken the future generation's mind to these issues, it is important to present them as a question of survival,

[24:16]

not a matter of religion or morality, but rather as a question of survival. Which at this moment in history, it really is. Yes, in a way, in a way, this has been unfortunate things. Sometimes, you see, itself very bad, but it may become an important factor to wake up. It's a new idea, you see, the realization of something lacking. Look at that. I wanted to pick up on something that Stephen said also, another aspect of it. You said, if there's any place where it will stick to you, it will. I want to put a word in on behalf of things sticking to you. All right, Jack, could you say a little what you mean by sticking to you?

[25:17]

Yeah, I'm going to rely on Alan to help me with this. What I have in mind is the idea that both from a Buddhist point of view and also from a psychotherapeutic point of view, there's sort of an idea that somehow we shouldn't, we should be above suffering, that we should not be touched by, not touched exactly, but that we should be in some position of equanimity. And that often means somehow above the pain or beyond it or not be touched by it and not be affected by it. And I don't think that's ever helpful. I think we ought to be touched by it. How much of that is possible not to be touched by it? Oh, it's very possible. Therapists do it all the time. Or they try. Not good therapists. No, and no. No, we can do this all the time. The so-called neutral therapist, the objective therapist.

[26:23]

I'm done. Well, they're sorting that out. You know, I mean, that's part of the training of many people. I think in order to, how do you say, the other persons, the suffer people, I mean the person who suffer, in order to lessen that suffering, if you take some part of that suffering, that means actual feeling cannot take, but you yourself join the same sort of, you see, mood or same, how to say, suffering, then that help the other person's, how to say, feelings. So there is some benefit in shared suffering.

[27:24]

In sharing another person's suffering, you can take off some of the burden. When you see someone, although I'm not expert on this line, you see, just meeting some, you see, unfortunate people, when they complaining about their sort of, you see, unfortunate things, then I joined with them and my own, you see, unfortunate things and mentioned, you are not alone. There are many people, including myself. We are going to give you a license in the state of California. I think people will line up for his office. So that's it. Dan, did you have a point? Yes. The original question was how do we tell the difference as to whether we're reading into

[28:30]

the suffering that we perceive or whether we're genuinely feeling something of the suffering of that individual or group. It seems to me that the answer to that question depends on one's level of consciousness, a level of awareness, and that with an ordinary mind of ignorance, then it's not clear, and that many times we misperceive and we think that the suffering out there is really suffering, but it's really our own fantasies. Then I think that in the Western psychotherapy traditions, there are methods that people learn to make the distinction. They learn to gain a greater analytical knowledge of their own feelings and fantasies and they are taught in their training to discriminate more clearly between when it's their own fantasy and feeling and when it's pertaining to the suffering

[29:33]

of the person there. And that is a kind of learning that occurs in good clinical practice in this country. And it's a certain level of consciousness, if you will. But then it seems to me, yes? It seems to me that what we learn from Buddhist practices is another level of awareness by which we can answer this question. And that is that if people through meditation practice have the direct experience of codependent origination, if they have the direct experience of everything being connected in some way, then from that direct experience, if I have a thought or an action, it's clear to me that my thought or action ripples out and affects everything else. Or that if I perceive suffering out there, that that suffering of a person or a group

[30:36]

affects my consciousness and ripples out in all directions. And that that causes a great disturbance if it's a great kind of abuse. And I cannot fail to be affected by that. It does affect me very deeply. So when you have the experience of some interconnection, then that question of what's the difference between fantasizing or reading into suffering and the reality of the person's suffering just doesn't occur. Of course, you must be affected. Because everything is interconnected. Did you want His Holiness to respond to some part of that? You tell him.

[31:41]

That's interesting. I love that. That's interesting. I would like to get down to a very specific... Be that as it may, there still is a distinction between one person's consciousness and that of another person. They're not simply all mushed together. In the specific example department, you described this morning of yourself, your feeling reaction to events. Your country was invaded, people were killed and raped, and a great deal of awfulness happened there. As psychotherapists and human beings, we always wonder how people bear this, go on feeling joyful, and go on being active in the world to change the situation.

[33:14]

Somehow I get the impression that you have managed to do that, that you have not... It's clear that you are not obsessed by anger, fear, hostility, yet you are actively representing your people in the world. I wonder if you could tell us anything about how you personally dealt with the awfulness that you saw and experienced. Hmm. I think my personal experience... I don't know, is it perhaps Tibetan? Hmm. And personality or characteristics?

[34:20]

I think some... Some kind of, how to say, when you face tragedy, still you take it that easy way. I think that kind of is in nature in Tibetan character. But that is a character developed due to Buddhist influence or not. Still we need further investigation. So in any way... Part of the national character of Tibetans, and you are asking whether is this part of Buddhist practice. Yes, that's right. What to attribute it. Okay. I think one is my... Hmm.

[35:59]

Yes, so my point is this, and that is in Tibet you have a very large region of land with quite a low population density. And in this kind of simply geographical situation or sociological situation, then there is a natural tendency to look upon your neighbor as a person to help and for whom to receive help. Reliance is built into the situation by the geography itself. Now when you have people living in a very high density situation, then there may be a much more natural tendency to look upon your neighbor with suspicion and with a sense of competitiveness. So you are withdrawing from that person. So given this, and given the Buddhist influence, His Holiness then wants to check this out further to see what really shall we attribute this Tibetan resilience to. And simply the feeling of space that was there in Tibet. So basically, I think as a Tibetan, that is one thing. Then Buddhist training, of course, naturally. The deeper realization or deeper understanding

[37:09]

about, you see, different level of suffering. That is also very useful. I would think... And also, you see, the acceptance, the rebirth theory. And also, you see, the theory of action. Karma or action. That also is very useful in order to lessen the mental burden or mental suffering. Then another thing. If things already happened, then no use to worry. No use crying over spilt milk, we say. So then, you see, try our best and with sincere motivation. If success, very good. If not success, no regret.

[38:11]

That kind of, you see, analytical, how to say, additive approach, yes. So that helps a lot. Then perhaps, I think, short-sighted. There is no immediate danger. Very happy. That's very funny, isn't it? Well, it seems like short-sightedness really means that you can live in the present. I mean, what you are defining as short-sightedness means that you can be in the moment, in the present and enjoy it regardless of what happened the day before yesterday and not losing track of tomorrow. This remark, the last remark, was partly as a joke.

[39:16]

Also, maybe, I think, if you see imminent, I mean, imminent personal danger, if something is here, then may not be so calm. You may find that Tibetans aren't quite so resilient if somebody has grabbed them by the back of the neck. Your Holiness, this morning you spoke, have you heard? You spoke a number of times about the notion of penetrating suffering, going into suffering. There were many people in the audience who would like to hear you speak about some technology, some methods, for exploring that suffering and for penetrating into it, that they could be personally helpful to them in their own exploration. Now, for a practitioner, Buddhist practitioner,

[40:21]

there is a suffering nature of samsara. You see, instead of forget or avoid, just, you see, concentrate on it, meditate on it, analytical meditation. And then also, you see, another thing. Now, I think, you see, daily life, some problem, some tragedy happens. Then if you look at that problem from very closely, then it appears something very big. Yes. Then, you see, try to, how to say, try to look at from distance. Then it, same problem, same tragedy, it appears smaller. And also, you see, very important to remember. Hmm.

[41:51]

And also, the state of mind that you adopt, mental attitude that you adopt towards looking at the suffering also matters a lot. For instance, if you have a tragedy, personal tragedy or a problem, and if you look at it from a close-up and feel so overwhelmed by it, be so obsessed by it and feel depressed, then on top of the tragedy itself, you will have mental anxieties and so on. But you could look at it from a different point of view, different angle, thinking that although it's very sad and tragic that I have to suffer this, but I could have suffered more, thinking more of what could have happened. So if you look at it that way, even by that type of mental attitude reduces your mental anguish and suffering. As we mentioned, from Buddhist viewpoint, everything is relative.

[42:53]

So there are many, one thing, one object, one event, there are many different aspects. So when we look at one negative aspect, only if you think about that, then it increases, I would say, it don't act on that. The enormity of it will seem to appear to increase for you. It worsens, it worsens it. Now for example, you see, you met some, you see, the troublemaker, one person harms you or hurts you, then if you look that person on the aspect that person is harming, and only think about that, then anger will develop, increase. But then, look at the person from different angle.

[43:57]

Now, he did something, he or she did something bad, but then, in a way, how to say, it actually, you see, give me, give me, well, give me some kind of opportunity or, I think, chance to experiment my, how to say, inner strength. He or she gives me opportunity for practice of patience, for practice of tolerance, looking that way. And then sometimes, you see, reduce the negative feeling that, you see, unfortunate event turned something, something betterment. This is related to forgiveness, right? That's right. So then, So if you take the situation in such a way that thinking that, that unfortunate

[44:59]

incident or event gave rise to certain possibilities for you to increase your inner strength and so forth, benefits that you derive from it, then that in itself, by itself, reduces the feeling of negativeness towards that. So, you see, that kind of analyze or, that kind of, that kind of, how to say, approach to suffering, that's I call you penetrate into the suffering. This concludes side one. To continue listening, go now to side two. Forget about suffering. That's something like, you see, we made some kind of picnic or holiday. The problem yet to solve. Just this short short term relief, isn't it? So instead of doing that, instead of doing that way, is to penetrate

[46:00]

the suffering itself or the tragedy itself. Then once, you see, your mental attitude somehow change, that's the real overcoming the problem. In a way you're saying you always must be in a position attentively to give the other person another chance, meaning as Gandhi said, we must not think of the one who harmed me as an evil person. We must think of him or her as having done a harmful or evil action. But there's always another chance. You know, I had the thought last week when preparing for this conference that the relationship of this to individual suffering and individual, us trying to help other individuals who are suffering, is that if one can help a person to do that within him or herself, to give

[47:02]

oneself another chance, to give oneself another opportunity to respond in some other way, rather than part of oneself being judgmental and angry and violent or the other part of oneself, that there is an internal forgiveness which must happen if indeed the conflict is to be helped. Hmm? Did I do it? Yes. You want to talk about it? Yes. [...] That is true. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Yes.

[48:02]

That's very important. It is very important to make this distinction between the act and the actor and not simply to be identifying the actor as 100% negative. Yes. Is it possible to follow this question further, having taken a different point of view to the suffering, than what? How does one practice from there? How? How? Then the suffering of the mind decreases. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[49:17]

Yes. [...] What? Until now, until now His Holiness has been talking about how you change your mental outlook, mental attitude towards how you take the suffering, how you view it, look at it and after having done that, that is to retain your alchemy with your mind, calmness of mind, and you don't react negatively, but after that

[50:18]

whether you let the other person continue with that kind of undue taking advantage of you or not depends upon the situations. You really have to judge the situation on an individual basis. Yes, so it's a forgiveness or it's does not mean you completely acquiesce to anything that anybody does to you. What's the alternative? Now, for example, you see, you remain very humble, you see, very, what do you say, the tolerant one, then the other person take that opportunity and is it demanding some unreasonable thing. Then under such circumstances, without

[51:24]

anger, without ill feeling, then judge the situation. Then if the situation shows that you need countermeasure, then do countermeasure. Right, for instance? Yes, for instance, right, for example there. Now, in our own case, Tibetan case, now you see, there's a lot of suffering happened under the name of liberation. But then, you see, analyze, I mean Chinese, even Chinese leader, as a human being, as our neighbor, a people from our neighbor country, had a long history, you see, the high civilization, just thinking these line, instead of feeling ill feeling, it's a respect. So that helped reduce, let's say,

[52:32]

negative feeling, patience, tolerance. This does not mean we accept, you see, Chinese, how to say, oppression. See, we try to do whatever we can do and necessary, whatever necessary to stand firm. We do, without ill feeling. Sounds like civil disobedience to me. Really? Yes. It's resistance. So in individual case also, I'll say something similar. There's something, there's an unreasonable demand or something, then need resistance or countermeasure. Then I often use to mention or explaining, that countermeasure, in fact, may be more

[53:33]

effective than supposed to countermeasure motivated by anger. That countermeasure may not be effective. Because, you see, that our mind dominated by anger. Then how? Become mad. You won't be able to hit the target. You won't be able to hit the target. Very nice. So that's it. No question? Some answer? Absolutely. It also seems to me that as we get older, we get wiser in the sense of this too shall pass. And as I hear about your attitude and know that you have an awareness of your previous lives,

[54:37]

then partly are you able to detach or forgive because you really know this too shall pass? That this is just one event in a series of historical events that you can detach from? I mean, is that part of your perspective? Is a long, long historical view of things? As I explained earlier that the Buddhist upbringing belief in life after death, the theory of karma, the law of the karmic actions and effects and so forth, these do

[55:42]

contribute towards one's development, that kind of economically acceptance of... So the point here is in terms of suffering in general as opposed to the suffering that

[56:58]

we as individuals or as groups have already experienced. So the point that His Holiness is making here is not that we gain insight into the impermanence or the passing nature of suffering and then go into an apathetic state, just feeling, well, it doesn't really matter because it doesn't...and it's okay if I experience suffering in the future. This is not the point at all. That in terms of suffering, the idea is to recognize it and allow that recognition to give rise to a yearning, an aspiration to gain liberation from it, but not an apathetic response to it. But now in contrast to the suffering that we've already experienced in the past, it is completely fruitless to simply go into a turmoil state or anguish or anxiety about that and get caught up in it. Leave that, but in terms of the suffering of the present and the future, the recognition gives rise to a yearning for liberation. Well, that's marvelous. You know, this just echoes, it seems to me, what Joanna said earlier about this going into a kind of apathy in terms of this has happened before, it will

[57:59]

happen again, and it's all impermanent and therefore it's okay. The opposite is in fact the case. This is what I think, if I understood her, Joanna was saying is a spiritual trap to go into apathy on the basis of a misunderstanding of Buddhist teachings. Did I understand that? Well, I read it or something. I think that is what His Holiness is saying. You know, we have about 15 minutes remaining and I knew that Jack and Jean and you, Margaret, had specific questions. Why don't we, Dan and Jean and Margaret, why don't we just go one, two, three. This question, again, is based on my experience and I gather a number of other people here working with individuals who have suffered some sort of extreme abuse. Could you say what you mean by abuse? Oh, for example, physical abuse to children, sexual abuse to children and adults, victims

[59:07]

of various atrocities committed to refugees like the Holocaust in Nazi Germany and Central America and Cambodia, for example. We can take the specific instance of political torture. If I am working with somebody, for example, a man in his 50s who in his South American country was very, he was a small farmer and actively and genuinely concerned to help the poor people in his country and to better them, to better their condition and work against the oppression. And he would help in terms of reforming the laws about distribution of land and wealth. In the course of doing that, he was taken, he disappeared and was tortured.

[60:07]

And the torture consisted of being taken away from his family and in the course of that blindfolded and submitted to many numerous beatings and being submerged in water with excrement and with applied various electrical shocks to the body and being hung from his hands and knees like a helicopter spun around and beaten. This happened for about six months. He was released and then went back to his work helping his people, although he got many nightmares and was very anxious because he did not stop in his help towards people. Two of his five children were murdered. When he saw the grave risk for his family, he left

[61:13]

his country and sought refuge in another country, in this country, and tried to continue his help for his people here. But in doing that, felt that in some ways by leaving and not carrying on the fight for his people directly, that he had somehow let his people down. But he did overcome his despair and continue and in continuing later learned that his other three children had all been murdered as a way of trying to demoralize him. Now he gets sometimes depressed and sometimes suicidal. He gets very panicky and yet in working with him, the people who work with him try and help him to continue his purpose to help his people. Now when I hear a story like this and hear many stories like this, I have a very strong

[62:17]

reaction to the overwhelming suffering of someone with good intention. And I wonder about, this is the first question, about how we might view that suffering from a Buddhist perspective. It seems to me that in Buddhism, the emphasis on suffering is on the suffering of the ordinary mind, how the three poisons, clinging, aversion and ignorance, contribute to the suffering of the ordinary mind. It seems to me that the emphasis in people in Western therapy who work with trauma, the emphasis is on the reality and the social reality of this intense pain and suffering that's inflicted willfully and intentionally to destroy the will and dignity and humanity of another person to prevent them from helping

[63:19]

people who are oppressed, who are not in power. Now, the first aspect of the question is, how are we to correctly view this suffering? From an ultimate perspective, is this kind of story of suffering empty? Is it merely an illusion because we don't understand it properly? I don't understand this and I would like some way to know how one can view this intense suffering and reconcile that with notions of emptiness. The second aspect of the question is, how are we to correctly view this suffering? Is it merely an illusion because we don't

[64:19]

understand it properly? I don't understand this and I would like some way to know how one can view this suffering and reconcile that with notions of emptiness. The third aspect of the question is, how are we to correctly view this suffering? Is it merely an illusion because we don't understand it properly? Here His Holiness feels that it's important to understand the meaning of illusion that is being spoken of in Buddhist context. There are many different levels and meanings of illusions, in a broader sense of the term and in a more specific sense. In this case, when you confront people with that kind of mental suffering, trauma, who have undergone traumatic experiences, these are indeed sufferings and these are real sufferings. They are not just illusions. There are two types of illusions that are being dealt with here and that is one is an

[65:25]

illusion where your mind is simply confused. You're mixed up and you're confused and therefore you perceive an illusion because of the confusion of your own mind. This is a very conventional or normal level and this is, in this case, the anecdote or the situation that you described, this is not the case. There's real suffering and we have a correct perception of it. And so there's a point here of verifying cognition. Well, a verifying cognition means valid. You have validly perceived the situation and seeing this man has experienced tremendous suffering. When you speak in terms of Buddhist philosophy, there's another level altogether which is far more subtle, which does not have to do with this level of confusion at all. And it's on that level you'd say, yes, there is, because these are dependent related events, in that sense there is an illusory aspect to it. But it doesn't come into the common English usage of the term illusion. I think great risk to misunderstand the meaning of emptiness, voidness. Actually the meaning

[66:53]

of emptiness here is just the absence of independent existence, that kind of thing. So that shows that emptiness is a major dependency. The emptiness here is made in terms of empty absence of independent existence that we project onto events and things. Therefore emptiness has a connotation of fullness, a connotation of being dependent, a fullness, a connotation of being dependent upon other factors. So there is interconnectedness implied in the doctrine of emptiness. So just simply a brief word on that.

[68:04]

So without going into any detail into a very profound and elaborate topic, what is meant in Buddhist philosophy, specifically Madhyamaka, by the term illusion, is that whereas phenomena appear as if they were inherently existent, did have this independent existence, in fact they do not exist in that way. So the appearances are in fact somehow contrary to their actual mode of existence. This is all that's meant by illusion, and not that it's not really there or something. You know, I would just briefly like to return this question to the practical issue which Stan raised when he talked about the people who had in fact been tortured, who had in fact had their relatives kidnapped and so forth. And he spoke of one man whom they were trying in their work with him as healers to help him resume his work of resistance against this kind of harmful actions to himself, his family, his community. And I think this is

[69:09]

a terribly important part of this story because if we leave it simply on the philosophic level then it's not useful. Margaret, let me follow that up. That was really the second part of the question. Sorry. And that is that as clinicians... Yes, yes, please continue. We have been struggling with how to develop good methods to treat people who have experienced this extreme kind of abuse or torture in our country. And we find that people go through various stages of recovery, and at each stage there are certain methods that are useful. In your experience, and particularly your experience with your people, many of whom have also undergone this extreme kind of abuse and torture, what do you find helpful by way of the view that is taken in Buddhism, and also by way of the kind of way to practice

[70:14]

that will help people overcome this kind of harm that's been done to them? In case it's a Tibetan, usually I tell them, in a way, this tragedy is very sad, very unfortunate. Our generation, who was born in this particular period, the period, the darkest period in all of Tibetan history, is very sad. But one way, when tragedy is there, when there is

[71:21]

challenge is there, that's good, to fight, to confront it. So, in a way, our generation is very unfortunate, but at the same time, if you look, this is a good opportunity to fight, to carry out a freedom fight. How to fight? So, you see, that's... So, if you look at this situation as an opportunity to test your integrity, your inner strength, then you can, instead of being overwhelmed by the enormity of the situation, in fact, you can increase your determination and strength, because you can see it as a test of your integrity

[72:26]

and strength. Good opportunity to start off. Dan, did you want to follow up? Yes, we find that... Here, I think, you see, sometimes people, again, you see, misunderstand the karmic theory. Something happened, generally speaking, due to past karma. But then, obviously, you see, these things happen due to the social injustice. Now, here, you see, we should make it to level two. So, I write two. The social injustice is ten. So, in this situation, it's easy to misunderstand the Buddha's notion of karma. We need to understand what is more of the primary cause and what are the contributing circumstances. So, in the case of, let's say, great suffering coming about as a result of social injustice,

[73:26]

or this kind of situation, you can say the primary cause behind it is the karma of the individuals involved who are experiencing the suffering. The cooperative conditions that allow that karma to ripen are the social injustices that are evident. So, for example, in the case of the Tibetans, the suffering that Tibetans actually experienced comes, it arises, essentially, from their own karma. That is the primary cause, their own actions in previous lives. But the conditions that allowed that karma to ripen is the Chinese, that's constituted by the Chinese oppression. Hmm. That's not what gains say are, you know. I'm sorry. Injustice. Injustice. But say are the fights, you know. And so, in this regard, then, to struggle, to fight against these conditions of social injustice and so forth, this is appropriate. I think we have time now for one last question. It should be James.

[74:34]

In many parts of the world, women are treated as lesser beings over whom men have power, and this creates many kinds of oppression, from lack of education, to working, to sexual and physical abuse. And I wanted to ask you specifically, what is a Tibetan Buddhist attitude towards women? Are men considered spiritually superior to women in Tibetan Buddhism? And what are the essential differences between the sexes? And then I had the one question, which was, has His Holiness recall of previous lives as a woman? I love that. I love that. Let alone being able to recall my experiences in my previous life,

[75:39]

I even sometimes can't recall what I did yesterday. I love it. I'm sorry. As a Buddhist, you know, you see, who accept, or who believe, or accept and believe the theory of rebirth. So, you see, no question, in my previous life, there were a lot of women rebirth, women birth. There are some differences. And future, future life, also, you see, not at all certain. Women body, or male body, or some different form of body, I don't know. So, Now I think the most important thing, Buddhist concept, about, you see, sex, man, female.

[76:46]

Now in, I think in basically, in Buddhism, no discrimination, I think. The ultimate aim, you see, equal, male, female. But in order to, I mean, in order to achieve nirvana, in order to achieve Buddhahood, no differences. Then, so the right is already there. Right is concerned, the ultimate right is concerned, same. But then, in Vinaya Sutra, I mean, as I said. Monastic discipline. Yes. There, you see, the bhikshu, or male, fully ordained. Fully ordained monk. He is placed, the fully ordained monk is placed in a position of seniority over women.

[77:56]

Hmm. And so the fully ordained monk does have a higher position, a status, somewhat higher status than that of a nun, an ordained Buddhist nun. In the Vinaya, which is the Buddhist teachings of monastic discipline for men and women. Then, the position of seniority is there. If you are not ordained, it is not there. But if you are ordained, you are ordained. You are ordained. If you are ordained, you are ordained. But now, by and large, it seems that in the Sutrayana. Sutrayana, the teachings of the Bodhisattva path and of Tantra. And lower Tantrayana. Lower Tantrayana. In the lower tantric, in the lower tantras. Three, three. That in the very life in which one attains full awakening of Buddhahood,

[78:56]

it seems that it is what, necessary? Yes. Necessary to be male in that particular lifetime. Then, the ultimate or highest Tantra, according to that, no differences. So in terms of the highest region or dimension of Buddhist practice, namely highest Yoga Tantra, from that perspective, there is no distinction. Even in that final life in which you attain Buddhahood, there is no difference whether you are male or female. In this system, actually, it seems more, how to say, I think more concerned about female, rather than male. For example, for example, an example of that is there are a number of root downfalls in the context of this highest Yoga Tantra practice.

[79:57]

Among these root downfalls is for a male to abuse or to look down upon a female. If one does that, it's a root downfall, it's a disastrous deed. There is no comparable downfall for a woman looking down on a man. So we are jealous. So the men are jealous. Now in Tibetan society, which is a different issue, it's more or less the case that there is not much difference in status or position of males as opposed to females. I think, you see, when we were in Tibet, you see, we have no, there is no botheration or no notice about it. Then, later,

[80:57]

we came to know about some kind of, you see, differences male and female in India or in China. Compare, you see, these two big neighbors, then our situation is much happier. Really? Yes. That's impressive. Can you ever imagine being reincarnated as a a woman Dalai Lama? That's, of course, possible. That's possible. That's possible. Now, you see, in religious, how do you say, Khalsa, Lama Chanda, Shulu, Vajracharya, among the, you see, reincarnation. Now, there were, I think, since few centuries, you see, there were some female reincarnation. In fact, one Lama, spiritual Lama. One Lama, you see, female Lama, considered very high.

[81:58]

And then, usually, you see, teacher, they, teacher, Lama or teacher, spiritual teacher. In terms of Lamas or spiritual teachers in the Tibetan tradition, there's simply not much distinction is made between men and women. The whole point is, do you have, is your practice good if you gain high realization? If you have, then you're bound to have students and then you become a Lama. So, here, I think, like the goddess Tara, there is, you see, there is story. The goddess Tara, and then Pimitam, you know, in Hinduism, this is the line, Thomas Sim, Sim, give it away, Sim, give it away, Pimitam, Sim, give it, means, Lama, Pimitam, Bashi, means, Tara, Pimitam,

[83:02]

feminist. So, there's a true feminist movement in Buddhism which relates to the goddess Tara. And the account... Tara, you know, Tara. Tara. And the account goes as follows, and that is that when she, following her cultivation of Bodhicitta, the Bodhisattva's motivation, then she looked upon the situation of those who were striving towards full awakening and attaining that, and she felt that there were too few people who attained Buddhahood as women. There was too small a minority. So, she developed the resolve stating that, well, I've developed Bodhicitta, this Bodhisattva's motivation as a woman, for all of my, for my lifetimes along the path, I resolve to be born as a woman, and in my final lifetime when I attain Buddhahood, then, too, I will be a woman. So, this is true feminism. Thank you very much, Your Holiness. Could you remain... This concludes tape TRC 89-2. Thank you.

[83:59]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ