Dalai Lama's letter to President Bush

[Guest guest]

Bob (Semans),

 

Thanks for sending us the letter from Dalai Lama to Pres. Bush, which is an

instructive example involving two principles that are often confused, a

spiritual and a political one.

> >

> >It may seem presumptuous on my part, but I personally believe we need

> >to think seriously whether a violent action is the right thing to do

> >and in the greater interest of the nation and people in the long run.

 

> >I believe violence will only increase the cycle of violence. But how

> >do we deal with hatred and anger, which are often the root causes of

> >such senseless violence? This is a very difficult question,

> >especially when it concerns a nation and we have certain fixed

> >conceptions of how to deal with such attacks. I am sure that you will

> >make the right decision.

> >

The Dalai Lama, as is characteristic, avoids being simplistic. He does NOT

say that violence ALWAYS begets violence, but speaks only to the current

terrorist situation, about which he believes that a violent U.S. response

will be counterproductive. That's fair enough, because it allows that

reasonable people might disagree. However, what I'm interested in is

clarifying the general principle involved.

 

Operating in the background is the principle that violence NECESSARILY

begets violence.

 

As a spiritual principle, this is true. That is, as a law of consciousness

(of our inner experience) it is true that if we are violent toward our own

inner experience ‹ e.g., denial, repression ‹ we only produce further

violence down the road. That is, repression only postpones our conflict at

best and may worsen it.

 

As a political principle, that violence necessarily begets violence is

manifestly false, as anyone knows who has ever faced down a bully. If we

were to take the principle seriously, we could not even lock up criminals.

The classic larger example is that Japan and Germany are now important

members of the free world, something that is unlikely to be the case had

pacifism been adopted as the foreign policy of the U.S. in the 1940s.

 

Wisely, the Dalai Lama refrains from applying the spiritual principle in an

absolutist way to the current political situation. Still, his sympathies are

clear. But we should ask ourselves how credible his suggestion is coming as

it does from a leader in exile from a country subjugated by another. Isn't

taking his suggestion seriously as ludicrous as taking advice about sex

seriously from the pope and his happy band of celibates in the Vatican? Does

a track record of results matter? Buddhism is a profound spiritual

psychology, but has not itself fostered political principles that have

created peace in lands where Buddhism has flourished nor has it generated

scientific principles that have fed the millions who have starved where

Buddhism has flourished. The reason is simple: Buddhism's genius is

spirituality, which concerns our relationship to our inner experience; it

has no particular expertise in how we understand and deal with the everyday

world that is the object of our experience. I vaguely recall someone awhile

back saying something like: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's

and unto God the things that are God's. No activist he, but someone after

bigger game.

 

Gary Schouborg

Performance Consulting

Walnut Creek, CA

garyscho

 

Publications and professional services:

http://home.att.net/~garyscho