On Buddhism and Non-Violence–A talk by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche,

On Buddhism and Non-Violence–A talk by Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche, to a group of university students from Mexico, December 23, 2013

Facilitator: Before I say a brief introduction about Rinpoche, I would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to Rinpoche for finding the time from his busy schedule and agreeing to meet our group here to talk about non-violence and Buddhism. Thank you very much Rinpoche first of all for being here with us. This will be a very short introduction of a life-long achievement and account of Rinpoche. So I will keep it very brief.

Professor Samdhong Rinpoche was born in Jol in eastern Tibet. At the age of five he was recognised by Tibetan Buddhists to be the reincarnation of the fourth Samdhong Rinpoche, so he is the fifth Samdhong Rinpoche now. Two years later he took vows as a monk and started his religious training at Drepung Monastery in Lhasa.

After the Chinese invasion of Tibet, Rinpoche was forced into exile in India along with His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso. From 1960 onwards, Rinpoche worked in Tibetan exile schools in India and in 1965 he became the Principal of the Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies in Varanasi, in India, and moved on to become the Director by 1988. From 1988-2001, he worked as the Director and was awarded professorship by Benares Hindu University for his deep knowledge and of numerous Eastern studies. He is an eminent scholar who is fluent in English, Hindi, and of course Tibetan, and he is respected throughout the world in the areas of Buddhist philosophy, science and politics.

In 1991 Rinpoche was appointed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama as a member of the Assembly of Tibetan People’s Deputies, of the exile Administration and later was unanimously elected as its Chairperson.

Between 1996-2001, he was an elected member of the Assembly representing exiled Tibetans from Kham province, all the while remaining an active Chairperson. In 2000, His Holiness the Dalai Lama decided that a democratic vote for the Tibetan people in exile to elect their own Prime Minister should take place. Rinpoche won 84% of the vote and thus became the first directly-elected Kalon Tripa (Prime Minister). Rinpoche is the first person to have exercised political authority following His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s devolvement of political power in 2001.

An eminent and distinguished scholar, teacher and professor, Rinpoche is a life-long campaigner of non-violence and peaceful resistance, and he still acts as a close confidant of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Rinpoche has published several books on the subjects of non-violence and Buddhist philosophy and has been recently, on April 25, 2013, appointed as the Chancellor of Sanchi University of Buddhist-Indic Studies based in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh.

Before Rinpoche would start his talk, which will be around two hours, as well as a question-and-answer session afterwards, I would like to request Professor Sylvain Jacques René Le Coz Paillard of the group to introduce very briefly about the group, the cultural exchange students who are here with Lha. And thank you so much Rinpoche.

Professor: Ok, as you may know we are coming from Tec de Monterrey, it’s a Mexican university that’s the biggest private university in Mexico. It was founded in 1943 and today we have 31 campuses. The main mission of our university is to form students with high skills and also internationally competitive. That’s the main reason why we are here, in order to develop these human skills. And our students are currently helping at Lha. They are working, for instance, in the nursery, they are working as English teachers or, in my case, [as a] French teacher.

Rinpoche: Thank you. Good afternoon to all of you and I am happy to be here, to see many young, bright and energetic students from Mexico. I always feel happy when I see the younger generation because you are the world’s future. And you shall have to make or destroy the world, it’s in your hands. I mean, your generation’s hands.

Conversation like this between strangers is not very useful in my view. Particularly, I have a number of limitations. In spite of that I agree to be here today because Mr. Ngawang Rabgyal has very much insisted so. Last year too, a different group was here and we had a session of conversation, and today we are again with a new group of people. I say this kind of conversation would not be very useful because I’m seeing all of you for the first time. So I do not know your individual capacity, likes, dislikes, or aspirations, what kind of things you want to know. And also I don’t know your standard of knowledge in the field of Buddhism and non-violence. It may be very preliminary to you if you have sufficient background knowledge about this, or it may be a bit high for you if you do not have any background in this subject. It is just an assumption that what I am talking would be suitable to you, this is just an assumption, I don’t know.

And secondly, I have no knowledge of your language. I think you are Spanish-speaking, yes. Spanish is a very beautiful language, a large number of people speak this language but I do not have knowledge of this language. We are using English for our conversation. Again, my English knowledge is extremely inadequate. I never learned this language, I just [picked it] up from the streets. As such, many times I feel a difficulty in communicating my ideas.

I had a very dear and near friend who knew several languages and among them Spanish was his favourite language. A philosopher—he passed away two or three years ago, in Spain; you might have heard of his name—Pramod Patnaik. And he used to tell me that Spanish language is much better than English in matters of philosophy. I don’t know whether you are scholars or not. For philosophy and dharma, I think the Spanish language is very rich. Nevertheless, I don’t know.

Besides, I myself still live in the seventh century civilization, or in other words, as an uncivilized person. You are in the twenty-first century, we have a very large gap between us. And apparently also I am your grandparents’ age. So we have a gap of at least a generation or two. As such, what I am talking about may not be useful or beneficial to you. Nevertheless, I am being asked to say something on Buddhism and non-violence.

Buddhism came to this earth almost two thousand five hundred and fifty years ago. Where Prince Siddhartha was born was in the central part of Jambudvip, the middle region; at that time there was no India, no Nepal. Lumbini, the place where Siddhartha was born is now a political territory of Nepal, and half of the historical kingdom of Kapilvastu is in India. It is on the border of Nepal and India. And he remained in India, he travelled [throughout] almost all of the central part of India, which now extend to the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, and Chattisgar, and so on and so forth. I am talking only from the viewpoint of historical Buddha. All the religions have an historical part and a mythological part. The mythological part is quite different from the historical part.

The historical Buddha, who was born as a prince named Siddhartha, remained in the kingdom until twenty-nine years of age. The sages and seers at that time, particularly some of the very renowned astrologists of that time, told his father, the king Shuddodana, that if this boy remained in the household, he would become a king of kings. And that word in Sanskrit is chakravartin raja, which means a king who rules over all other kings. But, the astrologers said, most probably the prince would renounce the world and would become an enlightened person. The prince’s father wanted to make the prince a king of kings. And therefore Siddhartha was being kept with all the worldly pleasures and so forth. Anything which was not pleasant or which gave a message of misery was kept away from the sight of the prince.

Anyhow, one day Siddhartha went out, on the tour of the street, on a chariot, with one of charioteers; Chanda was his name. The two—the prince Siddhartha and Chanda—were going around in the street, which was kept very nicely. But suddenly or accidentally, on one corner of the street Siddhartha saw a very old man: barely able to move, carrying a stick, and his body was so frail and bent; Siddhartha had never seen such an old person before that. And he asked his charioteer, “What is this? What happened to this person?” Chanda replied, “Prince, this is due to old age. He is very old. And in their old age, people become like this.” Siddhartha’s second question was, “Does old age come for everybody? Or does it come for certain selected people?” The charioteer said, “Whoever is born in this world and then grows up as a youth is bound to become old after some ten years, twenty years, forty years. Everybody becomes old.” Then Siddhartha’s third question was, “Am I also subject to old age?” Chanda replied, “Yes, your majesty, it is inevitable.”

Siddhartha thought about this, and a little more ahead he saw a very sick person whose body was so weak and was in pain, in misery, I believe. And then again Siddhartha asked, “What happened to this person?” The response was, “He is not well. He is suffering from a disease and severe pain.” Then again the three questions, “Does it come to everyone or it is for selected people?,” all this repeated.

Then finally he saw a dead body being carried away for cremation, and a few relatives and dear and near ones joining that procession. And they are weeping, crying, and appeared so sad. Then again Siddhartha asked, “What happened to this [person]?” The charioteer replied, “This person has died, and now they carry the body for cremation.” Again the three questions were repeated.

Siddhartha then realised that this whole worldly pleasure is impermanent, and it’s bound to be decayed. And why should one become attached to this? And this pervasive misery and pain to all sentient beings, he must find a remedy. How to get out of this misery for all the sentient beings?

Then Siddhartha went away, he gave up the entire kingdom, and at night he escaped to the street. He went to Magadha, to Gaya, where he became a monk. He was in search of the truth for several weeks. He saw number of teachers but no-one was able to satisfy his questions, and finally he decided “I will search myself.”

For six years he remained in a very serious effort to meditate and to find the truth. Eventually he realised that torturing the body or doing meditations for long sittings and not taking proper food would not bring him enlightenment. Then finally he took food and washed his body and went to the tree, the pipal tree, the bodhi tree, at Bodhgaya, sat there and then he finally meditated so deeply and was able to perceive the truth, the universal truth or the ultimate truth. And he became enlightened. He remained at Bodhgaya for about six weeks.

Thereafter he went to Sarnath, to share his experiences and his insight with the rest of the world. To the five monks, his first disciples, Buddha showed them his realisation or his experience. That can be summed up in four sequences, which are called in the Buddhist terminology, The Four Truths of the Superiors (‘The Four Noble Truths’). The principle of the Four Noble Truths is the basic framework of Buddha dharma. I intentionally say Buddha dharma. The Buddha dharma, in a sense, cannot fit within the definition of religion. It is a way of life, it is a philosophy or it is a science. But [according to] the [strict] definition of religion, the Buddhist concepts may not properly fit in the framework of the connotation of religion. Nevertheless, today we say Buddhist religion. It is one of the world’s largest religious traditions, but strictly speaking, it is a principle, a dharma, which may or may not fit within the connotation of religion. Therefore I say Buddha dharma.

The entire Buddha dharma was taught by the Buddha, the Enlightened One, for forty years in India after his enlightenment, and there are numerous volumes of his teachings. These can be summarised into the principles of the Four Noble Truths.

The Four Noble Truths are the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path through which the cessation of suffering is to be achieved. These thus are the four: suffering, cause of suffering, liberation, cause of liberation. Cause of liberation and liberation, this is one set of causality. Suffering and cause of suffering this is another set of causality.

So that was the entirety of the Buddha’s teaching. All sentient beings, all living being naturally, by nature, are not happy with misery, suffering, or pain. No one likes pain. But everybody likes happiness, comfort and peace. Therefore everyone has the basic or fundamental right to get rid of pain and suffering, and achieve pleasure, happiness and peace. This is a fact, it’s a reality. There is no dispute about it.

Siddhartha, who had seen the pervasiveness of the suffering of sentient beings, was trying to find a remedy to get out of the suffering. So he says you must realise the truth of suffering. He categorised the truth of suffering into three categories: the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of dependency. The entire world, the sentient beings who have not achieved liberation, are within this circuit of these three different kinds of suffering.

The suffering of suffering is the usual [identifiable suffering], which is considered to be misery, pain and unhappiness, which we all know. For example, disease, decay, death, and loss of property and loss of dear-and-near-ones, there are so many; the pain which is usually visible.

The second kind, the suffering of change, is all the so-called pleasures and happiness within the world, within the [karmic] bondage. So what will happen is that what we have today is bound to diminish, bound to decay, bound to change, it is all impermanent. Today we have very good health, we are youthful, and one day we may suffer from disease or due to old age we lose our energy and strength; thus the present pleasure is changeable. It is bound to decay. This is the suffering of change.

Suffering of dependence is there because we have no independence. We are bound by our forgoing actions, which in the technical term we call karma, the karmic force. We accumulate so many actions, we do so many actions that create positive and negative energy, and that energy gives you the future. Therefore we are not free; we shall have to… For example, our consciousness is at this moment bound with our body and we have no freedom to relieve this body without any deterioration. The body will deteriorate and one day we shall have to give up this body. Now the other way, we cannot give up the body voluntarily, by wish. At any time we can go away from this body and get a better and younger and perfect body. Unlike changing the clothes, we cannot change the body. The relationship between body and consciousness is bound by some other force; we call it the force of karma, and the force of mental defilements. This is dependency, we are not free. So this is the third kind of misery.

We shall have to see the misery as misery. As long as we feel some portion of misery as pleasure and as happiness, then we will not have the intention to get out of it. This therefore is the first.

And the second truth is that these miseries, unhappinesses, pains do not come to you without any cause, they have their own causes. What are the causes? The causes are our ignorance and our mental defilements. Hatred, attachment, and ignorance are the basic three mental defilements. And due to this—this presence of mental defilements—we are suffering in many ways. As such, the cause of suffering is to be eradicated.

The cause of suffering is eradicable. It has not entered into the nature of your consciousness. It is a temporary disturbance or temporary delusion which has covered to your consciousness. If you make an effort you can do away with this. And therefore the cessation of misery is achievable, since the cause is eradicable. Because of that, Nirvana, or the ending of the misery or achieving of enlightenment, is possible to achieve.

And then the fourth truth is the truth of means, or truth of path. What is that? You see the suffering, the truth of suffering, you see the cause of suffering, you see the truth of the cause of suffering, and you also see the possibility of the cessation of suffering. Now you will have to practise the path to reach the cessation of suffering. The path can be summarised in the three trainings. The threefold education, the three trainings, are śīla—moral conduct; samādhi—mental-concentration training, and prajñā—awakening of wisdom. All mental defilements come out of ignorance, therefore you have to achieve wisdom. When you achieve wisdom, the ignorance will automatically go away. When light comes, darkness disappears. Similarly, when prajñā, or wisdom, arises in your mind, then your ignorance will become eradicated. You will achieve so. This is the entirety of Buddhist practice.

To arise in the wisdom, you need to utilise entirely your mental force in a concentrated way. At this moment, we are not able to concentrate even ten per cent or eight per cent of the mind. Our thought process, our mind, is always scattering, it’s not brought to one point. As the modern science, the neurological people say, our brain has tremendous potential—capacity—but a very small percentage of the brain is in usage or in action. That’s true, if you consider mind as the brain; our mind is dependent on the brain, whatever it may be. We are never able, at present, to use the mind in its endless totality. To achieve the usage of our mind in its totality with concentration, we have to achieve the perfection of mental concentration. That perfection of concentratedness can only be achieved through continuity of meditation, meditative practice.

And to achieve that meditative practice, you have to follow certain moral principles. Unless you have a morality, ethical principles that you are following with your bodily action, vocal action, mental action or in a certain non-violent, disciplined way, you are not able to meditate. If you do not meditate you cannot train the mind to concentrate. And without training the mind, you cannot awake the wisdom.

Therefore this threefold shiksha (training) is the entire part. You have to follow a certain discipline, avoiding negative actions and accumulating positive actions, and then practise the meditation. Then the awakening of prajñā, the awakening of wisdom is almost automated. When you achieve training of the mind, it is the highest level, the absolute level. Then your inner wisdom will awaken and you will see the truth. And therefore you will achieve the cessation of the cause of misery, and the cessation of the cause of misery will lead to the cessation of all misery. So this is all what the Buddha was talking about. This is the essence of Buddha dharma, Buddha’s teachings.

Buddha dharma consists of a part that is dharma, spiritual practice; a part that is philosophy; and a part that is science. All three together, that is the Buddhist canon, or Buddhist teachings. We can view it like that.

And now, how to enter into the threefold training. The gateway into Buddha dharma is taking refuge. Taking refuge means knowing the Buddha’s nature and [accepting] Buddha as teacher, knowing the dharma and accepting dharma as the real protector or real refuge, and knowing sangha, the community of the realised, as supporter.

So, when someone takes refuge in Buddha, dharma and Sangha, then the person becomes a Buddhist person. Buddha, the historical Buddha, Siddhartha, the Shakyamuni Buddha, is in personified form. In taking refuge, of course, that Buddha is also included, but we are mostly speaking of the Buddha nature. Buddha nature means a state of complete eradication of all negative things, and achievement of all knowledge. That kind of level is the Buddha nature. Everybody can achieve that. All sentient beings have the seed of Buddha.

The Buddha is the teacher who showed us the path. The real thing which saves you from misery and which eradicates your cause of misery is the dharma that I already talked about, the threefold training. And then you need a community atmosphere, conducive environment for that, and thus sangha is also necessary.

In a metaphorical way, we can say, when someone is suffering from a serious disease, in order to cure the disease, you need a good doctor to diagnose the disease, the cause of disease and prescribe the accurate medicine. But the doctor cannot cure your illness. The cure of your illness will be through the medicine. And the medicine you shall have to take by yourself. Without taking the medicine you cannot be cured. And since you are suffering very seriously, you need a nurse or aid who gives you the medicine and who talks to you, encourages you, and also reminds you of what the doctor has advised. A good doctor and effective medicine and a good nurse, when all three are gathered, then you can get out of the disease.

Similarly, suffering is the disease. The Buddha cannot do away with your suffering. Buddha can only tell you how to achieve the cessation of the cause of suffering. And that is the dharma. Dharma you shall have to practise by yourself. And in the course of practising dharma, on your own you would be unable to do the practices in the proper way. Therefore you need a community, and the community is called sangha. So, those are the three things that Buddhist people take refuge in.

I think that much is enough as a brief introduction of Buddhism. Now the second topic is non-violence. Non-violence is also the essence of Buddha dharma. In the second/third century A.D., Aryadeva, a direct disciple of Nagarjuna, appeared in South India; Aryadeva says in a beautiful verse: Here somebody asked me to sum up the entirety of Buddhism into two words; I will use the two words of ahimsa, non-violence. And non-violence is the essence of the entire teachings of the Buddha.

Earlier, I mentioned the threefold training. The moral conduct—how do we decide which is moral, which is immoral? The basic principle is that anything which directly or indirectly harm others, or causes unhappiness to others, is immoral. Whatever is not harming others, that is moral. If it is benefitting others, that is high morality. And, how do you achieve a concentrated mind? That also comes through non-violence. As long as your mind is angry, you cannot achieve the concentrated mind. Your mind shall have to become non-violent, then you achieve mental concentration. The wisdom says that every sentient being is equal. That is the final stage of non-violence. When you see everyone as equal, then there is no question of doing violence to anyone.

We shall have to define what non-violence is. Violence and non-violence are not principally decided (categorised as such) by the appearance of the action, they are decided by the intention from which the action is initiated or comes out. Violence generally means harming any other sentient being. If we cause harm, injury, pain, unhappiness, to any other person, that is violence. But that kind of act will become violence in reality when you have the intention of hurting the other. Otherwise if you have a compassionate mind and want to help or save the other, sometimes causing pain and causing unhappiness may not be in the category of violence. For example, doctors amputate your body parts, cut them by knife or some instrument, and that is very painful unless you are anaesthetised. But the intention would be to save the patient’s life. On the face of it, it is causing pain, but in reality it is for saving their life. That is not violence.

Similarly, some actions might appear friendly and as not causing any harm or pain, but ultimately they harm others. For example, giving bad advice, or these days there are so many cases of supplying drugs and intoxicating substances, and saying that this is good, that you will be happy, that you should use this, and I can give you it for free. In this way the action is apparently very friendly and for the benefit of the other, but in reality the intention was to make the person addicted and then to create a permanent customer of the supply, so on and so forth.

The entire exploitation of today’s world, we call it structural violence. The economic system is full of violence. It is violence not only to living beings, it is violence to nature as well. Due to that, we have made this world miserable. Violence is the root cause of the entire problems of the world today. It may be politics, it may be social, it may be economic, it may be the environment. Wherever you look, the world is full of violence. We shall have to understand, therefore, what violence is and what are the results of violence.

Violence was there right from the beginning of civilization, in history, but in the ancient times, violence was limited, and particularly violence in the form of war used to be for a specific object: to get more power, to get more territory, or to win the war. Once the war was won, then there was no other objective to continue the violence. The scale of violence was also limited. One person could kill four or five people. Not more than that. Today, a single person, by pushing a button, can kill millions of people, millions of living beings. This is the kind of weapon we have created. Violence has become so much more dangerous today.

The principle of non-violence has much relevance for every living being today, so much more than in the ancient times, because violence is a part of trade and business, and there are many business houses which need violence. I am talking about the weaponry industries which need a sustainable market. To have a sustainable market for the weaponry, they need people to use the weapons. And weapons can only be used in violence, never will they be used for the benefit of non-violence.

Thus our generation, your generation, we shall have to think about how to establish non-violence. Otherwise there will be no future of the planet earth, it’s very, very precarious. At this moment the level of carbon omission is really quite near the limit of human tolerance, and for the last ten years the increase is at such a high degree that if is not checked now, it may go beyond tolerance of all. As regards this problem, everywhere, all politicians, all thinkers, everybody is saying that this is very dangerous, we shall have to put an end to this and we need peace…. All these lip services are there, but in reality, terrorism is one of the good market-makers for the weapon industry.

In my life I remember that the Vietnam War prolonged for twenty-one years. If one side wished to win the war, it could be won within twenty-four hours. Or if one side wished to withdraw from the war, they could do that within twenty-four hours. But these things were not their objective. The objective was to prolong the war so that the weaponry market could remain sustainable. This is so dangerous. Therefore the principle of non-violence has become extremely important for the survival of the earth and for the survival of the entire living system on this earth. There is not any other alternative but to adopt the principle of non-violence in our life.

I very much appreciate, I always quote it whenever I can, one of the statements of Martin Luther King. Two days before he was assassinated he gave a talk and his utterance was very correct. He said that there’s no option before us today between violence and non-violence. This option was out of date. Today the option before us is only between non-violence or no existence. This is very true. Today the option before us is either non-violence or no existence. No third option. We shall have to understand this.

Having said that, the principle of non-violence is not a new philosophy or a new concept. In India, for more than last seven thousand years, there were many philosophical or religious traditions, and the majority of them have been talking about non-violence. And particularly Buddha and Mahavir, the founder of the Jain dharma, both were great educators, great proponents of the principle of non-violence. Their entire religious practice is based on non-violence.

But till recent times, till the nineteenth and twentieth century, people did not understand, or the teachers did not [specifically advised that] non-violence could be used for every sphere. Buddhism, Jainism, and other traditions of various non-violent religions, talk about non-violence only in the spiritual practice. And they are not able to apply this in social or political work, to a national struggle, to the freedom of a nation, or national defence, or the economic system. In the past, people thought that a certain degree of violence in all the worldly affairs is indispensable. For example, Buddhist countries such as Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Tibet, Mongolia, all these are considered to be Buddhist countries. Thailand, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka constitutionally proclaim to be Buddhist nations; their constitutions are Buddhist constitutions. Still they are not able to do away with armed forces. They keep armed forces in the name of national defence, and they also keep a police force for law-and-order. They also have the system of capital punishment and violent punishment in the name of justice or legality. So, non-violence has been kept only in the realm of Dharma or the spiritual. In the worldly affairs, particularly in the state management, or struggle for a nation’s independence or national freedom, or struggle for justice against injustice—in these realms it was assumed that a certain degree of violence is indispensable. It was an ancient thought.

And even in Buddhism, they didn’t tell the kings and the rulers how to manage the state completely non-violently, and the teachings were only in the sphere of how to achieve nirvana, that for that end the need to follow a non-violent path. But for a nation or for a state, how to follow the non-violent path was not very clear. This was taught for the first time on this planet by the person whose name is Mohandas Gandhi, now popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi.

Mahatma Gandhi was born in the nineteenth century and he lived till nineteen forty-eight. Thus, in the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, he brought a completely new principle, that non-violence can be used in every sphere. To oppose injustice, to resist injustice and achieve justice, to fight for the independence of India against the British rule, Gandhi showed that non-violence is the best weapon. He not only preached, not only taught, he as well practised and demonstrated that the non-violent way can be more effective than the violent way. And similarly, in education and economy and in keeping law-and-order and [in] every sphere, he taught how to use non-violent action for the achievement of any object, any end. This is very unique, a new invention so to speak, so that’s why Rabindranath Tagore, the great poet, called Gandh, “Mahatma”; Mahatma means a sage or saint. So he was really a saint politician, a saint strategist.

Therefore anyone who is interested in the principle of non-violence, of course shall have to study Buddhism and Jainism—these two traditions are much more vocal about non-violence, but you must study Gandhi. And then and only then will you be able to understand how to apply the non-violence principle in our day-to-day life, particularly in this post-modern civilization. Each inch of the earth is full of violence, it seems to be very difficult to [go] about in this context with the non-violence principle, but if you read, if you study Gandhi’s teachings, then you will be able to understand. Gandhi’s writings are so voluminous; no one can read them in one lifetime. The printed version is 113 thick books. So, there is so much. But I recommend only two small books.

One is Indian Home Rule, the basic name is Hind Swaraj which Gandhi wrote in Gujarati [language]. Hind Swaraj is the other name. One version of the book is a translation into English, and the English translation carries the title Indian Home Rule. That is very tiny, only some 43-44 pages and with some introduction, altogether around 100 pages. You can read it two sittings. And apparently it is very simple, but quite deep. Unless and until you read it four, five, six times, you may not be able to understand the real intentions of the author.

And the second is his autobiography: My Experiments with Truth. The English translations of both of the books were done during Gandhi’s lifetime, so they are authentic translations. My Experiments with Truth is a little bigger, that is around 350 or 400 pages. A small book. If you read these two books, then you will be able to understand Gandhi’s thoughts of using the non-violence principle and actions in all spheres of life. I think they are easy to read and understand. Since he was a recent person, not like Buddha of some 2600 years ago; he was living with us just a few decades ago, his language is contemporary language that everyone can understand. And the events and the incidents had happened during his lifetime, they are still very much relevant to the present age.

I think I should stop here to leave room for your participation, comments, or feedback or questions. As I mentioned at the beginning, since I have no earlier acquaintance with you, I’m just monologuing, I’m talking from my side alone, which may or may not be beneficial to you. But if we have a bit of dialogue between us that may be more useful. Thank you for your patience and attention.

Audience member: Hello! My name is Miranda. I wanted to ask you, since you have all this tolerance and want equality for everyone in the world, then why don’t you believe that women and men are equal? Like what is the difference, and why is non-violence not implemented on that?

Rinpoche: Speaking from the Buddhist viewpoint, our Buddhist viewpoint, it’s not only between men and women, rather all sentient beings, the entire living beings, are completely equal. There’s no differentiation, there’s no higher or lower, no superior and inferior. Equality in real sense, from the Buddhist viewpoint, based on the reasoning that all sentient beings have the potential of awakening. The Buddha-nature is pervasive to all sentient beings. Every sentient being has the potential to be awakened, to be enlightened, to become Buddha. Therefore there is no difference in their capacity or in their potentiality; they are completely equal. That is one.

Secondly, everybody looks for peace and happiness, no-one could live with pain and misery. This is also equal to everyone. So therefore there is no discrimination between genders or races. If a Buddhist really follows Buddha’s teaching, there is no room for discrimination. Having said that, there are differences between everyone. Differences between the animal world and the human world, vast differences. And also among humans, men and women have a number of differences. The differences shall have to be understood. In spite of equality, a man can never be a mother, can never conceive and give birth to a child, it is by nature. In the name of equality, you can’t ask a man to become a mother, or a woman to become a father. So this is nature giving different functions and by that way, there are number of differences in our biological bodies, in our psychological minds, everything is not exactly the same.

But these differences do not justify or do not give grounds for considering that one is superior to the other. The differences are differences, but the basic equality is that each one has the potential to be enlightened. That is equal. Each person is looking for peace, not looking for conflict; so that is at attitude level. So no one can discriminate on the basis of gender. That’s why the Buddha has said that his work would not be complete unless he had established the four sanghas, the four spiritual communities. The four sanghas are bhikṣu sangha, bhikṣuṇī sangha, upāsaka sangha, upāsikā sangha. Bhikṣu sangha are the ordained male and bhikṣuṇī sangha are the ordained female, the fully-ordained female trainee. And upasaka sangha and upasika sangha are the lay trainees, also male and female. Buddha was, some 2600 years ago, very conscious of gender equality. If you look at all of the Buddha’s teachings, whether or not both genders were present in his audience, when addresses the followers, he always addresses ‘ladies and gents.’ He never leaves the ladies apart. Sometimes in the bhikṣhu sangha, there would not be ladies in the audience, but his address would be “Kula-putro, kula-putri.” Wherever kula-putra (sons of the lineage) is mentioned, there certainly is the mention of kula-putri/kuladuhita (daughters of the lineage). For example, the lines from The Essence of Wisdom Discourse: Rig-kyi bu-ham, rig-gi bumo, gang-lala sherabkyi pharoldu chinpa zabmoi choepa chaepar dhoepa dhey; kulaputro va kuladuhita va asyam gambhirayam prajnaparamitayam caryam cartukama: Sons of the lineage or daughters of the lineage, whoever wish to practise the practice of the profound, the perfection of wisdom.

So all the Buddha’s teachings always address equally kulaputra and kulaputri, that means it is quite similar to the parlance “ladies and gentlemen.” Kul means the family, lineage; putra means boys, sons, of the family; putri means girls, daughters, of family. This is the way he used to address. In various Buddhist countries, in real social life, you might find a number of gender inequalities or discriminations but these are social inequalities and it is not in consonance with the Buddha’s teaching. If you follow Buddha’s teaching there is no room for gender discrimination.

Audience member: So you think it’s the male society who is making this problem bigger, not Buddha’s teachings? Right?

Rinpoche: I think so. I am not a student of sociology so I cannot say definitely. So wherever there is a male-dominated society, that might be caused by the males. It is not because of the philosophy or by the religion.

Audience member: Thank you.

Rinpoche: You are welcome.

Audience member: What are the basic steps to meditate?

Rinpoche: To meditate.

Audience member: Just a quick overview.

Rinpoche: The first step is to know the objective of meditation, why you want to meditate. As I mentioned, meditation is one of the threefold trainings. In that case, the aim of meditation is to awaken your wisdom. And to awaken your wisdom is to achieve enlightenment. So, you are aiming to achieve the Buddha nature. That is a very high objective
.
And in that case there are many steps to be taken to meditate. But today, meditation becomes some kind of physical and mental exercise to reduce stress or to have fitness of the body. Our calming of the mind is OK, but first of all you must know why you want to meditate. So in accordance with the objective, the steps will become different. If your objective is just to reduce stress, I’m not joking, I’m telling you the facts. The late great teacher Satya Narayan Goenka taught Vipasana meditation, of a ten-days course format, very widely, in India and abroad, at their meditation centres. Multi-national companies and many factories send their workers to this ten-days course. And their objective is to increase the efficiency of their worker, to increase production. Goenka accepted them, OK, for that also you can meditate. And that may be your main objective, but meditation might give you many different side benefits, and that is also OK. There are many companies and huge industries who send their workers to the course. And with the cost covered, those participants consider it as a working day, their wages are all there. So that is purely to increase the efficiency of the workers. And for that matter, any kind of meditation methods or systems can be adopted.

And then the second step is to know whatever system or method you are going to adopt. You should have full knowledge of that. Once you know the objective and the system, then you can meditate. These two are very necessary. And, if you are meditating for a spiritual journey, then you should meditate in accordance with your faith. If someone is a Christian, then you must study the Christian way of meditation. If someone is Buddhist, they should study the Buddhist way of meditation. Hindu or Muslim or whatever faith they may belong to, since they are pursuing a spiritual journey, then their spiritual journey must be in consonance with their faith. For someone who is of Muslim faith if they meditate in Christian way then that would not enhance their spirituality. So that is why I say that knowing the objective is first and knowing the method is second. You should not casually meditate by hearing from some book or from the Internet or from YouTube. That may go well or that may not go well, it is a little risky. Okay?

Audience member: Hi, I’m Anna. And I wanted to ask you, what are the main troubles, problems you are having, like right now as a guide of this big religion, and how are you handling them? You know, because you have a lot of people following you, so how do you handle to make people stand up and not stuff-up even though there are problems now?

Rinpoche: I’m not very clear with your question. How to deal with…

Audience member: Like what are the biggest problems you’re having and how do you as a guide make people let go and stand with you, like how do you handle that as a guide?

Rinpoche: There cannot be a generalised method which can be used for everyone. For example, Buddha gave teachings in so many different ways. If you read the Buddhist canon, Buddha has never been consistent. Sometimes he says yes, sometimes he says no, sometimes he keeps quiet. So his teachings are full of apparent contradictions. And the reason behind that is that he taught to suit the individual listener.

Of course there are generalised principles, but generalised principles are not for individuals. Sentient beings are different, each individual is different. And one method is not entirely suitable for everyone. The uniqueness is very clear, you can see on this planet earth there are seven billion people alive today, and you will not be able to find [any two that are] completely identical. This is very small, but in spite of that, even a twin brothers or twin sisters that do have quite the same face; if you look closely they can be identified differently. This is John and this is Sean, like that.

So each individual has an individual capacity and an individual way. Therefore we shall have to handle people individually and in accordance with the individual’s need and capacity and mental attitude, we shall have to deal with that. That is, having said that, of course to deal with any people, any problem, the compassionate mind, the mind of loving kindness, is the basic factor. If you do not have love for other people with whom you have to deal with, you cannot handle other people. You may patch up or you may have some artificial relationship, but the real relationship shall have to be built, and shall have to be dealt with a sincere mindset of love and compassion to the other.

You have to analyse the others’ educational background, social background, and causes of their immediate problems, and there’s not a generalised principle which I can talk about.

Audience member: Thank you.

Audience member: Thank you for your time. I was wondering, your concept of morality and of violence, your definitions that you just gave us, they seem to revolve around the concept of others. So you said if an action intentionally harms others, then it is violent and it is immoral. Now last December 3 there’s been the 123rd, 124th case of self-immolation, so I would like to hear your opinion about the fact that some monks are now starting to use violence against the self for not necessarily destruction, but as construction. So in other words, is this type of violence against the self for constructive purposes an immoral act, and if so, why?

Rinpoche: This is a very complex issue. And also at this moment the self-immolations in Tibet have become a political issue as well. Therefore I generally do not make any comments on this. But apart from self-immolations, there are generally a lot of suicides, and other ways of suicide. The question of whether a suicide is in the category of violence or the category of not violence, this is very much debatable.

In Buddhism, there are no clear-cut instructions on whether harming oneself is violence or non-violence. We do not find any direct reference in the Buddha’s words. Now referring back to the Buddhist canon, the jatakas–jatak means the story of Buddha’s past lives. In the stories of Buddha’s past lives, he had given his head, when someone was asking for his head; he cuts off his head and gives it away, during his practice on the perfection of generosity. And he gave all his limbs. Giving away one’s body parts is ending of one’s own life. Altruistic practice of generosity is considered to be a positive spiritual practice, and not classified in the category of violence.

Apart from that, I mentioned Jainism. Jainism is a religious tradition in India, it’s quite alive today. Their way of life is extremely non-violent. Buddha did not go to that extreme, Buddha was an advocate of the middle path, not of extremes. But Mahavir, the founder of Jainism, asked his disciples, his monks, to cover their nose and mouth by a piece of cloth in order to save the small insects in the air that might be harmed when breathing. And you cannot wear shoes wherever you go because the shoe may kill insects on the path. And they carry a broom, a small broom, and wherever they go, they do like this (gesturing), in order to save anything on the path. So such extreme practice of non-violence was there. In spite of that, they have a system of ending one’s own life voluntarily by fasting. Monks and nuns in their old age, go on an indefinite fast, and then finally they give up drinking water, and usually after 45 or 50 days, they die. This kind of death is considered to be a very high level of spiritual practice. And it is not considered violence.

There are canonical references to giving up one’s own life which may not count in the category of violence. But similarly, on the other hand, in the Mantrayana practice, the advanced path, to harm one’s own body or to disrespect one’s own body or to not look properly after one’s own body is also considered to be an inappropriate act. So there are different versions which need to be analysed and interpreted differently on the individual context. I am just saying that there are both sides, there are canonical references, so you can interpret any way.

Now secondly, again it much depends on the intention. Any person who does give up his own life, including the self-immolations, if their action is caused by hatred or anger, then I very much doubt the action would be free from violence. If they have no hatred, they have no anger, they have no negative emotions, rather fully out of a peaceful mind, a compassionate mind, and wanting to express something, that would be, in my view, non-violence. It all depends on the intention.

In the nineteen ’sixties, one Theravada monk of Vietnam—at that time we called it South Vietnam—self-immolated. The pictures are still available. He just sat down, cross-legged, in a meditative posture, and set himself in flames. All his chivar, that means monk robes, were soaked in petrol, thus catching fire instantly. But the picture shows that in the process of burning, he remained in a sitting position, not running around, very peaceful, his face was in a peaceful expression. So I thought, of course that has a great impact, and after just a few months the Vietnam War came to an end. And the entire world community had noticed it in great enthusiasm.

In North Africa a few years back, one vegetable seller self-immolated, and that also brought change in a number of countries, peaceful change. But the question for the Tibetans is that there are not one, not two, not three, not ten—one hundred and twenty three people that we have evidence of, and there may be more about whom the news has not reached the outside world. But it didn’t evoke the international community’s feelings or their minds. So that is very difficult for me to understand, to be asking, Why?

So these are very broad, not direct answers to your question, but a broad discussion is how I look at it; I thus mention it to you, it’s for you to decide. Find the answer.

Audience member: To relay back to your quote from Martin Luther King in regards to non-violence or non-existence, how do you feel the best approach is for mankind to implement teachings of non-violence? Would you say through politicians, through media, through education, through religion? What do you feel is the most effective means for mankind to utilise the powerful teachings?

Rinpoche: That is a very difficult question, all problems like that. Non-violence used as a strategic method, I do not consider it to be a genuine non-violence. I have disagreements and great debates with my friend, Professor Dyanshap. Professor Dyanshap teaches that non-violence can also be used strategically, and she considered Gandhi to be a strategic person. I said no, Gandhi was never a strategic person, he stayed away from that.

Anyhow, the best way is to practise by oneself. Until you become non-violent, you cannot encourage, persuade others to be non-violent. This is the most difficult part. We always talk about non-violence and then when it comes to you, you react with anger, with hatred. Talking is not the way. Education should be the most effective way to bring non-violence principles to the younger generation and to give a culture of non-violence through education. There is no doubt it should be very helpful. But the question is, will we be able to find a real non-violent teacher? That is, if the teachers do not involve their mind with non-violence and become the non-violent person, then again their teaching non-violence in education would be just information akin to imparting any information these days.

So what we can do at this moment is to practise oneself. If you practise and you become that non-violent person, then I think you will have a great impact on your family, on your students, on your friends, and through them we can enlarge it, gradually. You might have heard the story of Gandhi, some may not have heard this story. Gandhi was living at Sewagram Ashram, that is near Pune. A village boy was eating too much sweets—brown sugar, that we call gur, which is what normally is made into sugar. His parents are not able to stop that boy from eating the sweets. And his teeth were getting damaged. So somebody advised: “Why don’t you take this boy to Gandhi? He is a great person, he may persuade the boy not to eat sweets.” The parents went to Gandhi and explained, and Gandhi said “Okay, I will try to persuade the boy, you come next week.”

The parents went back to their home. The following week they came back with the boy. Gandhi said, “My dear son, it is not good to eat too much sweets. You don’t eat sweets.” This much he advised. Then the father was a little frustrated and said to Gandhi, “If only this is to be said then why didn’t you say it when we came last week?” Then Gandhi responded, “Last week I was also eating the sweets. So at that time my advice would have not been accurate. Since you came, I have stopped eating gur, and now I will not eat gur throughout my life, therefore I have the authority to say not to eat.” So this is Gandhi’s approach.

Audience member: Thanks for coming and talking with us. It’s a pleasure. I would like to ask you something: one of the main differences I realised between the educational system in the Western world and with the Tibetan community is that we are mainly based in competition, we seek a lot of competition, and here in the Tibetan community I feel it’s a more collaborative way of teaching. I would like to know your opinion, but I figured that if this could be the root of violence, this aim for competition could be related to this really violent world we live in. Do you think it’s related?

Rinpoche: Of course. I mentioned in my talk, I briefly mentioned structural violence. Structural violence is basically in [today’s] economic system, in the political system, so in them there are always competition. Comparison and competition is the root cause of the entirety of the violence.

Two thousand five hundred years ago, or at the most recent, three hundred years ago, the human community could produce by hand their commodities, just to satisfy the needs. Whatever was necessary in the community, they could get in that society: food, clothes, house, whatever it may be. There were enough of all necessary articles for everybody. All needs were being addressed. Then the so-called Industrialization or science or technological revolution invented the machine, and the machine could produce much, much, more than the people’s needs. Things are produced much more than they are needed; then the producers now had to find a way to utilise them, to sell them, and to make a profit out of it. And they thought very deeply, researched, it is now a very common word—market research. Market research means how to make the population transform from a user to consumer. In the ancient times we were users, we used the commodities, we did not consume them. And now the entire population is converted into consumers. We consume. We do not use anymore, we always consume, consume, consume.

Marketing to that consuming person, the best method was comparison and competition. Right from childhood they begin their indoctrination: comparison and competition. For a small child who is not able to speak properly, the teacher or parent will say, “Look, this child is also your age, he can speak very well, you are still not able to speak; and at school he got 99 marks and you got 33 marks.” In this way the capacity to know oneself is taken away; they always indoctrinate people to compare themselves with others. Now today I’m not able to recognise myself, I recognise my identification in comparison with someone else. In the so-called democratic election, I have to find my identification with my competitor in the election, something like that.

So this comparison and competition has made the ground to all kind of violence. I used to say, humanity is very clever to coin these sick words. We used to say free-and-fair-competition. These are absolutely contradictory words. If you are in competition, how can it be free? Or how it can be fair? The competitor will use all means to win for him or herself. No one competes in order for others to win. In our Tibetan Children’s Village School, the motto is “Others before self”, others are more important than oneself. In the Tibetan language, this is their motto. A very good motto. Then jokingly, I used to ask some of the competitors in the games or in the races, “Will you give others a chance to go ahead before yourself?” The student said, “No, I have to become the first or the second. How can I give a chance to the others?” Then what about your motto? If you have been taught that others are more important than you, then you have to give a chance to others.

To oneself to defeat others is definitely a violence, a mental violence; and then when it becomes a physical action, it becomes a physical violence. Therefore Gandhi’s education system says that the present examination system must be completely done away with, his thoughts being that this system only gives a comparison and competitive mind. And my late friend, you might have heard of his name, Jidu Krishnamurti, he also did away with the examination system in all of the schools run by the Krishnamurti Foundation. We try to develop a culture among the children not to compare and not to compete. In the larger society it is very difficult to achieve, but in our own school, in Krishnamurti Foundation schools, the children are quite different from the other school-children. So when they grow up we find that they do not carry a competitive mindset—it is really, what should I say…that they succeed with that non-competitive mind. They are able to do everything in the present society. So what I am trying to say is competition is not indispensable to lead a decent life in the present civilization.

Audience member: I have one more question. It’s something I’ve personally struggled with, and I work in the technology field and with technology influencing mankind and with violence now being more apparent through weapons and so on, there’s so much negative force that comes with technology growth. At the same time you have so much positiveness via the teachings of the Dalai Lama or Buddhism, being able to be spread across the world without boundaries of geographical region. Do you feel that technology in this current day and age is becoming a negative or positive force in this atmosphere?

Rinpoche: That is again a very complex question. In India, particularly the so-called followers of Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave, there is one group who says science and technology is neutral, and that it depends on the user; you can use for a very good purpose, or you can use for a very destructive purpose. And if the user is positive, the science and technology will become positive; if the user is negative, the science and technology will be negative. This is one school of thought.

The other school of thought says no; they assert that both science and technology are not neutral, the two are basically negative, and are basically destructive. But if your intention is so powerful and your moral authority is strong enough, you can use them in a positive way, but it does not mean that] the technology itself is a positive. So this is the second kind of school of thought.

And there are very staunch people, who say that science and technology can never be used in a positive way. Thus there are so many different opinions, and a number of books are written on these issues but unfortunately there are not many in English, they are basically written in Hindi or Indian languages.

I am telling myself, between these thoughts or schools, how I make my way is a selective acceptance for an ultimate rejection. Selective acceptance, such as I shall have to use the gadget to communicate things at large, and I shall have to use the aeroplane to reach places in time, but I have a conscience that I should not become completely dependent on these things. And if I find this is not totally positive, I will give it up without any hesitation. If I find I should not go on an aeroplane, I will stop going anywhere. I can settle in only one place. Or if I find that technology is not good, I can give it up. I will not be slave to all this, but occasionally by choice with a mindset of non-attachment, I am using that. This is my explanation to my friends, particularly those extreme orthodox people, who are still not using these gadgets and it becomes difficult for us also. It makes any sense?

Audience member: Yeah, perfect. Thank you, thank you.

Audience member: Would you like to ask us something?

Rinpoche: I don’t have any particular questions at this moment. I’m very happy to see you all.

Facilitator: So we are leaving at this time, and we are going to stop here. The session ends here. We are really grateful to Samdhong Rinpoche for spending this time with us and especially imparting knowledge about a basic introduction to Buddhism as well as non-violence. We also learned some instructions for meditation, and I am sure that every one of us has gained something from this talk, from this session, and for that I would like to thank Samdhong Rinpoche. On behalf of all the students and teachers from Mexico of our cultural group, and thank you also to the staff and volunteers here. Thank you so much. I would also like to request if we may have a group picture with Samdhong Rinpoche.

Rinpoche: Of course.

Audience: Thank you, Rinpoche.