Nonviolence and Spiritual Values in the Modern World
Elista, Kalmykia, Russia, April 13, 2011
Thank you very much for your very kind words. I’m really delighted to be back in Kalmykia once more. I had the great honor and privilege to meet and study, just a little bit, with the great Kalmyk Geshe, Geshe Wangyal, in America back in the 1960s – so a long time ago – and this was my start in Tibetan Buddhism, and so I’m always very delighted to come back here to his homeland and to meet his people and to share with them the good fortune that I had to be able to meet with him and spend time with him.
Today I’ve been asked to speak about nonviolence and spiritual values in the modern world. And these are topics which are especially relevant for students like yourself who are planning, as far as I understand, to go into the medical profession and teaching profession, because, as part of your work of helping others, certainly it’s very important on your own sides to help in a nonviolent manner. Helping obviously is the opposite of violence. And having some spiritual values yourself will help you to make your work more meaningful, that it’s not just to make money, but rather it can help you to appreciate the opportunity that you have in your work to actually help people in a meaningful way.
Buddhism has a lot to say about nonviolence, as all religions do, and different systems of course will define what nonviolence means in several different ways. Often we think of violence in terms of a certain type of action, a violent action, and nonviolence means to refrain from that type of behavior. But Buddhism approaches it more from the side of the mind, of our state of mind that is involved. This is because, whether or not we actually enact some sort of violent type of behavior, it all stems from a violent state of mind, doesn’t it? So just refraining from hurting somebody, while in your mind having very violent thoughts to harm them – this certainly will not do. And so it’s important to understand that violent state of mind and learn methods for overcoming it.
We divide violence, a violent state of mind, into three different types in the Buddhist teachings. And another way perhaps of translating the word violence here is “be cruel.” We’re not just talking about being forceful and strong when we talk about being violent, because sometimes we need to use forceful methods in order to stop someone from causing harm to themselves or to others. If your child is running out into the road and could easily be killed by being hit by a car, you don’t just say, “Oh! Dear, don’t run into the road.” You might have to grab the child quite forcefully. So that’s not what we mean by violence. Violence is wanting to cause harm, and we can cause harm in many different ways. So we have these three types that are mentioned in Buddhism, although I’m sure we can think of more.
The first type [of violence] is thinking in a violent way toward others. It’s defined as a cruel lack of compassion with which we wish to cause mischief or harm to others. Compassion is the wish for others to be free from suffering and problems and the causes of them. And here, instead of wanting others to be free of suffering, we want them to have suffering, we want them to have problems, whether we cause them ourselves or others cause it or it just happens as part of nature. And to help us to overcome that state of mind, we need to think how everybody is equal, in the sense that everybody wants to be happy, nobody wants to be unhappy.
So when somebody causes harm to us, or let’s say you are teaching in class and a student causes harm or is disruptive to others, then rather than just thinking in terms of punishing that person – w hich usually is involved with anger and impatience and other unsettling, uncomfortable states of mind – it is much more helpful to think that this child is, in a sense, sick. The child wants to be happy but doesn’t really have any clear or correct idea of how to become happy and it’s just acting in a very disruptive type of way, in a confused state of mind, thinking that this somehow is going to make them happier. So with that point of view toward the child, we don’t think of the child in terms of being bad and I have to punish the child; we develop compassion instead, the wish that this child got over his or her confusion and problems that are causing them to be so disruptive and naughty in class.
Now that doesn’t mean that we just do nothing, that we are passive. Nonviolence doesn’t mean to be passive and do nothing, but rather it means not getting angry, not wishing harm to this disruptive child. So we obviously have to do something to get the child to stop acting disruptive, whatever methods there are that are acceptable in your school system. But the motivation behind it, the state of mind behind it, is very different from one of wanting to punish this child because the child is bad.
This word “motivation” is very important to understand. It has two aspects. One is our aim or intention, and the other is the emotion that drives us to achieve that aim. The aim is to help the child. That’s why we’re becoming a teacher, for example. Same thing if you’re going into the medical profession: our aim is to help the patient. Now what is the state of mind which is driving us toward achieving that goal? If it is just to make money or to have the other person really thank us and be so grateful to us, that really is a very selfish motive, isn’t it? Self-centered. And because the focus of our thought is mostly on ourselves, we’re not really paying the best attention to what is good for the other person. Like the doctor prescribing that somebody needs surgery when they really don’t need it, but they’re prescribing surgery simply because they will make more money from performing an operation. But rather what we need to be moved by, in order to achieve this aim of helping the other person, is compassion – thinking of the other person, thinking of their welfare, what will be best for them?
Now sometimes in the medical profession, in order to help somebody, we have to use a treatment which might be quite painful: injections, surgery. (Recovering from surgery is painful.) But that’s not a violent method, because the intention here is not to cause pain to the person; the intention is to help them recover from their suffering, from their problem, from their sickness.
So the same thing when you need to discipline a naughty schoolchild: Also the motivation is not to hurt the student. We want to help the student because we realize that this is a human being just like me – wants to be happy, doesn’t want to be unhappy – and perhaps I can teach them and show them a way to be happier in life. And regardless of what profession this child may go into in the future, what will be of benefit is if the person has discipline, if the person knows how to cooperate with others. These are things that will help anybody and everybody in the future.
And discipline means self-control. When the child wants to be naughty, teach the child that the child has to control himself or herself. And so in disciplining the child ourselves, the intention, the aim, is to help them to develop discipline themselves. And if we have that state of mind when we are disciplining the child, then that in a sense communicates to the child very much. It’s like when a parent is disciplining a child; the parent doesn’t generate feelings of hatred for the child, does it?
So this is what I think is import to learn and train in if we’re going into helping professions, like medicine or teaching, which is, inside, to have a loving attitude, a compassionate attitude – t hat you want to help the patients, you want to help the students, to lead happier, better lives, to be free of problems. And on the outside of course be professional, which means being serious and sometimes having to be quite strict. Then we can follow our profession in a nonviolent way in terms of this first meaning of nonviolence.
So instead of a lack of compassion toward others with which we want to cause them harm, we have compassion, the wish for them to be free of harm, free of suffering. And of course it’s very difficult to know really what are the best methods for helping someone. And each child, each patient, is an individual. And so that means that what might work for one person might not necessarily work for another person. And so it’s very important to also respect the individuality of each of the patients as a doctor, each of the students as a teacher. Now that might not be so easy when we have so many patients that we have to see every day and the classrooms are so crowded. But even if it’s not possible to really get to know each person individually, what’s important is again the state of mind, to have the interest to know them. And taking interest in them is based on respecting them. And try to view them with the same type of interest and respect as you would a close friend or a relative – your child, your parent, your brother or sister, or whatever, depending on their age and our age.
I think one of the guidelines that is always very, very helpful to remember is that this person is a human being and has feelings just as I have. They want to be happy, just as I want to be happy, and they want to be liked, just as I want to be liked. And if I have cruel thoughts to them and act in a cruel way, and are very cold toward them, they are going to feel hurt, just as I would feel hurt if somebody acted that way toward me. So this mind of respecting others is very, very important as an individual person.
The second type of nonviolence is a little bit connected to the one we’ve just been explaining, because here we’re talking about nonviolence directed toward ourselves (the first type is directed toward others). And here we’re talking about not being self-destructive. When we are self-destructive, this is a lack of self-love with which we wish to cause mischief or harm to ourselves. And this could be either intentional or unintentional causing harm to ourselves. For instance, with thoughts like: “I’m bad,” “I’m no good,” “I’m not good enough.”
Particularly if we are a doctor and one of our patients dies, which inevitably is going to happen, thinking, “Oh, I’m such a terrible doctor. I’m so bad,” and then feeling guilty and punishing ourselves in one way or another, usually quite psychological and emotional, because we couldn’t help somebody – they died. These are things that we really need to be prepared for if we’re going to become a doctor or a teacher. We’re not a Buddha; we can’t help everybody – even Buddha couldn’t help everybody. And so naturally sometimes we will fail. Either we won’t be able to cure a patient, or we really won’t be able to teach a child. But that’s just the nature of reality. In order for somebody to be helped, they have to be receptive on their side. Some sicknesses we just can’t cure, and even if it might be possible, sometimes we make mistakes; we’re human after all. And some students have serious emotional, social problems, whatever – family problems – and it’s beyond our capacity to be able to really help them.
So we have to watch out for ways in which we could be self-destructive; in other words, being violent toward ourselves. Ways of being self-destructive, for instance, are pushing ourselves too hard, thinking, “I have to be absolutely perfect,” when that’s really impossible. Of course we try to be as good as possible in what we’re doing, but nobody is perfect. And so of course if we are unsuccessful in something or another, sure we regret that – we want to be able to do better in the future – but we really need to work hard not to get into a terrible depression because of that, because being depressed will just harm our work, harm our effectiveness in our job.
Now you might say, “How can I prevent myself from getting depressed or feeling very, very hurt, actually” – you know, when you have a student and the student was doing well, but then the student left school for some reason. Naturally it’s sad, but the point is not to get depressed. And so then the question is: How can we help ourselves not to get depressed? And this comes back to what we were saying in terms of dealing with others. In order to really want to help others and not harm them, one of the most important things is respect for them, so similarly we need to have respect for ourselves. It’s important to always reaffirm that: “I have abilities; otherwise I couldn’t have become a teacher or a doctor.” We reaffirm our motivation that: “In doing the work that I’m doing, I have a good intention.” And “As a human being I’m not perfect; nevertheless, I respect myself for trying my best.” And that helps us not to get all depressed.
Now what happens when we examine ourselves honestly and we discover that I wasn’t really trying my best? I could have done better. Well, in that situation, sure we feel regret, and it’s important to reaffirm that: “In the future, I’m going to try harder.” But in order to prevent, or try to prevent, this failure of not trying our best from recurring, we need to examine what were the causes for this. It could have been because I was just too tired. And for that, again we need to be kind to ourselves, not self-destructive. We need to know what are our needs in terms of rest – what are my limits? – and again respect them. Don’t feel bad about it. Everybody has their limits. Of course in an emergency we can always do more, but not everything is an emergency. And sometimes we just have to say, “I need a rest,” and then try to take that rest, if it’s possible – sometimes it might not be possible – but if it is possible, to take that rest without feeling guilty.
Now of course that’s not always easy if we’re trying to balance a profession together with raising a family. Children have great needs, our own children. But this needs to be a priority, of how we can arrange our schedule and so on, so that I’m not overworked, overtired, and then I’m not doing a good job with anything. And not just let it go on and on and on till it reaches a point where we have a breakdown. Because ignoring our needs is really being violent to ourselves. And so non-violence toward ourselves is very, very important.
The third type of nonviolence is not taking pleasure in others’ misfortune. In other words, it’s considered cruel – if we think of violence in terms of a cruel state of mind – it’s a cruel state of mind to rejoice in others’ difficulties; in other words, when somebody fails. Now we might think, “ Well, this is not something that I really do.” But if you think of the example of politics, then if there are two candidates and one that you don’t like loses their office – loses the election or gets kicked out – we’re very happy about that. We rejoice in their misfortune, don’t we? And likewise in this type of situation, although we might be happy that the one we think is best has gotten into office, so we rejoice in their happiness, but there’s no reason to rejoice in the other person’s loss, because they undoubtedly have a family, they have others who are dependent on them, and they’r e experiencing unhappiness – they’re human beings too. So I’m happy that they’re not in office, but I also wish them happiness in life. I don’t wish them ill (wish them bad things).
So we’ve seen that these three types of nonviolence… that it’s countering three types of cruel thinking, cruel thoughts:
· Lack of compassion with which we want others to have misery and suffering. We counter that.
· And we avoid having no self-love with which we want to cause harm to ourselves, either consciously or unconsciously.
· And we stop rejoicing when somebody else fails or something terrible happens to them.
And as I said, the type of actions that we do make these strong without being violent. There’s a classic example in one of the Buddhist sutras. There were two meditators sitting by the side of the river. And a man came to the river – and this was a river which had a very, very strong current – and the man wanted to jump in and try to swim across. And this is a type of river that nobody could really swim across; anybody who tried would surely drown. So one meditator just sat there with a very peaceful look on his face and was quite willing to do nothing and let this person jump into the river and surely drown. And the other meditator got up and couldn’t convince the person to not go into the river, and so he punched the person unconscious to stop him from going into the river. And Buddha saw all of this (Buddha came along and he saw all of this) and he said that the meditator that sat there peacefully with a smile on his face, that was the one that committed the violent act. Punching this person to prevent them from hurting themselves, that was the nonviolent act. Why? Because of the motivation, the state of mind – wanting to help this person avoid suffering and inevitably getting drowned.
Now all of this connects with the second part of our topic for this morning, which is spiritual values in the modern world. This word “spiritual” is a difficult word to actually define, and obviously it has a different connotation, or undoubtedly it has a different connotation, in English and in Russian. But let’s look at the way that it is defined, or what would be the equivalent word, in a Buddhist context. And in Buddhism we speak of the Dharma. And “Dharma” means a preventive measure; it’s something that we do in order to avoid suffering and problems. And this is not just thinking in terms of immediate situations – like you’re driving a car or riding a bicycle, and in order to avoid hitting something, you swerve to the side. That wouldn’t be Dharma.
So we’re not talking about just the immediate day-to-day things that we do. We wouldn’t call that spiritual. But rather it is thinking in terms of wanting to prevent something in the future. And in most religions, Buddhism included, this is thinking in terms of future lives, and in some other religions it’s thinking of the afterlife, which means not having our main concern just being with material success in this lifetime, because at the time of death all of that’s left behind, and this lifetime is very short compared to the enormous amount of time in the future.
Now this is very fine if we believe in future rebirths or afterlife, but many of us might not believe in that. So can we still be spiritual people? And I think that we definitely can if we think not just in terms of our material welfare in this lifetime, for me personally and perhaps for my family, but if we think in a much longer range of time – for instance, future generations. In other words, try to make the world a better place with whatever type of contribution we might be able to make, even if it’s very small. Again an example used by Buddha – that a big bag of rice is filled by every individual grain of rice. So some of us might be able to contribute to that bag a whole handful of rice and some might only be able to contribute one grain of rice, but each of those two people are contributing. That’s the point. And even if we find that we can’t really contribute too much, at least we try.
So with you training to become teachers or medical workers, then obviously this is a great opportunity to think in terms of making a contribution to making this a better world. As teachers, you’re training people who will go on into the future and hopefully make their own contributions. As doctors, you’re helping to cure sick people so that they can continue to make their contribution to the future. So that ties in very well with wanting them to be happy, not to be unhappy. So not having any violent or cruel thoughts toward them, and also respecting them. We respect ourselves in terms of “I can make a contribution to the future,” and we respect our patients, our students, in terms of “They can also make a contribution.” And what does a contribution mean? What does it mean to make the world a better place? It means basically to promote some sort of means for people to be happier. And being happier doesn’t mean simply on the material level, although that’s important, but also to have peace of mind, to be able to use not only technical skills but also emotional skills to deal with whatever comes up in life.
So these are what I would consider spiritual values; in other words, what do we consider as important in our life and in terms of what we’re doing with our lives. In short, I think it’s very important, especially as young persons like yourselves, to really think very seriously about motivation. Why am I studying what I’m studying? What do I want to accomplish in life? What do I want to accomplish for my family in the future? What do I want to eventually leave behind for the future – future generations? And why do I want this? This might take quite a lot of inner searching, but this is a very worthwhile thing to do. And we might find that our answers to these questions are not very satisfactory. And I think that the criterion that we need to use for deciding “Do I want to try to correct my motivation or not?” is to see whether or not what I’m doing will bring happiness to myself and to others, or will it just create problems? And in terms of evaluating this, long-term effects are far more important than just short-term immediate effects. But if we are clear about what we are doing in life, and we see that we are going in a good direction in our life, this gives us a very wonderful sense of well-being and satisfaction.
I think one of the factors that sometimes makes people depressed is that they find that their life has no meaning, no direction. We’re pursuing a profession, but our heart is not in it. And we feel that the problems of the world, the problems of my country, the problems of my district, the problems of my family, myself – all of these are just too terrible, too much. And so what meaning does it all have, to lead a life with that state of mind? It’s really very sad; it’s not a very happy life. And so again it requires respect for ourselves in order to try to overcome this feeling of despair. We need to reaffirm that “Regardless of the external situations, I do have the ability to improve myself and become a better human being.” And this is very important not only for making myself a happier person – acknowledging this – but also my whole state of mind will affect everybody around me. And so working to help others medically or pedagogically… this is a meaningful thing to do. We don’t know what the future will be, but we know that if people are in good health, if people are educated, then there’s hope, hope that things will hopefully get better. Maybe that’s hard to imagine. But even if there are more difficulties in the future, we can help people to be better prepared to deal with them.
These then are my thoughts about nonviolence and spiritual values in the modern world. And perhaps you have some questions or things you’d like to discuss or share.
Question: I have three questions. The first is: In our modern world, of course we understand that among Buddhist parents there is compassion. But in real life the situation is really difficult and sometimes children grow up without parents and then they are quite wild. And for us, if we’re teachers, it is very difficult to somehow prove to them the necessity of compassion – that they need to learn how to protect people who are weaker and not to harm and be wild with people who are weaker. And so we, as teachers – how do we bring this message to students, especially to students who are rather violent, who are being brought up in very difficult economic and social situations?
Alex: I think one of the methods that can help such wild children is to allow them to give, give and be generous. In other words, if somebody (a child, for example) is allowed to have the opportunity to give to the other children – in other words, they pass out the paper or some assignment, or they do something that is generous – that’s doing something to help others. That gives that child a sense of self-worth. In other words, when a child comes from a very difficult background and feels unloved, then they usually act out this feeling of rejection in very wild behavior. “If I’m considered no good by life in general because I don’t have a good background, then I’ll show everybody how no good I am,” in a sense. So, in other words, they enact being antisocial, being not part of society.
Question: A deviant career?
Alex: A deviant career, going into crime and so on. This is quite typical. But if they are given an opportunity to show that they are a good person, that they have something to be able to give, even if they don’t give in a very good way – I mean in a very efficient way – nevertheless, it gives them the sense that they do have something positive to offer, not just negative things to offer.
I mean, from a Buddhist point of view, this is building up some sort of positive force or merit, by giving. But we don’t have to give this a Buddhist explanation. I think that just in a psychological sense what I explained can sometimes be helpful. But in giving them something positive and constructive to do, it’s very important to not give them the idea that this is a punishment.
The second question?
Question: The second question was about Geshe Wangyal. Since you met Geshe Wangyal, maybe you can you tell us about your meeting with him?
Alex: I was interested in Buddhism and generally Oriental thought – A sian thought – and religions from very young, and I studied Asian languages and philosophies and religion at university. And I was drawn to Tibetan Buddhism; this seemed to be more interesting than the other Asian religions and philosophies I was studying. And I learned through a friend that there was Geshe Wangyal in New Jersey. Now, I come from New Jersey, and where my family lived, where I grew up, was only about maybe, I don’t know, an hour drive away from where Geshe Wangyal lived. So on one of the holidays from university, when I came home I went with another friend, who was also studying with me, to visit Geshe Wangyal.
And I remember he served me Kalmyk tea when I first came. And his living room – it was like a gompa, a meditation room, so it had statues and it had the paintings, and so on. And although all of this seemed very exotic to me, on the other hand I had a certain feeling of being very comfortable with this. And I told Geshe Wangyal about what I was studying. I was just at the beginning of my studies of Tibetan language; I had already been studying Chinese and Sanskrit. And Geshe Wangyal encouraged me very much to continue. He was very, very supportive of people doing in-depth serious study of Buddhism and studying the traditional languages of Buddhism. He had this vision that what would really help with spreading the understanding of Buddhism would be if more and more people became seriously involved with the Buddhist teachings, with the languages, and eventually became university professors and brought a scientific study of Buddhism to the West.
Before I met Geshe Wangyal… I think this was in 1967 that I met him. I think it was in 1963 that Robert Thurman and Jeffrey Hopkins started to live with Geshe Wangyal, and they had the opportunity to really study in depth with him, since they left university and lived there. I didn’t do that. I didn’t leave university. I stayed at university, so I didn’t have the opportunity to live with Geshe Wangyal and really study with him. But after a few years, Geshe Wangyal basically encouraged and pushed Jeffrey and Bob to go back to university, and they’d already gone back when I met Geshe Wangyal. But Robert Thurman went back to Harvard, where I was a student as well, and so we were fellow students together. And so Thurman told me more and more about Geshe Wangyal, and I too followed the track and advice that Geshe Wangyal gave, which was to really continue very serious study of Buddhism. So whenever I went home from the university on my holidays, I always went to visit Geshe Wangyal.
And although Bob Thurman and Jeffrey Hopkins, and many other students of Geshe Wangyal, went on to be professors at universities, I decided that – although originally that was my plan, to become a professor – that I would prefer to stay in India and continue my studies, after the doctorate, with the great Tibetan lamas who were there, particularly His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his teachers, and help establish the translation bureau at the library in Dharamsala and work on translations for His Holiness. So I did that for 29 years. And although I wasn’t back in America to be able to continue visiting Geshe Wangyal, I always met Geshe Wangyal whenever he came to India. And in fact one time when he came to Bodhgaya we even shared a room together.
So he was always a very, very inspiring example that convinced me in the beginning that Tibetan Buddhism was alive: it wasn’t just a university subject. And the fact that Tibetan Buddhism has – and of course its Mongol, Kalmyk, and so on, variants have – become more widely accepted in a scientific sense, not just in a religious sense, is really due to the kindness of Geshe Wangyal. So you can all be very proud of him.
Was there a third question?
Question: The third question was about how you came to Buddhism.
Alex: How I came to Buddhism? I was interested in Asian thought and so on, as I said, from early childhood. And when I was 13, a friend of mine was studying yoga. I have no idea – hatha yoga, just the postures – I have no idea, actually, how he learned it. But anyway I started doing yoga with him and another friend; there were three of us. So this was back in the second half of the 1950s. And so there wasn’t very much available in terms of material to study Buddhism, or to study any Asian religions, but I read whatever was available at that time.
At university I initially studied chemistry. I was part of what we call the Sputnik Generation in America, because when Sputnik went up and America discovered that it was behind Russia in science, then everybody was encouraged to go into science. So I studied chemistry, but in the American university system we’re able to take extra courses outside of our major area, so I took a course in Asian Civilization. And in that course there was one lecture that really, really moved me very much; it was about how Buddhism went from one civilization to another in Asia and how it was translated from one language to another. I was only 17 years old, but it was like a light went on and I said, “Ah! This is what I want to do, to be involved in this process of Buddhism going from one civilization to another.” And actually I’ve pursued that my entire life. I’m 66 now, so soon it will be 50 years.
So there was a new program starting at Princeton University for studying Chinese language and civilization – I was at Rutgers University, about 10 kilometers away – and I applied for that and was accepted. And then I studied – started to study – Chinese, and I was interested in how Buddhism went from India to China, and how the thought in India influenced the development of Buddhism and how the thought in China developed their understanding of Buddhism. And then I went to do my master’s and PhD at Harvard, so I studied more the Indian side as well, with Sanskrit. But somehow I was always drawn to Tibet and Mongolia. I only had the opportunity, though, to study Tibetan and how Buddhism went from India to Tibet. Although they taught Mongolian at Harvard, I couldn’t fit it into my schedule; I wanted very much to study it. And I received the Fulbright fellowship to do my dissertation research in India. That was in 1969. I had already met Geshe Wangyal and had acquaintance with him for two years.
But in India, especially when I met His Holiness the Dalai Lama, soon after I arrived, I saw that Buddhism was not just alive in a very small part of New Jersey, but here was a large community with greatly learned masters, and it was possible actually to not only study but really become involved in the practice of Buddhism as well. And so I started actually practicing Buddhist meditation and so on. That would have been in 1970.
And this I think is the tradition that I wanted to follow, which was to be a translator and transmitter of Buddhism; that is, both a scholar and a practitioner. Because to know what the terms are speaking about in Buddhism, it’s not sufficient to just see what’s in the dictionary; you have to have some sort of experience yourself. And I’ve never turned away from that direction since I was seventeen – well, since earlier.
Question: In our life, we often deal with disciplining somebody. But also there is a process of redisciplining, when we are trying to discipline somebody again. And in this process, what is the most beneficial – punishment, or maybe some sort of work, like social work? – for the person who is being disciplined? Or some sort of moral education for this person? Let’s say people who are in jail, criminals – people who we want to discipline when they’re not children.
Alex: This is difficult to answer in general because, again, everybody is an individual. I’v e not been personally involved in teaching in prisons, but many of my colleagues, my Buddhist colleagues, have been. And one of the things that they find is that many people in prison, not everybody of course… it takes a lot of time, because they have a lot of time to examine their lives, to examine their life – what they’ve been doing with their life and what they want in life. And so there are a number of prisoners who are quite interested in learning to handle their anger, to handle their violent impulses, and so they’re very receptive to very basic type of Buddhist meditation to calm down, for instance by focusing on the breath. And so such persons are of course receptive to this type of help. Not everybody is receptive to receiving help, and if they’re not receptive, there’s very little we can do. Just punishing them physically, when they don’t have any wish to change their lives or improve, just produces more hostility and anger in them.
There are certain types of training that are used in psychology which might not be terribly applicable here, but just to give you an idea: When there’s a child, usually a teenager, who’s completely uncooperative and very wild, they go on a journey with a group of people, and a leader, and they have a mule with them. The mule of course is a very stubborn animal and difficult to get it to do what you want it to do. And they’re responsible for this mule, so they have to deal with it, and they have to learn to overcome their anger and impatience, and so on, and somehow work with this mule. So again this means giving them some responsibility to do something which is constructive, in a sense – working with this mule.
So sometimes giving a child the responsibility to take care of an animal makes them… the animal doesn’t criticize them; people criticize them. A dog… no matter how much you discipline it, the dog still likes you. So again letting them deal with another being, in this case a dog, sometimes can have the effect of taming somebody, helping them to calm down, take some sort of responsibility. But of course there are some people who are very violent and who… you give a dog and they’ll just torture the dog, so you have to be quite careful.
I have a friend who is a psychiatrist and she deals primarily with violent teenagers and usually homeless and living on the street and all the difficulties that come about with that. And one of the guidelines that she used and she told me was, again, coming back to what we were saying, which is treating these kids – who could be quite violent – with interest and respect as a human being. Take them seriously. Take the time to actually listen to them and learn what their problems are. But one of the things that you have to really avoid is if you are listening to them, don’t say, “Oh, your hour is up. You have to go now.” They usually react very violently to that, because it’s a rejection.
So the lesson from that is: If we are going to try to deal with an unruly student, give that student your time. You’re going to listen to the student. You want to try to understand what their problems are. (Even if you don’t come up with a solution, just the fact that you’ve listened sympathetically is helpful.) But don’t put a time limit on it, and have respect for this child as a human being.
But actually what to do to discipline them and so on, this is very hard to say. I don’t know what is actually acceptable in your society, what is unacceptable. But just punishment, especially out of anger, is not going to help.
Question: Hello, my name is Ulyana. And my question is: How can we overcome being annoyed in our everyday relationships with people?
Alex: If we analyze any situation that we find unpleasant, that we find annoying, we find that it arises because of many, many different causes and circumstances and conditions – social conditions, economic conditions, what’s going on in the home of the people that are involved, their background, etc. When we become annoyed and angry with it, then what we’re doing in our minds really is taking that incident, or whatever it might be that we find annoying, and just making it into some big solid horrible monster, monstrous thing. We lose sight of all the causes and conditions that it depends on, and we project onto it much more negative qualities than are actually there. And because we don’t want it to be like that, then anger is a very strong emotional rejection of it.
Now if we think about it, then rejection… the mechanism behind it is that “I wish for this suffering, for this difficulty, to be away, not to be there.” That’s compassion. So the opponent for anger and annoyance is always love. Love is the wish for the other person to have happiness and have the causes for happiness. They’re acting in a horrible way because of all these conditions and because they’re unhappy. I want them to be happy so that they will stop acting in an annoying, horrible way. In order for them to be happy, I have to learn what are all the conditions that are causing them to be unhappy and act in an unruly way, and then see what is it that I can change.
And those are some of the methods that we use. It’s basically analyzing: This is arising from this and that cause. I want them to stop acting in this way that is being brought about by these causes, and so what can I do to change what’s effecting their behavior?
Question: As teachers we are going to deal with children from different backgrounds – d ifferent cultural, social, religious backgrounds. And is it enough just to have patience for all these children, different kinds of children, in order to discipline them and educate them?
Alex: I think one of the most important factors is interest in the children. That means to become familiar with what are the religious backgrounds of these children, what are the social backgrounds. The more that you understand the people that you are trying to educate, then you will understand more what they actually need. And the point of education hopefully is not just to get them to be able to pass an examination, but to help them to become better persons. So learn about them. You can have them write little essays about themselves or about their family or their background, or stuff like that. Get them to say something about themselves. Then you get to know them a little bit better.
Question: I often meet people who hesitate when they need to say their opinion, or something about themselves, because they are afraid to be rejected. And my question is about how to help these people overcome their close-mindedness and their fear.
Alex: I think this is a particularly strong problem with teenagers, who are very, very much concerned with the approval of their peers. How to get them to overcome shyness? Well, one of the methods that’s used in the Buddhist monastic education is that after a lesson, all the students have to break into pairs, two by two, and then discuss with each other – they do debate, actually, logical debate – but discuss with each other what was just said and to see if they understood. So they’re not actually talking in front of the whole class, in which maybe some of the students will be not very kind and laugh at them. But when it’s two by two, you have to say something. And the teacher can walk around and listen for a minute or two to each group to make sure that they are actually talking about the topic and not talking about something else. But this is a very good pedagogic method because it doesn’t allow for a student to just sit there passively and listen or not pay attention and get nothing. They have to say something; they have to show to the other person that they are discussing with that they actually paid attention and listened. And they can’t be shy. But you have to make sure that they don’t choose the same discussion partner every time; they have to change. That’s one method that’s used in the monastic education system. Maybe it could be helpful.
Well, that brings us to the end of our session together. Thank you very much for coming.
Join us in trying to benefit others.
Support our work!
This website relies completely on donations. Its maintenance, preparation of the remaining 70% of our planned material, and further translating is costly. Although we currently have 80 volunteers, 23 essential team members require payment. Help us raise the 100,000 euros (US $150,000) required each year
to continue providing our website free of charge.
Reaching Our Goal (75%)