The Compassionate Instinct

To give an analogy, there is an admonition in the Buddhist texts to appreciate that basic existence itself is subject to personal dissatisfaction. This natural “unsatisfactoriness” is a fundamental condition of existence. This is like global awareness. When you have a better appreciation of global awareness, then, with relation to specific instances of pain (whether it is physical pain or emotional pain), you have a greater ability to deal with it. Whereas if your understanding of suffering is confined to a specific instance of the pain in the present, if you keep thinking about it and thinking about it, it could actually make you feel hopeless and helpless.

EKMAN: Yes. There is always some dissatisfaction with the nature of life. It is fundamental to life. It is not all honey and sweetness; there is difficulty.

CULTIVATING COMPASSION

EKMAN: Should the effort to generate global compassion be focused on an antidote to narrow-mindedness or on an intervention to bring about more compassion? To get one, you do have to get rid of the other.

DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) My approach is to bring light, powerfully, onto the downside of narrow-mindedness, which then provides a powerful rationale for having a more broad-minded, global perspective and concern for others. So they are related, a kind of a premise. (Claps hands together.)

In Buddhist meditation practice in order to practice compassion, first you reflect deeply upon the downside of narrow-minded self-centeredness. Then you reflect upon the positive consequences and the potential of more other-centered perspectives. On the basis of these reflections, you cultivate compassion. Otherwise, if you simply admonish others to cultivate compassion, and if you do not give them the resources—particularly the rationale for its need—it is just wishful thinking. Whereas, if you explain from the point of view of self-interest—it is for your own interest and well-being; it is essential—it makes a difference.

There are two kinds of self interest. (Switching to English.) Without self-interest, generally speaking, there is no basis for development of determination. But extreme self-centeredness is foolish, selfish interest.

EKMAN: If we put two advertisements in the newspaper, one stating that we are holding a weekend workshop, free of charge, to develop compassion and the other that we are going to have a weekend workshop, free of charge, to reduce your narrow-mindedness, I think the compassion advertisement would draw more people than the narrow-mindedness ad. Coming to a narrow-mindedness workshop requires you to acknowledge that you are narrow-minded, which most people would be reluctant to do.

DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) Compassion is what we are aspiring for. The whole notion of narrow-mindedness, the downside of being narrow-minded, is part of the argument for the need for compassion.

When you advertise, if you talk about dealing with narrow-mindedness, people might think, “What is it for?” Whereas, if you say, “cultivation of compassion,” people can relate to it. But the problem is that though most people may share the idea that it is a very valuable thing, a precious thing, sometimes people have a rather naive understanding of what compassion is. But people might also feel that it is a noble idea and it is a noble value. We need to give people a deeper understanding of compassion, grounded in a real appreciation of its need and value.

EKMAN: But there is the serious challenge of scale. How do we do this on a global level? For instance, we have to address the disproportionate use of the world’s resources. Americans are not the majority of the world’s population, but in terms of the world’s oil consumption, they consume a disproportionate amount.

DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) It is partly because America has quite a large landmass, so you have to drive long distances. (Ekman laughs.) If it were a smaller country, there would be less scope for consumption.

EKMAN: We eat a lot of beef, which requires an enormous amount of energy to produce compared to diets that are more common in other parts of the world. If we were to make things more equitable worldwide, in order for the poorest to not be so poor, the richest might not be able to live so luxuriously as they now live.

Some economists argue that is not true. But some argue that it is very true, that people do not want to give up either their individualist aspirations or the fact that they can drive huge cars, go wherever they want, and eat steaks every night. “And you are telling me I have to maybe only have steak once a week? Or I have to drive a smaller car? Is that what compassion requires?”