HIS HOLINESS APPRAISED

                            HIS HOLINESS APPRAISED

     I am not a typical American man.  My day begins about 4:45 AM when I click on the Hair Metal station on Radio AOL to pump some life into my boxing workout—a fast-paced workout (well, actually it isn’t as fast-paced as it was a few year ago!  Alas…I am past my prime…), which I top off with a grueling one mile uphill run.  Upon reaching the peak of the hill, gushing sweat and gasping for air, I slowly return to a more normal physiological state (that is, a state that hedges between wired and exhausted) as I jog back around the block to my one bedroom apartment, which continues to blare out the nostalgic tones, riffs, and grooves of the eighties’ head bangers.  I then run my dog out for a quick jaunt to do what dogs need to do, and I return yet again to squeeze in some sets of “cleans and presses” and “axe swings” while I prepare for work.  Finally, I shove my thermos of green tea and a book into my travel bag, tell my dog to have a great day while I’m gone (I used to tell him to do the laundry, but he stubbornly refused), and hustle down the road to the bus stop.  Once on the bus, I open my bag and reach for my book.
I am not a renowned athlete, nor am I a great scholar, but I do believe in keeping the body and mind active and the spirit positively disposed.  Therefore, on the hour-long commute to work, I will typically engage myself in some sort of philosophical, scientific, or religious reading material.  Most recently I have indulged myself in several books written by and about the Dalai Lama, namely, The Universe in a Single Atom:  The Convergence of Science and Spirituality, An Open Heart:  Practicing Compassion in Everyday Life, and The Essential Dalai Lama.  After reading the first chapter in The Universe in a Single Atom, I was so impressed that I promised myself that I would write a personal response to the Dalai Lama’s genius upon completion of the book.  Instead of doing so, however, I came across the other aforementioned books, and I decided that I would read them as well before buckling down in front of the keyboard.  Now that I have completed these great, insightful books, the time has come for me to honor my promise to myself.
     As noted above, I make no claims of being a hard-nosed, highly disciplined scholar or journalist.  In fact, by many standards, I am lazy and self-indulgent.  Due to these character flaws, I am not aiming to make this essay resemble anything other than a personal response to the views expressed by the Dalai Lama in the works mentioned above.  Let me begin by saying that prior to reading the three books The Universe in a Single Atom, An Open Heart, and The Essential Dalai Lama, I was almost completely ignorant about the life and lifestyle of the Dalai Lama.  I had some vague notions about who he was—you know, some spiritual-type mountain-dwelling guru guy who meditated a lot, ate bread every once in a while, spoke and thought esoteric meanderings to poverty stricken people, who were seeking ways to cope with their horrid conditions.  I believed that he was probably an austere, isolated man of blind faith who naively adhered to a few aphorisms handed down through the ages by some noted spiritual authority figures.  Trust me on this—I am not exaggerating the state of my absolute ignorance.  I did not even know that the Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibet, has been living in exile in Dharamsala, India for over 40 years. Well, let me just say that upon reading the first few chapters of The Universe, I realized what an ignoramus I was and what a practical, scholarly, diplomatic, and altruistic giant of a man His Holiness really is.  From the outset, I saw that this is a man who personifies some of my most cherished beliefs and visions.  This is a man of true humility, compassion, erudition, and equanimity.  This was an honest man with a passion for learning, as well as for teaching.  This is a man who has witnessed much hardship, and yet who holds no animosity toward anybody or institution in the world.  This is a man whom one can trust, whom one can truly revere.  Make no mistake about it.  The Dalai Lama is by no means a detached mystic who sits aloft in an isolated haven thinking surreal thoughts while avoiding the struggles and travails of “mere mortals”.  Rather, His Holiness engages people from all walks of life in his unflagging pursuit of peace and harmony for all sentient beings.  He sees the controversies, and he gives practical advice on how we can all minimize and/or eliminate them by objectively evaluating our underlying assumptions and by taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions.  Unlike many people who claim to be “spiritually oriented”, the Dalai Lama embraces “scientific” knowledge and responsible, ethical utility of that knowledge.  Indeed, responsibility and ethical considerations are topics, which His Holiness revisits time and time again.  Repeatedly he stresses the inseparable relationship that exists amongst knowledge, power, and responsibility.  Repeatedly he stresses how we must consider the long-term consequences of our actions and applications.  His pleas for judicious discernment are not based on some vague religious dogma that says, “Do the right thing now and go to heaven later”.  Rather, the Dalai Lama presents the logical, practical reasons why each of us needs to strive to evaluate our motives.  This is a key point.  The Dalai Lama lectures in such a way that spirituality is intellectually, as well as emotionally, engaging and fulfilling.  Clearly, the Dalai Lama embodies a well-balanced lifestyle and worldview.  
     Now, in spite of all the accolades I have lavished upon His Holiness above, I do have some comments to make about a few of his viewpoints. The first thing I wish to point out is that the Dalai Lama, in The Universe in a Single Atom, forcefully pushes the idea that “science” and “religion” are not opposing, but rather, complementary, methods of seeking “truth” and “reality”.  Prior to his discussion on some of the overarching philosophies of the “scientific method”, he remarks that science is actually a sort of religion.  (I realize an exact quote here would be appropriate, but as I have stated, I am lazy, and since I do not recall the exact words, I am keeping this a very informal discussion and simply paraphrasing.)  Now I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, and my query is why the Dalai Lama did not pursue the argument further.  In other words, whereas the Dalai Lama primarily argues that science is like a religion, I believe the stronger and more cogent argument is that science is a religion.  The fourth definition of “religion” in my Webster Dictionary is “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.  The mistaken belief that many people have about the realm of science is that scientists do not rely upon “faith” but only upon “knowledge”.  This is nonsense.  Scientists are human beings, and as such, they MUST rely upon faith in everything they do.  Scientists, just like everybody else, rely upon assumptions, and in so doing, they are taking leaps of faith.  I have often contemplated why it is that so many people are wont to separate the “arts” and the “sciences”.  This dichotomy, much like the dichotomy between “science” and “religion”, is a false one.  Make no mistake about it, science, at its very core, depends upon mathematical principles, and mathematical principles and models are not only discovered—they are INVENTED.  What I am saying here is that mathematicians, and therefore scientists, are artists who ardently adhere to “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs (i.e. a philosophy)”.  In other words, scientists are, by the definition cited above, religious people.  Now at that, I expect some of you will balk and say “Yes, but science does not allow for talk of “God” or “supernatural forces”.  On this, let me point out just a couple of things.  First, not all religions attest to the existence of a “God”.  Buddhists, for example, adamantly deny the existence of an independent omniscient creator, and prefer to speak in terms of “dependent origination” and subsequent gross and subtle laws of “karma”.  Scientists, on the other hand, speak in terms of “singularities”, “energy forces”, laws of “attraction and repulsion”, “nature”, and “evolution”.  A fundamental law of Physics is that “energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered”.  Personally, when I see this statement, it looks as if “energy” and “God” are simply two different words for the same “prime mover”.  Similarly, is it not possible that “God” and “nature” are one in the same?  Or “God” and “evolution”?  Do not spiritualists speak of “God” being omnipresent, residing both within and outside of us?  Is this not true of what scientists call “nature”, “energy”, or even “evolution”?  In light of that thought, does the term “supernatural” really make any sense?   The point I am driving here is that I believe the Dalai Lama may have been more effective in presenting science as a kind of “masked religion” instead of an enterprise that is distinct from (although complementary to) religion.  I cannot say for sure, but I suspect that much of the reason behind the Dalai Lama’s representation of science is that he is somewhat daunted by the ideologies of scientists. This observation, however, is not to fault the Dalai Lama, as his familiarity with the everyday proceedings of the scientific community is necessarily that of an “outsider”.  That is to say, the Dalai Lama has not been personally involved in the human dynamics and foibles that pervade and often pollute the lofty ambitions of the scientific arenas.  Much can be said about this particular topic, but it suffices to say here that scientists have agendas, and often those agendas are politically and egotistically motivated.  Although I do not wish to sound like a cynic in regard to the scientific enterprise, and I certainly do not wish to over generalize, I will say that it is often the case that when it comes to the ideal of the “scientific method”, a considerable gap exists between “theory” and “practice”.    His Holiness, despite dispersing several comments throughout his lectures, which indicate a reluctance to bow to authority, ultimately yields in humble deference to the word of the scientists and the generally held belief that science and religion are separate enterprises.  I will conclude by simply asserting that at heart, in the final analysis, science is much more of an art (or religion, by extension) than a…science.
     The next point I wish to touch upon briefly is that the Dalai Lama, throughout many of his teachings, emphasizes the Buddhist belief that human beings are the only sentient beings who are fortunate enough to be able to practice the Dharma.  According to him, the reason that we are experiencing life in human form is that we have accumulated sufficient merit and good karma from previous lifetimes.  Now, I think it is worthy to note that His Holiness expresses this notion with the intent to inspire, so I concede that his purposes appear to be in accord with his altruistic nature.  Nevertheless, I question whether this assertion is in fact “true”.  I cannot see how it follows that we could have accumulated enough good karma to become human if we did not have the power to practice the Dharma in previous lives.  Do other sentient beings simply suffer with no way to escape?  If so, how can they earn enough merit to become human?  On the other hand, if they can accumulate merit, why is it that they cannot become one with Buddha nature prior to becoming human?  In short, my question is this:  Are human beings truly “superior” to other sentient creatures?  Does not this belief, if it is not an “absolute truth” (of which Buddhists tend to deny existence, since all things are impermanent and empty), reflect a sense of arrogance?  And isn’t it precisely this type of arrogance that can hinder ones progress upon the path?  I find these to be legitimate questions, for I believe that many animals, more so than most humans, naturally resemble highly evolved Bodhisattvas.  I believe that I stand in good company when I take this position, for people who passionately partake in naturalist studies are continually telling us of amazing abilities displayed throughout the entire ecosystem.  Historically, human beings have considered themselves “kings of the beasts” and have beaten their chests as the alpha-species.  Boldly we cry out, “There are none more intelligent than we are!”  Maybe that is true…maybe.  But let me ask you—What exactly IS “intelligence”?  We have an obscure idea of what it refers to, of course, but I dare say that nobody is intelligent enough to define it to the liking of everybody else.  Does it have something to do with our ability to reflect upon our own existence and state of awareness?  Indeed, many consider this ability unique to human beings and therefore assume that it is an attribute of “intelligence”.  But how do we know that other species cannot do this, perhaps even to a higher degree? Nevertheless, let us assume for the moment that human beings are in fact the only species that can reflect upon the nature of life and consciousness.  Does that fact in itself render us superior to the rest of the Earth’s creatures if we are also the only species that has the power to wreak utter havoc upon the entire ecosystem and heedlessly does so?  Perhaps I have strayed a bit from the immediate topic, but my main point is that human beings surely do not routinely exhibit the wisdom and compassion that other creatures existing within the natural world do, and I am therefore loathe to assume that they have any inherent claims to a “superior” status.  I prefer to think that everything has Buddha nature and possesses its own kind of “intelligence”.  This way of thinking stands in accord with the Soto school of Zen Buddhism.
     I must comment upon one final conundrum, which has been torturing the remnants of my frail mind.  In each of the aforementioned books currently under discussion, His Holiness has extensively elaborated upon the Buddhist’s acceptance of “emptiness” as the basis of reality.  Skipping the details, the upshot of the argument is that ultimate reality is devoid of anything intrinsically independent or permanent.  This is true of mental phenomena as well as physical phenomena.  Everything comes into being and exists only in relation to other causes and conditions.  This idea is known as “dependent origination”.  Consequently, Buddhists do not accept the existence of a judgmental “almighty Creator”.  In fact, the Dalai Lama points out that the Buddha warned that the belief in such a deity is a “wrong view”.  Now personally, I have no qualms with the argument of dependent origination.  The problem lies in the fact that millions of wholesome and compassionate people throughout both the East and the West do believe in and attest to the existence of an independent Godhead.  My question is simply “Can both ways be “right” despite the Buddha’s admonishments against “wrong” views?  The Dalai Lama makes it poignantly clear that he endorses the theory of “emptiness” and dependent origination and that this is a belief that all Buddhists share.  The Dalai Lama also makes it clear, however, that he believes that all of the world’s major religions have merit and that religious diversity is a wonderful thing.  He even goes so far as to say that he believes that, in general, people should honor the religion of their culture to the best of their abilities.  Again, I have no personal problem with this stance, as it is tolerant, practical, and diplomatic.  The real problem seems to arise from the Buddha’s distinction between “right” and “wrong” views.  From the Buddha’s perspective, all suffering is caused by attachment to things that are impermanent and transient.  Since all phenomena are impermanent, arising and existing only in dependence with other phenomena, an independent Godhead cannot exist.  Moreover, attachment to such a Godhead only causes more suffering.  Thus, it would seem that all those who proclaim faith in the existence of such an independent entity would never escape suffering and would only serve to induce more suffering upon the world.  Experience, however, does not bolster this rationale, for many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and others who revere an Almighty Creator lead productive lives and make great contributions to the benefit of humankind.  So my final questions are “Are all religions Dharma doors?”  If so, “In light of the truth of emptiness, is it proper to speak of “independent” vs. “dependent”, of “Godhead” vs. “no-Godhead”?  In response, I appeal to the Zen tradition, which emphasizes the principle of “not one, not two”, which seems to express the same thought as “both one and two”.  Let us briefly examine this proposal, for I feel it has the potential to break down some of our preconceived ideas about “reality”.  You see, I believe we tend to view reality as either dependent or independent, unitary or dualistic, absolute or relative.  The truth is, however, that both must be correct.  If we view all phenomena as dependent, then we must conclude that the very concept of “dependence” is also dependent upon other concepts.  But upon what other concepts?  Concepts that exist in dependence with other concepts, right? In turn, these “other” concepts exist in dependence with still other concepts!  As we continue to delve, we find ourselves in the midst of “recursive abstraction”, and we can never escape the fact that “something” depends upon “nothing”.  Thus, we find that “ultimate reality” must be a composite of “something” and “nothing” concepts.  It really makes no sense to argue that “something” emerged from “nothing” or that “nothing” emerged from “something”, since strict logic dictates that “something and nothing” must have coexisted and given rise to each other since beginningless time.  (Well, upon second thought, I suppose strict logic does not allow for the concept of “beginningless time”…Strict logic leads us to the limitations of strict logic….hmmm…) If we can accept this complete view of “emptiness”, I believe we can accept “God” and “dependent origination” as complementary notions.  Moreover, I believe the complete view of emptiness dispels the very notion of “opposition”.  (Then again, I guess it dispels the very notion of all notions!  Ah-hah!)    
     In conclusion, I feel obliged to clarify that I do not proclaim myself a member of any specific religion.  I proclaim myself a seeker, and as a seeker, I have discovered that all religions betray the whims and paradoxical personality traits of their disciples.  With that said, however, I must admit that I am drawn to Buddhism more than I am to other major religions.  I suppose the primary reason for this rests in Buddhism’s relatively non-authoritarian belief structure and Buddha’s compassionate invitation to “come and see for yourself”.  My impression, therefore, is that if we take this invitation as top priority, we can all be Buddhists and non-Buddhists at the same time.  In other words, Buddhism embraces the paradoxical nature of “truth”, “humanity”, and “reality” and just lets it BE!  If we want to accept Buddhism, it is there--splendidly empty.  If we want to reject Buddhism, it is there--splendidly empty.  Buddhism radiates compassion and unconditional love, and it reflects the Essential Dalai Lama-- who is, quite simply, the atom that contains the universe.  Anybody who seeks to expand her mind and open her heart is well advised to explore the teachings of this “humble monk”.