Dalai Lama

Is cultivating anger a moral imperative?

Image of Vajrapani. who is massively muscled and stepping into the warrior pose. He is deep blue in color, with bulging eyes and prominent fangs, heavily muscled, and wields a stylized thunderbolt in his right hand. Instead of an aura, he’s surrounded by dancing flames.

Mahāyāna Buddhism emphasizes compassion, and yet it portrays awakened beings who look anything but peaceful and loving. The best-known of these is Vajrapāṇi, “the bearer of the thunderbolt,” who is massively muscled and lunging into the warrior pose many of you will know from yoga.

Vajrapāṇi is midnight blue in color, with bulging eyes and prominent fangs, and, as his name suggests, he wields a stylized thunderbolt in his right hand. Instead of being surrounded by a gentle aura, he’s wreathed in dancing flames. Vajrapāṇi doesn’t represent ill will, which all awakened and nearly-awakened beings have long overcome. Instead he embodies enlightened energy — the compassionate desire to help others.

Speech with the power of thunder

Although the first part of Vajrapani’s name literally means “thunderbolt,” one of its secondary meanings is “denunciation in strong language.” The connection is that this critical yet compassionate speech has the power of thunder.

Coming back to our everyday experience, when a parent sees their child about to run into the road, or do some other harmful action, it is useless for them to issue a warning gently, because the message will almost certainly fail to penetrate the child’s excitement. Instead the parent speaks loudly and forcefully — even angrily. Yet the intention, as with the Bodhisattva, is to help and to protect, not to harm.

Also read:

Language is often so imprecise that one word, one concept can embrace opposites. “Anger” is like that. It encompasses both the desire to help and protect, and the desire to hurt and to harm.

Adjusting our vocabulary

It’s interesting to ask whether the words people used in the past had the same range of meaning. I’m not in a position to say, but when I was reading an essay the Roman Stoic Seneca wrote on anger, it was clear that he was referring to a state of being completely out of control. I’m sure Seneca at times would have spoken loudly, clearly, passionately, and with a desire to prevent harm being caused — that is, angrily — and that he probably wouldn’t have regarded this as the same emotion that leads to people throwing things around, punching people in the face, and harming innocent bystanders, which is the kind of thing he was warning us against in his essay.

So maybe we should call the unhelpful, harmful form of anger “rage,” and the fierce compassion or moral urgency shown by the parent or by Vajrapāṇi “passion.” (Many people seem to believe that having passion is un-Buddhist. This idea can arise from a mistaken understanding of the goal of Buddhist practice. We’re not aiming to become emotionless, but instead to rid ourselves of unhelpful emotions such as selfish craving and ill will. It doesn’t help that these unhelpful emotions were often called “the passions” by early translators of Buddhist texts. It’s natural that modern readers would take this to mean that we’re meant to get rid of passion in the sense of strong emotion. But at the time these translations were made the word passion primarily meant “suffering,” which selfishness and ill will cause. Powerful forms of love and other skillful emotions that we might call passions do not cause suffering.)

I once heard the Dalai Lama say that anger transforms the world faster than compassion, but that’s why you have to be very careful with it. He points out that the spiritually useful anger (passion) is directed against the harmful action, not against the person. This is what distinguishes it from harmful anger (rage), where we want to hurt the other person.

When the Buddha talked about anger (kodha, in Pali) it was always destructive anger he meant. He didn’t seem to have a word for the “clean” anger that is passion. Yet passion is sometimes evident in his speech when he felt the need to criticize someone. Sometimes this can sound shocking to the modern reader, such as when he said, “It is not fit, foolish man, it is not becoming.…” [emphasis added]. This sounds like ill will, but in fact it was the Buddha’s compassionate attempt to save someone from themselves.

The “come-to-Dharma moment”

In Christianity they talk about a “come-to-Jesus moment,” which one Bible website describes as “a pivotal point when a person confronts an important truth — especially an uncomfortable or life-altering reality —and makes a significant decision or change.” Being called “foolish” by the Buddha was a wake-up call — a “come-to-Dharma” moment. Hearing it would have been an indication that you were way out of line. So although the Buddha’s words may sound harsh, they were intended to prevent suffering.

I had a come-to-Dharma moment in my twenties. I had been in a Buddhist study group where a number of people had difficulty understanding some of the vocabulary, which I happened to be familiar with. Being an arrogant young man, I expressed myself in highly condescending and insulting language. Soon after, one of the teachers took me for a walk to tell me, very directly and forcefully, just how inappropriate my speech had been. He was passionate — angry — but there was no rage. Although I had been insulting to others, he didn’t direct any insults at me. He didn’t try to hurt my feelings. He just pointed out, clearly and directly, the painful truth: I had behaved in an arrogant manner that was antithetical to the way we were expected to comport ourselves while discussing spiritual teachings.

A few days later I went on a month-long intensive meditation retreat, in which I squirmed and festered with resentment, remembering his criticism and refusing to accept it. Eventually, after much suffering, a bubble of defensiveness burst within me, and I could finally accept that the teacher had been right. I saw then that I had been trying to impress others with my intelligence because I believed, deep down, that I was unworthy of love. It was that recognition that prompted me to ask for ordination.

This is what passion (good anger) can do. It breaks through the defenses we build up in order to justify our wrong-doing.

Sometimes it’s okay to offend people

In a conversation with a prince called Abhaya, the Buddha explained the difference between his sometimes fierce, passionate communication and ordinary anger. Abhaya had been sent by a rival teacher to entrap the Buddha by asking him if he would utter speech that is disliked by others. If he were to say yes, then the prince was to point out that he had behaved unkindly, just like any ordinary person. (We can tell from this that the Buddha’s passionately critical speech was well-known!) If the Buddha were to say no, then he was to be reminded that he had in fact said things that others had found painful to hear. The expectation was that the Buddha would be “like someone with an iron cross stuck in his throat, unable either to spit it up or swallow it.”

When he attempted to spring his rhetorical trap, Abhaya was holding a baby on his lap. The Buddha, deftly turning Abhaya’s simile to his advantage, asked whether, if the baby were to get a sharp object stuck in its throat, Abhaya would fish it out, knowing that this would cause the baby pain. Naturally, Abhaya said he would, because he loved the child. The Buddha pointed out that because he too had love for other beings, he would sometimes speak in a way that they find unpleasant. He can do this because he “knows the right time to speak so as to explain what he knows to be true, correct, and beneficial, but which is disliked by others.”

The Buddha had enough empathy to know whether the person being addressed might be receptive to his words. It’s not a good idea, for example, to offer criticism when someone is already under stress, because they’re already defensive.

Also, the Buddha will only say what’s true. He’s not going to exaggerate or distort.

He’ll only say what he believes will be helpful, because his concern is for the other person’s spiritual well-being. Only under those conditions will he say something that he knows will be upsetting to the other person. This kind of speech might well sound and look like anger, but it’s really passion, which is anger, purified by mindfulness and empathic considerateness, so that it is intended to help, not to hurt.

The power of passionate speech

Anger in the good sense of passion can be spiritually helpful. It can help us maintain maintain healthy boundaries when others disrespect us. It can free us from the shame that can arise when we have been disrespected. It can respond to the suffering and injustice we see in the world. Sometimes it will motivate us to act — not necessarily in the moment of anger itself, but later, when we reflect on the suffering or injustice we’ve witnessed. This kind of anger can be the manifestation of our most cherished values, expressing themselves passionately, in a skillful way.

When passion arises, because it is a state of arousal physiologically resembling rage, we have to be very mindful of our speech. We need to focus on the action rather than attacking the person. We need to avoid sarcasm and put-downs. We need to stay grounded in our bodies and be mindful of our feelings so that we don’t lose control.

Catch unhelpful anger early

Seneca advises us to catch our anger early. Since nothing good can come of rage, it’s helpful to deal with it before it gets out of hand. We can do this by learning to recognize the physical sensations that accompany its upwelling.

For most people this is difficult, or even impossible, because extreme anger shuts down the parts of the brain that allow us to be mindful. You’re therefore more likely to have success if you train yourself to recognize the physical signs of rage while you’re in a mindful, balanced state. To do this, vividly remember past examples of rage arising within you, so that you can recognize what bodily sensations trigger this powerful emotion. You might recognize things like surging energy, a sharp intake of breath preparing you for action, your pulse quickening, tightness in certain parts of the body, and so on. Having done this, it’s more likely that if rage begins to erupt in daily life, you’ll recognize it and respond more skillfully than usual.

Handle with care

Often, when rage is arising, the most skillful response  is to step back and cool off. Once we’ve brought ourselves back to something resembling emotional balance — which might take anywhere from minutes to days —  we can try engaging more reasonably.

To help us step back from rage, we can recognize the harm it can do. Remember arguments you’ve been involved in, whether in personal interactions or on social media. Recall how unpleasant and intoxicating rage is, and how hard it is to let go of anger and resentment. Constant anger is exhausting. Anger is of course painful for those we inflict it upon, and can can provoke them to be angry at us. And chronically angry people are often unpopular.

For all these reasons, we need to be wary of anger. Yet passion — anger purified, its energy harnessed — can also be a powerful motivation for righting wrongs. It might even be an ethical imperative for us to connect with our anger. Indeed, the Dalai Lama has made that point in one of his books. It’s title? Be Angry!

This is an extract from one of the forthcoming chapters of a book I am writing on politics as a spiritual practice, which I’m currently releasing as a course, called As the World Falls Apart.

Read More

The Dalai Lama, Reefer Madness, kaiju, and more!

Prop newspaper with a story headline, "New Living Buddha Reported Discovered."

New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered

What does his Holiness the Dalai Lama have to do with moral panics over “marihuana,” (sic) a backwoodsman becoming an unlikely political hero, noir skulduggery in wartime San Francisco, Ronald Reagan, a resurrected Egyptian mummy, President Taft’s bathtub, and a giant reptile terrorizing Japan? Quite a lot, as it turns out.

Several years ago, someone told me about a reference to the Dalai Lama that had appeared in fake (prop) newspapers in two old Hollywood movies: “Reefer Madness” and “Mr Smith Goes to Washington.” (Unfortunately it’s so long ago I’ve forgotten who it was that told me about this, and even a search of my emails has failed to turn up any clue.)

The newspaper story has the title, “New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered.” This seems to be a reference to the discovery of the Dalai Lama’s “tulku” — his new incarnation — in Tibet in 1936.

I have to say I was a little skeptical when this was brought to my attention. I’d assumed that the prop newspapers used in old movies were entirely fake. My understanding was that to avoid incurring licensing fees, any prop newspaper used in a film would contain stories that were entirely invented. That turns out not to have been the case in the early days of cinema, because at least some of the stories were genuine — including the one about the Dalai Lama.

You can see this headline — just, if you screw up your eyes very hard and look sideways at just the right phase of the moon —  in the image above, which is from “Reefer Madness.” The main story is “Harper Verdict Expected Tonight.” This is a reference to the plot of the movie. Underneath that is the rather improbable, “Dick Tracy, G-Man, In Sensational Raid.” And tucked under that, you can just about make out, in the blur of a low-resolution image taken from a TV scan of an already low-resolution celluloid film, “New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered.”

You can see the headline much more clearly in the image below, which is from “Mr Smith Goes to Washington,” starring an improbably young Jimmy Stewart. Here I don’t even have to circle the headline. In fact you can almost make out the subheading.

A newspaper prop from Mr Smith Goes to Washington, showing the headline, "New Living Buddha Reported Discovered."

This is from the pivotal moment in the film when Governor Hubert “Happy” Hopper tosses a coin to decide whether to replace a deceased senator with either a political stooge or a naive local hero. The tossed coin ends up beside this newspaper, helping him to make his decision.

“New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered” and “36 Mexican Rebels Killed by Soldiers” are the filler stories.

I later discovered that His Holiness shows up in a number of other films as well.

These include “This Gun For Hire,” where our “New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered” appears below the main story, “Chemist and Woman Murdered.”

Prop newspaper from This Gun For Hire, with the story, "New Living Buddha Reported Discovered."

Also (and thanks to the blog, “And you call yourself a scientist!?” for this) it’s in “Gigantis, The Fire Monster.”

Newspaper prop from Gigantis, The Fire Monster.

Thanks for eagle-eyed commenter Jeff (see comments below) I know that the article also appears on a prop newspaper on episode one of “Backstairs at the Whitehouse,” which was a TV miniseries that came out in 1979. That’s the most appearance of this story that I know of, and the only one I know of (so far) that’s in color.

Still from BackStairs at the Whitehouse, showing a prop newspaper with the story 'New Living Buddha Reported Discovered'

Earlier it appeared on “Girls On Probation” (1938), which stars Ronald Reagan, and “The Mummy’s Tomb” (1942).

The Dalai Lama gets around!

I can’t say for sure who originated these newspapers, but it’s likely to have been The Earl Hays Press, which has been supplying props to Hollywood for more than a hundred years.

But is this “Living Buddha” story really about the Dalai Lama? And is it based on a story that actually appeared in real newspapers.

The answers are “yes” and “yes.”

On Wednesday, 27 May 1936, an Associated Press story with the title “New ‘Living Buddha’ Reported Discovered” was published on page 25 of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The same story was also published in other outlets under different headlines, such as “New ‘Living Buddha’ Discovered After Two- Year Search in Tibet,” in The Atlanta Journal, on the same date.

Here for the sake of completeness is the entire article, in case you were curious about what was behind the blur:

NEW ‘LIVING BUDDHA’ REPORTED DISCOVERED
Two-Year Quest Ends After Tibetan Priests Study Surface of Sacred Lake.

By the Associated Press.
SHANGHAI, May 27. Dispatches from the forbidden kingdom of Tibet reported today a new Dalai Lama, or “Living Buddha,” was discovered in the Han Jen district, northeast of Lhasa, after a search of more than two years.

The new Buddha was believed, the Tibetan advices [sic] said, to be a reincarnation of the thirteenth Dalai Lama, who died Dec. 17, 1933.

The Dalai Lama is the spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet. Tibetans believe their “living god” is immortal and that when he dies, his attributes are handed down to a child born about the time of his death.

Tibetan monks and professional “diviners” have been searching for the reincarnated Dalai Lama ever since the death of the previous ruler. Reports received earlier from Lhasa said the omens were favorable for an early finding of the new “Living Buddha.”

The Tibetan new year began in February under auspicious circumstances, reports said. Spiritual authorities sent a deputation of high priests, sages, monks and philosophers to the sacred Chugkhorgyae Lake, east of Lhasa, near which the first Dalai Lama was born, to contemplate images reflected on the surface.

The lake gazers were reported successful in their quest for indications which might lead to discovery of a new Pontiff. Visions of a house wearing the mysterious words “a ka ma” appeared, thought to bear some relation to the name of the parents of the future Dalai Lama.

The populace was instructed then to join in the search for the house and the child.

The present spiritual leader of Tibet, the Panchen Lama, has been living in exile in China for the last 12 years.

He would be unable to go back. to assume his duties as tutor to his reported new “reincarnated brother” because no invitation has been extended to him.

Since the death of the late Dalai Lama under mysterious circumstances at Lhasa, affairs of state have been in the hands of the temporal regent, Jechen Hutukehtu.

Some of the other stories, such as “36 Mexican Rebels Killed by Soldiers” and “Fire Destroys State Arsenal,” were also taken from real newspapers.

Anyway, there we have it: The Dalai Lama made appearances in a number of films, from the classic “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” to the risible — “Gigantis” and Reefer Madness.” No doubt he was in many more as well. If you notice any others, please let me know!

Read More

“Love your enemies” as a calling

This summer I read a book by Arthur C. Brooks, who until recently was president of a conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. The book is called “Love Your Enemies,” and it calls on us to change the way we relate to one another in the field of politics. I don’t intend to write a book review but mainly want to talk about the impact the book had on me.

First of all, however, a word about Brooks. He seems like a thoughtful, reasonable person. He has a background as a classical musician, having performed professionally for something like 22 years. He then moved into economics and policy analysis. His most notable early writing was on charitable giving. He’s a friend of the Dalai Lama and the two even wrote a New York Times article together. Although he’s been a Catholic since he was 16, Brooks has been deeply influenced by the Dalai Lama’s teachings on love. He was at one time registered as a Democrat, then as a Republican. Now he’s an Independent. Although he’s a conservative, he’s in no way a Trumpian conservative.

I’d deliberately set myself the challenge of reading something by a conservative, since these days we’re very quick to dismiss those who hold views that are different from our own, and most of the political views I have are those that liberals hold, meaning that Brooks and I wouldn’t agree on much politically. I looked forward to this challenge.

And the book did challenge me, in a number of ways. Sometimes, I confess, I had to work hard to remain patient. Because he’s writing a book about loving your enemies, he tries to maintain a sense of balance. If he says something critical about Donald Trump, he has to say something critical about Hilary Clinton as well, even though to my mind those two politicians’ failings aren’t remotely comparable. And although he talks about the need for all participants in a democracy to observe “rules,” he studiously ignores the most egregious bending and breaking of those rules. So he has nothing to say about gerrymandered districts, voter purges, or the refusal to let a sitting president fill a Supreme Court seat. This is presumably because most of those abuses (currently) take place on the right, and for Brooks to mention them would require Brooks to set aside his rather strained “both sides are the same” impartiality. I found myself craving for Brooks to admit that, sometimes, one side is worse than the other. But I kept letting go of that desire, since I was suspicious that it was partly my own bias showing.

But the main challenge was a positive one: how can we love our enemies? I felt challenged to relate more lovingly, to communicate more compassionately, to practice empathy more deeply, to let go of tribalism. This will all, I’m sure, be a lifelong—and difficult—task.

The single thing that struck home most for me was Brooks dismissal of “civility” and “tolerance” as adequate goals. It’s not that we shouldn’t try to be civil or to tolerate differences, but that those goals are not enough. Imagine, Brooks asks us, if someone described their relationship with their spouse as “civil” or said that they “tolerate” each other. What would that tell you about the health of their marriage? Are either of those partners likely to be happy? Being civil to our political opponents is not enough. Being tolerant of our political opponents is not enough. We need to learn to love our enemies.

This of course is deeply challenging. Even meeting the low bars of being civil and tolerant is hard. Civility and tolerance can be beyond us at times because we feel compelled to be harsh and judgmental towards those we disagree with. And if actually loving our enemies is even harder than those things, then how can I even begin to move in that direction?

The most fundamental thing, I think, is to recognize the common humanity of people I disagree with. We all want similar things, but want to achieve those aims in different ways, or understand them differently. We all value fairness, freedom, and security, for example. Those things unite us. But the fact that we think about those things differently brings us into opposition. And when we’re in opposition we tend to clash, and to turn into enemies. We fail to think that we have anything at all in common. We hold each other in contempt. We call each other names. We distort each others’ positions.

Think for example about one person who accepts that climate change is being driven by human activities and that it may potentially bring about catastrophic disruption to the world. Motivated by a desire for security, then want to see a massive change in the way we use energy — a magnitude of change that cannot possibly be brought about by individual action alone, but which requires intense government action.

Then there’s another person who wants to feel secure. But they are perhaps afraid of some kinds of change, or are suspicious about government playing a larger role in their lives and limiting their freedom. Hearing the policies of the first person may make them dig their heels in, to the extent that they’re unwilling to accept that there’s even a problem.

These two people might well see each other as existential enemies. They may demonize each other, and call each other names. They treat each other as punching bags. They are unlikely ever to move each other’s opinions by a hair’s-width. In fact most exchanges between them are not even intended to change the other’s opinion. Instead they’re intended to demonstrate contempt, and to demonstrate their membership of the particular political group they belong to. Their communication is intended to separate.

If we look below the insults and the policies, we see two human beings who are afraid, and who want to feel secure. If we’re prepared to do that with each other, then our communication naturally changes. We treat each other with more sensitivity and respect. We perhaps can now aim to learn from each other and to persuade, rather than lecturing and insulting each other. Our aim is to bring us closer together rather than to drive a wedge between us.

Brooks offers as an example an unlikely friendship between two professors at Princeton. Cornel West is black, and a socialist. Robert George is white, and a conservative. They disagree on absolutely everything! And yet they clearly love each other as brothers. There’s no “civility” in the sense of people being artificially polite. There’s no tolerance, in the sense of people simply enduring each other. There’s love. There’s respect. There’s an openness to learning. And the corollary of this is the lesson that it’s possible to relate lovingly and to disagree and to challenge the other person’s views.

One danger is that we try being friendly to an opponent, it doesn’t work, and then we get mad. But the point isn’t that acting empathetically is something we do in order to get people to agree with us. Empathy is not a “trick” we do to get people to do what we want. Ultimately, acting out of empathy is something we do because it’s a better way to be. As Brooks says, “My point is simple: Love and warmheartedness might not change every heart and mind, but they are always worth trying, and they will always make you better off.” In trying to find our opponents’ humanity, we connect more deeply with our own.

So I’m trying to put this into practice. The first step is to move away from what Brooks called the “outrage industrial complex,” which can be found on social media and much “debate” that goes on in television studios. That’s something I’ve been working on for a while. My social media usage is much less than it used to be. I avoid following people who are popular because they are good at insulting others.

A step I’m only just learning is to see the common concerns that lie beneath our different understandings of the world, and the humanity that lies beneath our contempt.

Actually communicating in an empathetic way with people I completely disagree with? That actually scares me!

I feel I’m only just beginning with this as a life-long task. As someone who has been practicing and teaching lovingkindness meditation for a couple of decades this is humbling. But the aim of loving my enemies feels like a calling — although, by the time you actually love your enemies, you find they are not enemies, but are brothers and sisters.

“Love Your Enemies” isn’t a perfect book by any means. But I do think it’s worth reading because of its central challenge, which is to abandon the temptations of relating with contempt, and to undertake the hard, although rewarding, work of becoming a more loving human being.

Read More

Science and Buddhism agree: there is no “you” there

wildmind meditation news

Lori Chandler, Big Think: Evan Thompson of the University of British Columbia has verified the Buddhist belief of anatta, or not-self. Neuroscience has been interested in Buddhism since the late 1980s, when the Mind and Life Institute was created by HH Dalai Lama and a team of scientists. The science that came out of those first studies gave validation to what monks have known for years — if you train your mind, you can change your brain. As neuroscience has begun studying the mind, they have looked to those who have mastered the mind.

While Buddha didn’t teach anatta to lay people, thinking it might be too confusing, the concept is centered on the idea that there is no consistent self. The belief that we are the same one moment to the next, or one year to the next, is a delusion. Thompson says that “the brain and body is constantly in flux. There is nothing that corresponds to the sense that there’s an unchanging self.”

It is useful to look at a video of yourself from the past, or read something you wrote years ago. Your interests, perspective, beliefs, attachments, relationships, et al, have all changed in some way. Anatta doesn’t mean there’s no you; it just means that you are constantly changing, constantly evolving, and shape-shifting. Why is this important? Why does it matter if there’s no solid “you” or “me”?
r. Rick Hanson, author of Hardwiring Happiness and Buddha’s Brain, argues that when there is no consistent self, it means that we don’t have to take everything so personally. That is, our internal thoughts are only thoughts and don’t define us. External events are only external events and aren’t happening to us personally. Or as Tara Brach says, our thoughts are “real, but not true.”…

Read the original article »

Read More

Kindness and personal responsibility

Ryan James Lock, Huffington Post: Lady Gaga and the Dalai Lama recently gave a talk about the importance of kindness and personal responsibility recently and the response has been amazing.

I’ve always been pretty interested in personal development and conscious living. Over the last few years, I’ve read more self help books than I can count- most of which were extremely helpful and some of which were….less than.

Whatever belief system the book, workshop, class audio or course was based on, one common thread ran through nearly all of the material and that …

Read the original article »

Read More

The Dalai Lama’s $750,000 emotional atlas website is kind of blah

emotion atlas

The New York Times today reported that the Dalai Lama commissioned a website that presents an Atlas of Emotions, aimed to help ordinary people understand their emotions better. He paid psychologist Paul Ekman — who helped advise on Pixar’s “Inside Out” and on the TV show, “Lie to Me” — “at least” $750,000 to develop the site.

You should be able to get a hell of a lot of website for three quarters of a million dollars, right?

I’ve been playing around a little with the Dalai Lama’s emotion website. It defines and describes different emotions, their sub-states, the actions they give rise to, their triggers, and the settled moods they give rise to when they become habitual.

It presents five primary emotions, which are portrayed as “continents,” following the atlas theme. These five emotions are fear, sadness, disgust, enjoyment, and anger.

I can see how this could be helpful in giving people a better vocabulary to understand and name their emotions.

However, I have grave reservations about the usefulness of this site. I haven’t see anything in the website about love or compassion, which is odd, given both their importance in life and the Dalai Lama’s (and Buddhism’s) emphasis on them. How can the primary emotions of Buddhism be missing? Where is gratitude? Where is reverence, awe, or admiration? These are all crucial spiritual emotions.

The atlas is meant to be a practical tool, and the site’s description emphasizes this: “This Atlas was created to increase understanding of how emotions influence our lives, giving us choice, (at least some of the time) about which emotion we are experiencing.”

“Understanding” is good, but it doesn’t necessarily transform us. There’s little practical information. We can learn what triggers particular states: for example losing a loved one or being rejected triggers sadness. But there’s no practical guidance about how to deal with loss or rejection in ways that will reduce suffering rather than increase it. Buddhist teachings show how we can do this, and it’s surprising that the whole field of working with emotions is missing from the atlas.

Two primary Buddhist tools for dealing with emotions are mindfulness and equanimity. There’s no guidance on how to develop these. Buddhism also teaches how to cultivate skillful emotions such as kindness, compassion, and appreciation. There’s no guidance on the website at all.

There’s one other thing about the Atlas of Emotions that bothers me. Down at the bottom left is a little stick figure icon pointing to the word “peg.” It’s not obvious what that’s about unless you click on it. Clicking on the icon in fact takes you to Paul Ekman’s site, where the emphasis is on selling his training courses on recognizing micro-emotions. I find this distasteful. He’s used $750,000 (how!) to create a website, and then is using that site to host advertising for his products. Perhaps he pays for this advertising. There’s no way of knowing.

This is disappointing, since I have a lot of respect for Dr. Ekman’s work.

But about that price tag! I’ve developed this website (Wildmind) on a shoestring. It’s not a systematic guide to emotions, as the Atlas of Emotions is, but it contains a wealth of tools for working with emotions. It offers not only practical articles, but also guided meditations to help people practically work with their emotions. It boggles the mind what $750,000 should be able to achieve in terms of relieving human suffering. The Atlas of Emotions is a series of pretty graphics and information about emotional states when it could have been a powerfully transformative tool to help people find relief from suffering.

Read More

The wake-up call that transformed neuroscientist Richard Davidson’s life

wildmind meditation news

Rebecca Shapiro, Huffington Post: Richard Davidson had been studying the brain for more than a decade when he was asked a question that quite literally changed his life.

“Why have you been using the tools of modern neuroscience just to study anxiety and stress and fear and depression?” Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, asked the neuroscientist in 1992. “Why can’t you use those same tools to study kindness and compassion?”

The question, which Davidson described as “a total wake-up call,” caused him to refocus his research. One of the first ways his team studied kindness and compassion was by flying Buddhist monks from Tibet and Nepal to his lab at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

“What we found was remarkable,” Davidson said in a HuffPost Originals video. The brains of advanced Tibetan meditators were significantly different, both during meditation and after. “These differences reflect the enduring traces … and it gives us some clue that, in fact, the baseline state of these individuals is transformed as a consequence of their practice.”…

Read the original article »

Promo for Wildmind's meditation initiative

Wildmind is a Community-Supported Meditation Initiative. Click here to find out about the many benefits of being a sponsor.

Read More

Dalai Lama’s American doctor wants more compassion in medicine

wildmind meditation newsPBS Newshour: Before he was a personal physician to the Dalai Lama, Dr. Barry Kerzin never imagined that a professional trip to Tibet would lead him down a decades-long path studying Buddhism and meditation. Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro talks to Kerzin in India about his feeling that compassion and empathy are essential to medical training.

Sixty-eight-year-old California native Barry Kerzin began his career as a professor of family medicine at the University of Washington. He never dreamed it would lead to a pro bono house calls thousands of miles away in Tibet.

Read the original article »

Read More

Dalai Lama cancels events, remains at Mayo Clinic for evaluation

wildmind meditation newsThe Associated Press, Talking Points Memo: The Dalai Lama remains at Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic after canceling his U.S. appearances for the month of October.

A Mayo spokeswoman confirmed Sunday the 80-year-old Tibetan Buddhist leader remains at the Rochester clinic for a medical evaluation. No other details were released.

The Dalai Lama’s office said Friday in a statement on its website that he has canceled his planned October U.S. visit after doctors advised him to rest. The statement gave no more details about the Dalai Lama’s condition, and there was no update on the website as of Sunday.

Among the Dalia Lama’s canceled appearances next …

Read the original article »

Read More

How to mind your feelings

wildmind meditation newsDaniel Goleman, Lion’s Roar: While we can’t control when we feel anger or fear—or how strongly—we can gain some control over what we do while in their grip. If we can develop inner radar for emotional danger, we gain a choice point the Dalai Lama urges us to master.

When I asked the Dalai Lama how to find this inner choice point, he suggested one method: questioning destructive mental habits. Even though there may be a bit of legitimacy to our griev­ances, are the disturbing emotions we feel way out of proportion? Are such feelings familiar, recurring again and again? If so, we …

Read the original article »

Read More
Menu

Wildmind is a Community-Supported Meditation Initiative. Explore the benefits of becoming a supporter.

X