Saturday, October 27, 2007

mmmantra

"Some people say a cat's purring is it reciting a mantra over and over. I don't think so." - the 14th Dalai Lama

The Dalai Lama held a Public Talk today in front of a sold-out audience at IU's Assembly Hall. The security was intense - no bags, no purses larger than a clipboard, no flash photography. There were rotating guards, both police officers and federal guys, stationed surrounding the platform where the Dalai Lama was speaking. I don't know what they were expecting, but they were serious about it.

It had been five years since I last saw the Dalai Lama speak, but he seemed to have aged quite a bit. His steps were slower and he was not nearly as energetic as I remembered. However, his English seemed to have improved. He called on his interpreter very infrequently.

His talk was composed of two main topics. First, that the students and youth now are the future, and we should make sure to look at the world as a whole, as interdependent, and as a reality which we must accept. We must not have narrow minds, but learn to look with a wider perspective. Second, he discussed compassion and how we must learn to have compassion for everyone and everything. This will decrease the negativity and increase cooperation and peace.

Two things in particular that he said struck me. He told a story about a debate he had with a Christian monk from Austria about the meaning of secular. The Christian monk said it meant "denying religion," while the Dalai Lama said it meant "accepting all religions." The Dalai Lama suggested since neither of them were native English speakers, they should consult a dictionary. That didn't really help them, so the Dalai Lama continues to suggest that "secularism" should mean accepting of all religions, without a preference or particularity for any one. This view really is necessary in these times, I think, since the world is growing smaller and everyone is coming into contact with cultures and religions with which they are not familiar. In order to operate successfully in the "secular" world, we need not deny the history and effect of religions on the world, but accept them and learn to work in their presence, rather than deny their existence.

The second thing he said which I liked was in response to a question about the Chinese government's claim that they will determine who the next reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is. The Dalai Lama said that even thirty years ago, he announced that if the Tibetan people so desired, he would agree to be the last Dalai Lama. He is not needed as political leader anymore. China has instituted elections. And as for a religious figure, there's the Panchen Lama...(I think that was a joke.) But regardless, he recognized the fact that it may not be in the best interest of the Tibetan people to fight with the Chinese over the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama.

Overall, the Dalai Lama is an interesting person to listen to. He speaks simply and to the point, which may disappoint many who come expecting to hear profound truths. Most of what he says seems pretty common sense, in fact. However, sometimes it takes a great and famous person saying these things for it to actually get through to people. I think he realizes that and strives to keep his lectures casual and personal just for that reason.

1 comment:

sam said...

Neither Lama nor monk is correct about the definition of secular. The secular is non-religious. It is skew from the religious. The secular neither denies nor accepts religion. It doesn't deal with it. (Think about the concept of the "none" in religious terms: they don't subscribe to a theism, but they aren't atheists. They just don't deal w/ religion.)

Unfortunately, many have injected religion into the secular; some religious people manifest their religiosity in the secular sphere. This is antithetical to the nature of the secular, but it is how things are.

It's sort of like reading Tolstoy at the Super Bowl: that venue has nothing to do with reading the classics, but some people do it anyway.

This isn't to decry a holistic view of civilization that should include some familiarity with world religions. It is just to point out that the secular and the religious are two entirely different things (even if they wrongly bleed into each other).