This is tape TRC 89-4. The East-West Foundation presents Harmonia Mundi, Worlds in Harmony, October 1989 in Newport Beach, California. This is a forum dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. This afternoon we want to continue pursuing the investigation of paths to freedom and dealing with suffering and one of the things that carried over a bit for people from this morning was the discussion of anger and how to deal with it, the question you asked. There are many psychotherapists in this audience. There are more than 200 different schools of psychotherapy, like different sects in Buddhism. And it turns out that there are more than 200 answers to your question, so we could spend the

[01:00]

rest of the week on it. My question for you is, are you satisfied with the discussion or would you like to pursue that? Do you have any other questions? That's probably enough. That's it for now. That's it for now? Okay. Please don't hesitate at any moment. The questions from the... Were there any particular answers or suggested alternative ways in overcoming it? Well, there's a very wide range of answers to the question of anger from

[02:00]

full expression to non-expression, the full spectrum and many different ways of dealing with it, many different solutions and it would be quite, it's a complicated issue. not have a rough aspect or a harsh aspect to it. So is there some sense in Western psychotherapy that to a certain point attachment is neutral or even beneficial but beyond that it becomes harmful? Is there some kind of discrimination made there? Oh, I would say so, that there is very definitely a

[03:06]

discrimination made there and that in some sense, and here I hope I'm not misquoting Joanna Macy, who says that she believes that sometimes there is a misunderstanding actually of the Buddhist teaching in that people by way of seeking non-attachment manage to divorce themselves entirely from the social real quote-unquote world and that that's a spiritual trap. What would you say to that comment, your whole view? What they can't see or what?

[04:25]

There is a certain element of truth in what you say about misunderstanding the practice of detachment that is explained in Buddhist path but even within Buddhist practice there are two ways, two kinds of attitudes towards attachment depending upon what kind of goal that you have, a spiritual goal that you seek. If it is individual liberation for yourself alone, if you are seeking that kind of liberation then attachment is spoken only in terms of its detrimental nature, something to be abandoned, something to be avoided and prevented. Whereas if you are seeking liberation for the benefit of entire living creatures and trying to sort of engage in the service, to be of service to all living beings, then there are cases where Buddhist Athers, these are called Buddhist Athers technically, Buddhist Athers are even encouraged not to adopt that kind of stance towards

[06:27]

attachment but rather utilize attachment and utilize it in one's action, service for the benefit of others. So attitude, because of the different attitude there are differences. And even in this respect, the Buddhist Ather's approach, he sees the difference between the normal kind of attachment that one feels that is based on egotistic attitude, like because of there being your friend, your closest friend, your so-and-so,

[07:30]

whereas Buddhist Ather's, you know, attachment towards sentient beings is not so much based on that kind of egotistic attitude but rather a sense of closeness, intimacy with the living creatures whom you are serving. And in that latter case then even if your service is somewhat mixed with attachment it's not to be abandoned. It's okay if it's somewhat mixed. Your Holiness, we've answered your question, but the question, the question that you asked I think hasn't been answered. What is, from a psychotherapy point of view, how is clinging seen? Do we have some answers? Well I think again there's some middle ground in that sometimes there's too much attachment, what we would call pathological attachment, too much attachment, and then relationships become compulsive, there's too much desire. And

[08:35]

then on the other hand there are individuals who get too detached, they remain aloof, they have some problem with engaging the relationship in an open and honest way with their feelings to take the relationship in. They stay too distant. But somewhere in between there's a kind of engagement that's healthy. And helping a client find that middle ground is useful. Van Goldman, discussing anger which you were addressing in the first place, said that there is a range between full expression of anger when you're mad at somebody, or non-expression of anger. I think he did himself injustice. He has

[09:38]

written a whole book about also self-deception, so that you don't even know that you are angry in the first place. And that's an entirely different problem. And we feel, psychotherapists, at least some of us feel, let us say, one two hundred of the group feel that that kind of self-deception, which involves a denial of what's happening emotionally inside of the person, is also a very dangerous thing in the long run. For example, I have been studying now for four years the people who make bombs with the potential of destroying the world. Now, it is my very distinct impression, though I am now still studying the data, hoping to write a book about this, that by and large these

[10:41]

people do not feel angry. They do not feel that they are even preparing. Preparing for the possibility of destroying the world. They certainly have no intention to destroy the world. But you see, the self-deception involved in what is the implication of preparing daily for the possible contingency planning. For the possible destruction of the world. Contingency planning, you could maybe explain that. Yeah, okay. They say, in case this happens, we will, in fact, launch, put forward first, a missile, a nuclear weapon that could destroy the whole world. But what I'm really trying to say is that there is a tremendous denial in all of these men, and with one exception, two exceptions, they are men who make bombs. There are

[11:41]

two women bomb makers whom I have studied. And that this is a tremendously important variable which Dr. Goldman has discussed at great length. Any thoughts? Let me follow up with this. The problem is this, Your Holiness, that many times people will engage in an action like making atom bombs and not realize the consequence of what they do. That is, they fool themselves. And is there some, how can one deal with that? It's a big problem in therapy. Many people who come to psychotherapy don't realize really what their problem is

[12:44]

even. It's very true of people who are alcoholics, for instance. And do you have any thoughts on how you can help someone see through their own delusion, their own self-deception? His Holiness feels that in this case, especially in terms of making bombs in this high technology, military technology, that the people involved are specialists. And they're focusing on something very narrow and becoming extremely expert in that area and gaining high accomplishment, high achievement, without seeing, so it's kind of a tunnel vision, without seeing the broader implications and consequences of their acts. And as long as they focus on that, then the self-deception is supported. So from there, I have to say, the expertise, viewpoint, this great achievement. Just narrowly speaking. Narrowly speaking.

[13:48]

So just in their own right, in their own domain, they're doing something extraordinary. Creative, one reason says. Creative, yes. Exactly, yes. No, it's a bitter irony. People say to me, how can you be studying the creative process in bomb makers? You surely are crazy, they say to me. I say no. But in this narrow, tunnel vision, expertise, they are doing something creative. It's the uses, then, of their own creativity, which they are deceiving themselves about. This can happen also in the domain of spirituality or religious practice, that one can focus very narrowly on one's own religious denomination or practice and become a fanatic in the process. Any solution, any remedy for that problem?

[14:58]

No remedy. Education. Education is the answer. Wider contact. Wider contact. I just want to clarify the distinction that we're making here. And it seems that in many of the Buddhist writings on the practice... I don't think your mic is alive. Yes? Many of the Buddhist writings on the practice of patience assume that the practitioner is aware of the anger and then can find a way of practicing with that. Many of the Western psychotherapy writings make a very different assumption. They assume that many of the people who come for treatment into psychotherapy are not aware of anger, and it's out of their awareness, and they have special psychological defenses to keep it out of awareness. Different kinds of self-deception. So the Buddhist texts tell us a lot about how to practice

[16:11]

with anger for people who are aware of that, but they tell us less about how to work with people who don't have the anger in their awareness. The Western psychotherapies tell us a lot more about how to work with people who don't have anger in their awareness, who deceive themselves, like the bomb makers who have no idea that their very profession has a lot to do with aggression, but they don't see it as aggression, and they don't experience the anger. We as Buddhists need to learn about it. And so there's subconscious, if I can use that word, subconscious or subconscious anger. If it has a parallel in Buddhist writings, it would have more to do with what's called mental unhappiness, in the sense that mental unhappiness is regarded as the source... mental... so dissatisfaction? This is a good word. Dissatisfaction,

[17:15]

in the sense that dissatisfaction is regarded as the source for anger and hostility. There could be some parallel there. We would see it in terms of more lack of awareness, marikpa, lack of awareness. There are a couple of terms there. One is marikpa, tends to mean a more of a dynamic kind of ignorance, an act of misconstruing of reality. There's another one, momba, which suggests more of a mental darkness or an unawareness, a simple not knowing. So it would be certainly related to that mental event. I think this brings up a topic that we wanted to raise with His Holiness this afternoon, and that has to do with facing suffering or not facing suffering when you yourself are the one who is committing the act

[18:18]

that creates the suffering. Joel Edelman, as it happens, has experience himself he wanted to tell you about. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to talk about some experiences that I had. This was in the early and mid-60s that was triggered very much by what Margaret talked about yesterday when she talked about Dan Ellsberg in Vietnam. Well, as it happens, I was in Vietnam with Dan Ellsberg. I had started in 1963 when I worked for the RAND Corporation dealing with Vietnam issues. And I spent about nine months over there researching, advising, studying, flying all over the country, dealing with issues of choosing targets. I flew 25 combat missions, many of which were bombs were dropped in these missions or targets were chosen. And at that time it was, I was just using my mind.

[19:19]

I didn't have an awareness of any anger, I didn't even have an awareness of much fear either, or what suffering was being brought about by it. And the way that I dealt with that was, I knew that something was wrong and after I got finished I just left and had nothing more to do with the military work. And like many of the Vietnam vets, about more than 120,000 who've committed suicide, there were more American vets who have killed themselves than who were killed during the Vietnam War. About twice as many. Upon return. It was terribly difficult to deal with that and so I just suppressed it. I forgot of it. I did not deal with it for many years. I would not see any movies about Vietnam. I wouldn't read any books about it. Didn't talk much about it. And because it was just too much. And so finally some years later

[20:24]

I was able to start dealing with it in an underground way by doing some kind of good work. I had gone to law school and started helping the relieving the suffering of some people who were disadvantaged, who were poor. And then slowly I could talk about it as I got into having some psychotherapy to get in touch with what must have been and what was a lot of anger and a lot of pain to deal with. And then later I had a Buddhist practice about 1969. And so it wasn't really until that time that all of it started to come out with a combination of western psychotherapy and eastern spiritualism that these started to come to the surface. Otherwise it was really suppressed and very painful. And please. What is the major, if one can say this, if one can make a generalization,

[21:33]

what's the chief cause for all of these suicides? Is it guilt or is it much more complicated than that? There are some people who have been treating Vietnam vets who can answer that. The question is what is the cause for the suicides of the vets? There are various things that contribute to that. One is that many people who go to the battlefield in any war, but also in Vietnam, they find that when they are in firefight, that is when there's active fighting, and they are in the fighting, they're given active permission to kill, that somehow that changes them. They become different. Biologically they become different. That is, they get more excitement. In long-term therapy with the vets, they at some point in the therapy will tell you the thrill, the excitement

[22:36]

of killing. But it's very unacceptable to them and certainly to society. But they often find it to be a high, that is very arousing, thrilling. And when they then leave the war and they come back into society, the aggression and the intense excitement of that, they have to put out of their awareness. It's not acceptable to them or to society. In addition, in most wars, when people return after the war, there's a way of, as you would say, taking a different perspective. The society has a parade for you. They tell you that you are a hero for having killed for a good cause. But in a war that was unacceptable to many of the people, there's no way of the society

[23:37]

accepting this that was done. So people are left to handle the feelings individually rather than to have social rituals to help people transform that aggression into something more acceptable and to settle with it. So these people are very lonely. They have intense hatred and intense guilt and they put it out of their awareness. Sometimes their consciousness changes. They go into a state we call dissociative states. Could you explain dissociative? They go into a different state of consciousness where the aggression comes up strong and they can either act it out on themselves, hurt themselves or kill themselves, or they can act it out on someone else. That is, that they could kill somebody. And that what's striking to us about this is that when people are given permission to kill others, or even if they are the victims of

[24:37]

extreme abuse like child abuse or torture, it seems to change them biologically in terms of their sense of self, ordinary sense of self, and also in terms of the rules of social behavior. That is, after that anything goes. They are different people and working with this magnitude or this quality of hatred is different from the kind of hatred we were talking about this morning. Much more difficult to work with in therapy. Wasn't there comparable aggression in terms of firefighting, in terms of hand-to-hand combat and so forth in the Second World War? On that level, wasn't the aggression and the violence comparable? Then, you see, those soldiers who participated in the Second World War, when did they return? Any suicide? What number?

[25:38]

Suicide? Much less. Those people who came back from Second World War, everyone they came back to said that was a good cause, you're a hero. Vietnam, bad cause. So, yes, that's right. So, it's not the immediate anger that we've been discussing in the past. So, in both of these cases, although during the active action on the battlefield, in both of these cases, there is increment in excitement and aggression and so forth, but this shows that that initial aggression wasn't the cause for the suicide. So, it's a social concept. So, it's mainly the conditioning for the suicide

[26:45]

When they return, when they're found, you see, their action seems to appear something fruitless, something wrong. So, then, you see, there is some kind of regret or some kind of self-contempt or self-condemnation. So, it seems to be a mixture of guilt and also a fresh hostility and aggression, not simply the ancient one from the war, but a new one created in the social context. Yeah, I felt a great deal of excitement when I was there and the excitement was a cover-up for much of what was going on underneath. There were no feelings of overt aggression associated with it, nor any feelings, but later the guilt really came out and I can really identify with the feeling of wanting to self-destruct out of that guilt and of the suicide fantasies. Is there any difference that you found between those who actually engage in direct contact,

[28:04]

that is, they have somebody at the sights of their gun, as opposed to those who are behind the scenes, behind the lines giving the orders? Both are killing, one is direct, one's indirect. In the research, the differences between being behind the lines or on direct contact was not the main thing. The main difference seemed to be exposure to atrocity, that is, people who were either actively fighting, or what was surprising in the research is that people who were not actively fighting, but who were still passively witnessing atrocity. Could you explain atrocity? Yes, for example, sometimes people would watch other people get killed, like women and children.

[29:07]

Sometimes people would watch other people get tortured. Sometimes the medical staff would go up after a battle and have to pick up the parts of the bodies. These people had as much difficulty and sometimes more difficulty than the people who were actively fighting. There's a difference here, and that is that the actual participants, that is, those engaging in the aggression, they're doing it in a sense voluntarily, that is, they're into it, they're intentionally, they're into it, and they're really engaged, where the other ones are just having to witness it in a more passive way. But the people who were more passive had more psychological difficulties. That is, of all the groups, the people who have the most psychological difficulties were the medical vacs, that is, the people who had to go up and pick up the pieces of the bodies. The passive ones, not the ones actively fighting, seem to have more difficulty.

[30:14]

This is a tragedy, and we can really sympathize with these people because they're in an unbearable situation. It may be less unbearable if you're actually engaging in aggression and you want to kill yourself, but people who were engaging in aggression were healthier. Not healthy. They had less psychological difficulty. In understanding this, this gives us all the more sympathy. Again, it's something that's very understandable, because the ones who are actually engaging in aggression, they've agreed somehow they will do this and they will fight and that will be a success in its own right, whereas the other people didn't make that agreement, they're there as medvacs or what have you, and so they are really the victims and they deserve our sympathy all the more.

[31:19]

To go along with that, they found that if the people who were working with evacuating the wounded and the dead in the battlefield, if they gave them guns, even though they never used them, if they had the concept that they could use them and be active, they did not suffer the same kind of psychological damage than the people who didn't have the guns. Was there any difference among these witnesses between men and women? In the medical staff? Too bad. We could find out whether men's minds are tougher than women's or vice versa. I wanted to add only that the point that His Holiness makes about the distance from the

[32:36]

target making a profound difference in how much conflict there is than after an action, a bloody action. This has been demonstrated over and over in World War II, for instance, many of which, the veterans of which I treated years ago, suggest very clearly that the point that you made, namely that those who are giving orders way behind the lines, not witnessing the atrocities, not picking up the pieces, find it far easier to do that and do not have the kind of conflict afterwards that these other people do. Now, similarly, I would say, with those behind the lines, sitting in Washington, making plans right now to destroy within the first three months after one nuclear exchange, 625 million lives. This is an estimate

[33:39]

given, for instance, to Dan Elford by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is in 1961 when he wrote the nuclear war guidance plans for Jack Kennedy. He said to them, what do you estimate would be the casualties within the first three months after a nuclear exchange? He thought they wouldn't know that they hadn't thought it through. They had thought it through. They had thought it through precisely on the level which I just told you. That was acceptable estimated casualty behind the line. Your point is very well taken. Yes. Thank you. What we're talking about is the danger of detachment in terms of not taking responsibility

[35:04]

for the consequences of one's act. I know that Gene had points he wanted to make along those lines and Stephen too. This also gets somewhat back to your original question about attachment. There does seem to be a different level of closeness that the psychotherapist wants to in a person, an ability to be closer to another human being than I think is my understanding of what is encouraged and developed in Tibetan Buddhism, that the Buddhist position is very much like the psychotherapist position. That is, as a psychotherapist we have compassion, no judgment. We are detached. We observe the feelings in the other person and

[36:08]

attempt not to get caught in our own feelings as we are in the process of doing our work. But if we should go home with that same kind of attitude, observe the people closest to us and not react to them, just watch them and think about them and feel compassion towards them, then we aren't close enough to form an intimacy that will endure over the years and bring us into our own feelings. Because one of the problems that psychotherapists have, that meditators may also have, is an inability after a while to react spontaneously to someone else's, to the situation that is presented to us. And taking it further and further down the line, we get to the detachment of the bomb maker, where we are just too far away from the heart level and the reactive level and the fear level and all the emotions.

[37:10]

So there is this problem of needing to sort of hold opposites together, that is to both be able to observe and be compassionate and also to be intensely involved and care greatly over time so that emotional loss will affect us, that the other person truly matters to us, and that we grieve deeply and be hurt deeply by them because they matter, and yet not so much that we have pathologically got detached or attached. There is a different optimal level, I think, that we foster in our work, and I'm raising it as an observation, but also as as they say potential shadow side of a meditator practice.

[38:17]

You said that in the case of meditators and the psychotherapists, they do feel compassion, but it's not a very intimate relationship or connection with the person, but it's not a lack of compassion. Did you imply that? I'm saying that at a certain point the observing mind can have negative consequences. Alan, the question is, is there a danger in the observing mind getting in the way of compassion? It's about balancing detachment and compassion. If we look at this closely, the point, if one feels very profound compassion,

[39:46]

this already implies an intimate connection with another person. Now in the context of simply straight Buddhism, especially of the Buddhist practice for a Bodhisattva, the kind of compassion to be cultivated, it's said in the scriptures, the Buddhist scriptures, is that of a mother towards her only child. We're speaking of a compassion here that is very much of a heart issue, and it is certainly intimate. So when you have that, and yet it's not mixed with attachment. So there may be some confusion in terminology here that the Buddhist notion of attachment is not what goes in the common lingo in the West. Because this is free of attachment, and yet it's like that of a mother for her only child. Your Holiness, just to touch on what Margaret and Dan were exploring a moment ago. In this country, in the case of the Vietnam War, the problem for those hundred thousand men and

[40:48]

women, was not the hostility of war, but the hostility of peace. These people, the hostility of those who were marching with signs that said peace, but were spitting on these soldiers and calling them baby killers as they got off the airplane. These were seventeen-year-olds, eighteen-year-olds, nineteen-year-olds, black, Hispanic, the most disenfranchised. Could you explain disenfranchised? Those with the least power in our society, those who had the most prejudice focused on them. They came home, minorities, and I think this is why this ties together so beautifully with the aspect of unexplored anger. These people were saying make peace, but they were making war in the name of peace.

[41:52]

These people being the protesters. The protesters. They were judging these poor men and women, these fellows and these women who were coming back, and were calling them names. It wasn't just that their acts weren't accepted, it's that their acts were rejected. It was yet more than an absence of what they got when they came home from the Second World War. It was the exact opposite of what they got. They got judgment. They got hatred. They got a rejection. They were called baby killers. They had so little, there was so little compassion. Not in everybody, because many people marched for peace with the greatest care for those children burning in the jungles of Vietnam. But others just marched for peace with hostility in their heart, with opposition. How do we make, if our anger is not explored, how do we really make peace? How is there not some latent, some samskara, which arises in the name of acceptable peace,

[42:59]

but actually wields a sword, just to kill the killer? Peace through mental peace. It comes to a theme that is often emphasized, and that is to bring forth peace, world peace, by means of mental peace. One week after coming home from Vietnam, I was in New York City, and I happened to be at a bystander watching an anti-war parade down Fifth Avenue in New York. And I stood on the side, and I happened to be standing with some people who were against the people who were marching, and a fight broke out, and somebody who was carrying a sign that said, Peace Now, hit me over the head with it. And so I got the point, and

[44:02]

the point is what's in your heart. It's absolutely correct, except that I think we must remind ourselves that the protesters simply were choosing the wrong place to put their terrible grief and rage at this wrongful war. That if indeed they had had at that point, as they did later, the truth of where the problem lay, namely with the decision makers who were sending these poor young 17-year-old boys to kill, they would have known not to, quote, kill the killer, but they would have done what in fact they then did do. They put pressure on Congress to cut off the money for the funds after Dan

[45:11]

Ellsworth revealed the truth of what was going on, and that was a turning point in the whole situation. Meaning it was the wrong target, but they didn't. I mean, the protesters of whom I was one, you know. This concludes side one. To continue listening, go now to side two. Off at airplanes in 72, and being spit on. Yeah. Those, maybe those who knew a little more of their heart, recognized it wasn't unbridled hostility. They had some sense of relationship. Right, right, right. Among these Vietnam vets that you've treated, who are suffering from intense guilt, hatred, anger, aggression,

[46:17]

what did you find was the most effective advice or guidance that you could offer them? So the next question was, what kind of counseling proved to be most effective? Sympathizing with their hardships that they underwent in the war, or disapproving it and coming to terms with that? Since a great deal of the pain and suffering has to do with the loneliness as well as the guilt, as well as the intense aggression that gets stimulated in that kind of war, as well as the helplessness and hatred that occurs when getting rejected by society after the war, the single best treatment has been group therapy, where people who've gone

[47:23]

through the same kind of experiences can get and talk openly about all of their experiences without blame, without shame. It undercuts the isolation. Dan, one point is you're holding us in group therapy. These people are with other men who have the same problem. That's who they're talking to, just like this. Part of his question, too, was that did you, as part of your guidance or your counseling, was it to give them the approval that they were not receiving from society in any guise in any form? They at least find a resolution of the shame and the blame, and they get in the group some acceptance, at least amongst the group members, and they often begin to make new meaning for their experience from the group discussions. It's also interesting to see who did not commit suicide.

[48:28]

I wanted to speak about the compassion of another human being, a civilian, as being the essential difference for allowing men from Vietnam to re-enter and be acceptable. What I heard from relatives of Vietnam, war veterans, and from Harry Wilmer, who worked with veterans in Texas, that if you have killed, if you have done things that that make you feel unacceptable, and then your country treats you, or your country men treat you as if you are unacceptable, the one thing that brings you back into humanity is another human being listening to your story, loving you, being compassionate for what you went through. Very often, what made the difference is that another human being listened and listened and

[50:26]

listened to the bad dreams, to the dreadful things that the person had done, and somehow one other human being's compassion made it possible for that veteran to be part of humanity again. And sometimes that takes place in therapy, but it also clearly takes place between human beings who care about one another. So if there's one thing, it would be compassion that healed that person. The question that arises, that we were discussing before coming here today, was whether the experience of deep suffering can be used to help someone change to become more compassionate. We've been talking about Vietnam veterans as a case in point. There are

[51:28]

many others. What is your view on whether having gone through deep suffering can in some sense be beneficial? In the case of suffering, regardless of the causes, however it might arise, once the suffering has been experienced, then if it is conjoined with certain types of influences, then it leads to depression, and maybe very long-term depression. On the other hand, if it meets with other, it's conjoined with other circumstances, more skillful in means, then it

[52:35]

might be beneficial. And which are those elements that lead to greater courage? In the context of Buddhist practices, there are many conditions that one can bring to bear, bringing harmful or unfavorable circumstances onto the path. However, if all of a sudden you have to synthesize them and say, well, this is what it's all about, that's difficult to say. I think one obvious factor is to examine whether the problem that you are facing, is there a way to overcome it or not? One step.

[53:39]

The problem is such that if there is a way out, then there is no need to be depressed or to worry about it. And if there is no way out, then there is no point to be depressed. And the irony of the situation is that why do we feel mental anguish, these kinds of mental sufferings? Because we do not desire suffering, we do not desire pain. So if you become obsessed with the suffering, and if you become depressed and overwhelmed by it, then it will be further increasing the suffering that you are going through.

[54:54]

So if the suffering has already happened, then the best thing is simply to leave it, and then it doesn't have any dividends, it doesn't have anything added onto it, it's finished. So you simply leave the past to its own devices and then carry on in the future, seeing, taking steps to avoid such suffering in the future. But you don't compound what has happened in the past by belaboring it, by pondering it, and then thereby accentuating it. I wanted to ask a question picking up on some of these themes about who helps the helpers. You've been talking a lot about the importance of a helping relationship, in psychotherapy and spiritual practice. One of the first things I remember hearing you say in 1980 when you came to the United States was, if you can't help, at least don't harm.

[56:10]

And that's an old healing principle, but very difficult sometimes. And we talked this morning, I think you referred this morning, to the importance of if one is going to face one's suffering and penetrate it deeply, it needs to be done in the context of trust, of safety, of understanding. That often means with another person or in a community, in a sangha, with a teacher. And that brings the teacher and the student or the therapist and the patient into a very close, intimate relationship with each other. And in some ways, they even have to love each other. That grows. Maybe there's some combination of love and attachment, but it's there. But that also poses certain vulnerabilities. Vulnerabilities, dangers, risks for both of them. And particularly, perhaps,

[57:15]

for the student or for the patient, where the helper's power can be abused. And it's very sad that we see so much evidence of this today. I don't know what it's like on the West Coast, but I know in Boston, where I practice, every other week, every month, the Boston Globe newspaper has more headlines of another therapist who is being accused of misusing their power, particularly to sexually abuse their clients, usually men abusing women. We also, the last year or two, have been reading and hearing many similar examples in the sanghas, the Buddhist sanghas around the country of teachers who have abused positions of trust and of power. And in my clinical practice, I'm having more people come to me who have been abused by therapists. Recently, therapists beginning to

[58:20]

come who have abused their clients and asking for help. And that's very difficult to work with these people, but one must, and they need help as much as anyone else. Now, my question is this. In Western psychotherapeutic practice, in one's training, if it's good training, one is taught how to anticipate these situations and hopefully deal with them and not fall into that danger. And even then, people fall. The risks are very great. My question is, is there anything similar to that? Or in Western psychotherapeutic practice, one's license, one's professional license to practice psychology or psychiatry can be cancelled, can be taken away.

[59:21]

How is that handled with Buddhist teachers? I don't know what the equivalent would be of taking away their license, but two questions. How is it handled in their training? And then secondly, if it comes to public attention that someone is having difficulties in this area, some teacher is having difficulties, how is that then handled in the teaching community? Part of the blame lies on the students because they're pampered spiritual teachers and they spoil the spiritual teacher. In the Buddhist tradition, someone becomes a spiritual teacher in relation to a disciple. There isn't any particular license, a piece of paper, degree that you could give someone

[60:23]

qualifying that person as a spiritual teacher. But you are a lama because you have students. Vajrayana has a common theme in the way he teaches Dharma and that is in cultivating a relationship with a spiritual teacher, it's important not to be too quick about regarding this person as one's guru or as one's spiritual mentor, because it's a very, very loaded kind of relationship, but rather for however long it may take, whether it's two years, five years, 10 years or longer, simply regard this other person as a spiritual friend. And in the meantime, really check up on that person's behavior, attitudes, ways of teaching. So you're very, very confident in that person's integrity. So it's very important from the beginning to have a sound approach, a very firm, a sound

[61:42]

approach. So there isn't any special aspect of the training towards becoming a Lama. There isn't any training towards becoming a Lama anyway, it's simply a spiritual training. There isn't any aspect of that that is specifically designed to help you avoid abusing your own students, should you ever have students. There isn't any special such training, but the very nature of spiritual practice in Buddhism is to cultivate compassion, to cultivate a sense of altruism towards others. If this is very pure, then one won't be abusing the influence one has, if the training does not entail cultivating a sense of wanting to overpower or dominate other people's lives. But that's a very big gift, if one is pure enough. And I think people enter into these relationships thinking that, or on the assumption that,

[63:19]

this teacher has experienced some degree of enlightenment. And then when the abuse takes place, or some mistakes are made, the disillusionment is equally strong, because the... As I normally recommend to the Buddhist practitioners, never to try to adopt an attitude towards one's spiritual teacher, seeing every action of that spiritual teacher as divine and noble.

[64:24]

So in the Buddhist teachings, and the master of the Buddhist teachings is of course the Buddha himself, so in all of the areas of the teachings, whether it's the Vinaya, which is the monastic discipline, then there are very clearly, very explicitly, specifically or explicitly designated qualities that are required upon the part of one's abbot, one's spiritual mentor as a monk, so it's very clearly delineated. Similarly in the Bodhisattva context, there are very specifically designated qualities that are required for a spiritual mentor or qualifications. And then similarly in the context of Tantra, once again, the qualifications are all the more demanding, and they're explicit and elaborate, in order to be a spiritual mentor in any of these domains of Buddhist practice. So first of all, one needs to see whether or not a person that one might regard as one's spiritual mentor is replete in these various qualifications. So this may seem a little bit bold, but if one has a teacher who is not qualified, who

[65:57]

is engaging in unsuitable or wrong behavior, then it is appropriate for the students to criticize that behavior. So it states very explicitly in the sutras, in the Buddha's own teachings, that in terms of the teacher's behavior, in those aspects where it is wholesome, one should follow in that person's footsteps. Where it is unwholesome, you don't follow in that person's footsteps.

[66:59]

So when it's incompatible with the wholesome, when it's incompatible with the Buddhist teachings, then you don't follow in the guru's footsteps. So there's no whitewash here, and you don't simply say, oh, it's good because it's the guru's. It's good behavior because it's the guru's. This is never done. And so it states explicitly in the sutras that if the guru's behavior is improper, then you should identify it as being improper and not follow in a like fashion. So while it states explicitly that you should recognize the unwholesome as being unwholesome, one might be able to infer from that that it's also worthwhile to criticize it. And also, it's explicitly mentioned in the tantric text of Highest Yoga, Tantra, it's a text which gives the guidelines for relating to a spiritual teacher.

[68:00]

It explicitly mentions that any advice that your teacher gives you which is unsuitable to your Buddhist way of life, your practice, then it shouldn't be followed. But all of what you're saying puts the responsibility on the student, not on the more apparently enlightened one. So there is the guru that the spiritual mentor is responsible for his or her improper behavior. So that's where that person's responsibility lies. It's the student's responsibility not to be stuck, sucked into it. So the blame is on both sides. Partly it's because the student's too much obedience and devotion to the spiritual master, sort of sometimes blind acceptance of that person's guidance, which spoils the person.

[69:05]

And also the part of blame lies on the spiritual master because he lacks the integrity that is necessary to be immune to that kind of vulnerability. There's something that still doesn't feel answered to me in that. It starts anyway, not where it ends, but the relationship starts as a somewhat unequal relationship, much like a therapeutic relationship does, with one person in some sense having more power, more wisdom, more insight, or is supposed to anyway, and the other person comes in the position of someone seeking help, and therefore they're much more vulnerable to being mistreated. And I'm concerned that the way this is being discussed, it puts the response, it makes the person who is being mistreated or victimized responsible for their mistreatment or abuse. And the higher responsibility surely resides, at least in the beginning, with the teacher

[70:10]

or the therapist or the helper. And how is that handled in Buddhist practice? Now, practical thing, so far, now I think, you see, this I think makes some relation with organization. So, so far, for different centers, different lamas or, what is it, speaking teachers, in most cases, it's simply the, uh,

[71:34]

One thing that I noticed is that up to now, most dharma centers, the spiritual learning centers that has emerged in the West mainly came as a result of individual teachers going, coming abroad and starting, and through their individual contacts with their students, and as a result of which these learning centers emerged, therefore it was, these learning centers didn't come into being as sort of programmed, as properly planned by a central organization. So, therefore, there wasn't any way to check them. So, in the future, we are thinking about having some kind of central organization. In fact, you see, up to now, I already received quite a number of letters complaining about, you see, these different teachers. So therefore, you see, now, I think time has come, we can do something.

[73:31]

So, and, His Holiness was saying that the advantage of having this kind of central organization is that whenever a new center, learning center, requires a teacher, a spiritual teacher, then there would be a board of directors who would select a particular teacher who possessed the basic qualifications that are necessary to be a spiritual teacher, and then on the basis of such selection, they could be recommended, whereas when the selection is made on the basis of individual contact, often it's very difficult for the students to have the knowledge to judge whether the spiritual teacher is suitable or not, qualified or not. It's difficult. Another point that His Holiness made, too, and that is, imagine that a person has been appointed to be the head of a center, and then after a couple of years, two or three years, whatever, this person's behavior starts to degenerate. Then the board could withdraw that person, saying, you're no longer suitable.

[74:31]

I think this is good news for many Dharma students, licensing for bombers. I also think it's clear that, too, we should say there, maybe the majority of teachers have been very good, that it's a small group, perhaps, that have had problems, though you may get many more letters, just a small group. We have just a few minutes remaining, and we need to hear the questions that came from the audience during the groups earlier. Joel? Yes, thank you. As continuing our short-lived tradition of bringing forward from the audience these questions, earlier today, both this morning and this afternoon, you said that there is a wholesome aspect to attachment. We're wondering whether you also see that there's a wholesome aspect to anger. Although the hostility and anger may not have that positive aspect that we spoke about

[75:55]

this morning, in the sense that in attachment what you get is to be able to relate intimately to other persons, which is the positive aspect of it, which could be utilized positively. But one thing that is common between attachment and anger is the energy which accompanies with them when they are consciously experienced. So this energy could be utilized positively, even in the case of anger. As for example? This skillful application of the energy of anger comes mainly through practice of meditation.

[77:03]

In meditation, if you are able to tap the energy of the anger, because when anger arises, it's a very powerful and forceful emotion, and that force could be applied onto a chosen object of meditation. In this context, the significance of meditating on wrathful aspects of divine beings come into. Similarly, the significance of visualizing and meditating on divine beings in union with consort is to skillfully apply the sexual energy of desire. Hmm. Your Holiness, there may be just a tail end of what the previous question has left over,

[78:14]

and that is, once again, maybe, hopefully it's not too much, but in this relationship of students and teachers, and where the teacher is abusing the student or dominating the student in an improper way, because of the teacher's greater training, presumably greater wisdom, greater position of power, if this happens, isn't it chiefly the responsibility, and isn't it really the teacher who is guilty, rather than saying it's the student's fault because they were faithful too quickly? Do you feel that the responsibility lies really chiefly with the student? This is the case, yes. The responsibility does lie chiefly with the teacher in that case. What the person is supposed to be doing is to be offering dharma, to be offering spiritual practice, one can say that person has betrayed the task. It's the situation where the teacher himself indulges in action which he preaches others

[79:20]

to avoid, and it's a very ironic situation. Disgraceful. Your Holiness, there's maybe some confusion in the West. I know when we read some Buddhist texts, there are descriptions of extraordinary events that beings go through on the way to their self-knowledge, and some of them seem to indicate that if you can't be abused and still stay compassionate, you'll never be a Buddha. Stories of a fellow walking down the road and robbers come upon him and saw off an arm and he sends mercy and compassion, and they saw off a leg, and he sends loving kindness and mudita to them, and they take off his arms and eventually decapitate him, but his heart is open, his mind stays clear, and these kind of texts often end with the statement

[80:21]

if you cannot do this, you'll never be a Buddha. Very easily misinterpreted, that if I cannot allow myself to be abused, I'm not a good Buddhist. So if a spiritual teacher teaches you in such a manner that shows... With a certain motivation, that's something. That shows the cunningness and shrewdness of that person, because he's preparing for a road to abuse you. Very skillfully too, I must say. Yeah, we just had two more questions that were follow-ups from this morning.

[81:30]

And it had to, again, back to the question of anger, and that is how to transform the energy of that anger. That is, what to do with the anger when you find yourself in it. What are the specific practices that you can engage in to deal with that anger? I'll put it there. It depends how forceful the anger. If anger is not very forceful, then you can, in that moment, try to look the... For example, you see, meeting someone, and you get irritation, and anger about to come. Then, in that moment, try to look the different aspects of the person. Of course, you see, every person, no matter how negative to oneself, but there are positive sides, positive things.

[82:32]

Try to look at that side. Then anger immediately reduces. One thing. Then another thing. Again, now you see, due to clear awareness or realization, anger's negativeness. You see, as a result of analyzing what is good, what is useful about anger. You can't find nothing. Anger is something really awful. Then, on the other hand, patience, compassion, love. You can find many good things. So once you have that kind of genuine conviction, then anger about developing, about developing. Then, you see, remember the negativeness about anger. It will reduce.

[83:34]

Then, if anger, somehow, you see, very forceful anger develops. Then, very difficult, that moment. Then try to forget about, you see, that thing, that situation. And the mind deviate. Deviate it. Direct the mind elsewhere. Some other thing. Then sometimes, just simply, you see, close your eyes and just concentrate fully your breathing. Breathing, yes. Count, you see, breathing first, second, third, fourth, fifth, like that way. About twenty, twenty-five, just a few seconds, go. Isn't it? So the anger, somehow, slightly reduces. Slightly cools down. So that's the one method. Then, if very strong anger, then fight. Very hard, you see, but I think, anyway, you see, anyway, it's joke, but anyway, anyway, you see, anyway it is better, you see,

[85:00]

to express, isn't it? Rather than, you see, hide inside. Then it remains, years, years. Very, very negative headed feeling, remember. That's the worst thing. Compared that, it is better to say some, you see, few nasty words and some, you see, Very, very outstanding. Very stupid face. Your Holiness, I think that's a very thought-provoking place to end. I would like to thank very much the translators Alan Wallace and Tipton Jimpa for the wonderful job they're doing. Thank you.

[86:02]

Please remain in the hall as His Holiness leaves. This concludes tape number four.

[86:10]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ