This is tape TRC 89-3. 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. His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, is Paths to Freedom, which is really the response to suffering, the topic we discussed yesterday. And for the sake of continuity, we're going to begin with the questions from the floor that came from the groups yesterday. So we're going to begin the morning by following up any thoughts and so on that have come from the audience through the groups. And Joel will begin. Good morning, Your Holiness. Is this on? Yeah. Good morning. I have a few questions that have come as of the result of our conversations yesterday afternoon

[01:04]

from the audience through the groups. And the first question is, in these darkest of times for Tibet, how do you see your mission in relation to Tibet? I think perhaps it's not that related to the theme of our conference today. Well, in a sense, it is. Yesterday, Your Holiness, you were talking about the dark period that this is in Tibetan history, and that, of course, has to do with suffering. And today we're talking about one's response to suffering. So, just in those terms. Your Holiness.

[02:04]

I don't know. I don't know what's the basic mission. I don't know. I don't know if I have any specific mission that I have for the Tibetan people at this time, but my attitude and opinion always have been to serve the Tibetan people as much as possible under the existing circumstances. As yesterday I mentioned, while I'm caring for other people, you see, when there is a challenge, anyway, there's a good opportunity. So, same way, my own case. I think, out of, what to say, 14,000, I think. So, I think my case, I think the biggest challenge.

[03:22]

So, anyway, it's quite sad. But, anyway, as I'm telling other people, other Tibetans, there is something, a crucial period or time, you must, how to say, show, demonstrate, how to say, our determination. So, my own case. I'm trying like that. Of course, this is not only a crucial period for Tibet, but it's also a crucial period for the whole world, and there were many people who were also wondering whether you felt like you had a special mission in relation to the whole planet, to the whole world. Yes, I, basically, I believe every human being has a responsibility. So, naturally, me too, some kind of, you see, part of, part of this, sorry, responsibility.

[04:33]

But, my, my, I was wondering whether you felt that there might be a special... Thank you. I was wondering about the possibility that the wisdom tradition from Tibet being brought out to the world at this particular time being a major contribution that has been paralleled by Native American traditional wisdom, at a time when Western technological societies are sorely in need of some leadership, spiritual leadership, and whether you have a sense of fulfilling whatever you came for in this incarnation, as being a spokesperson for a tradition that the world could sorely use, could use. I don't know.

[05:58]

I don't know. Generally speaking, if we examine the causes in our history, we will find that whether an individual person has been able to fulfill his or her mission only in retrospect, after the person has died. I don't know. I don't know. Okay, at the risk of, okay, possibly we'll get an I don't know answer to this question, but here goes. We'll keep trying. This has to do with, since most of the audience and most of us here are Americans, there was a lot of questions, wondering whether you thought that Americans and the United States

[06:59]

as a country had any special mission in the world. That is, what do Americans have to contribute to world harmony and world peace, in your opinion? This answer, not to know. Well, I think, you see, America, of course, every nation, there are good aspects, negative aspects. That's normal. But then, in this country, firstly, as usually people call, superpower. And here, I think, you see, superpower, not only in military forces, but I think mainly the freedom. Freedom. I think there's some kind of, you see, real, true, open space where human individual creative

[08:05]

nature fully utilizes. I think that is the great strength. Although, you see, in your country, there are so many inequality. Inequalities. There are, you see, there are some poor, some, you see, rich. Big gap. There are. But I think, basically, there is real genuine freedom and open society. And that's the real source of strength and progress. So now, with this, and then another, I think, aspect. In a way, it's a young nation. American, I mean, you see, those white and settler American. From their viewpoint, as a young nation. So, in a way, hardly no culture, no, how to say, history. But, in a way, I think it is good. You see, that help, you see, how to say, that help to openness.

[09:12]

Your attitude, I think, towards, you see, every different culture and different faith. So a nation, and particularly this area, you see, multicultural, multiracial. If you use, you see, that, how to say, that environment in the right way, I think it help to, how to say, receptive way. To be receptive. To have less prejudices and be more receptive. So, then, generally, I found this American quite straightforward. And easy going already. As I like it. That's good. So, so, sometime I feel, our present, you see, global atmosphere, in international politics.

[10:16]

Unfortunately, in that field, the moral thing, or justice things, has very little value. That's very sad. If that goes continuously, people will suffer. Eventually, super power also will suffer. So, America, a powerful nation, definitely you need genuine friends. Among these small, small countries, America need, you see, friends. Then, how to make friends? I think, I think, you see, on top of this strength, material strength, and cultural strength. If America stand firm with moral principle, you see,

[11:20]

they, I think, it will be something, I think, marvelous. You know, this present trend, not healthy. Sooner or later, have to, have to break through. Change. But then, smaller nation, very difficult to change. Because, you see, once you have the, the general, the main stream, doing something different way. So, if you, bigger nation, even you want to breakthrough way, you can't face the consequences, risk. So, you see, bigger nation, I think, that is, I think, bigger nation, the bigger nation, they have to do something. The powerful nations,

[12:25]

they have greater chance and capacity to right the wrong ways in our system system and to be able to take the risks that are involved in changing an existing system than compared to the weaker nations. Last 30 years experience, we mostly remain in Asia. The American prestige, when early you see, say it's the 50s, immediately after the Second World War, and then the 50s, early 60s, quite high prestige. As a nation, powerful nation, who really, you see, as a champion

[13:28]

for liberty, for freedom. That, the last 30 years, somehow, not going this way, opposite way, that's sad. But this is not my business, your business. Well, following on the theme of you saying Americans acting straightforwardly, we will keep asking straightforward questions of you. Joel, could I just ask His Holiness one thing? In order to have the kind of morality, ethics that's necessary for peace, we must have enormous courage. How do we develop that courage when there's so little support, so little reward for compassion, for caring, or for that kind of efforts in this society? How do we develop that courage? How do we develop the courage

[14:31]

of Jesus to do what is right, no matter what the consequences of it? I don't know. Now, you see, again, I think it's quite peculiar. If you look from another, you see, angle, you see, I mean, those, how to say, how to say, the big leader, they have enough encouragement, courage, courage meant to do some wrong thing. They have a lot of courage for doing things that are, that are crooked. What's that? And how did that come about?

[15:34]

Is that courage or ignorance? Yes, I think, I think. Can I just ask something, I mean, very complicated, I think. Now, ignorance. There are different level of ignorance. In a way, this comes from being too clever, not wise, too clever, crafty. But one thing, I feel, all this is wrong policy, or policy which is based on, you see, how to say, not how to say, not on justice. These things mainly come due to short-sighted, thus I feel.

[16:42]

From wrong view. Yes, wrong view. World, nature, you see, nature trends, always changing, you see. Friendly nation, due to something, you see, unfriendly nation. Unfriendly nation becoming friendly nation. You see, that is something, something nature. Then, under that circumstances, sometimes you see people with short-sighted, short game. And develop that kind of courage to do wrong thing. Hmm. Now, if I think this is sensible person, any sensible person, think deeply, then I think they respect, respect justice, respect to justice.

[17:51]

For justice. For justice. I think in human blood, there is something. Yeah. Something essentially good. I mean. There is an inborn, inborn sort of, His Holiness feels that an appreciation and respect for justice is something inborn within our human body. Now, you see, I think the example, sometimes I feel a small child. So, there are, you see, just, I mean, there are, I think, at that moment, the pureness of human. Hmm. Hmm. So, His Holiness feels that in children, you'll find what is the natural human character.

[18:54]

But then, as they grow up, then we lay upon them a number of artificial constructs, attitudes and so forth, conditioning. So, from that viewpoint, sometimes I found more truthfulness among this small child. So, this shows in human blood. Basically, I think some kind of, how to say, respect or appreciation about truth. This I feel. So, is it thinking, thinking how to say, human nature and environment? I think there are plenty, plenty. There are many valid reasons and situations that would naturally give rise to confidence, to courage, to these qualities. When those qualities don't arise, when we want to help but we're afraid, how then do we call on that natural goodness to surface,

[20:01]

so that our fears, our conditioning, does not obstruct the shared being, the oneness out of which this goodness arises. Please, sir. In this respect, His Holiness feels that there is a very strong role for the media to play. In this respect, His Holiness feels that there is a very strong role for the media to play. I know there are many, you see, I think, many factors. Again, now, basically these things, again, you see, interdependent. But, Your Holiness, the media and education are a very long-term kind of way of going about it.

[21:13]

Stephen's asking about in the moment when a person, himself or herself, has to rise to the occasion and how can a person call on that part of himself which is basically good. That's an individual case. Is that your question? Yes. Individual. Even more precisely, if you experience fear, does fear arise in your mind ever? Yes, sometimes. And what do you meet that with? Now, you see, I think there are two types of, you see, fear or uneasiness. Some, you see, really things are so, I would say, delicate and so important, and then, you see, how to do what, so critical, and how to handle.

[22:13]

Then, how to say, at such moment, naturally, you see, sometimes I get some kind of, how to say, fear or anxiety. Then, as yesterday we discussed, you see, even I myself not very sure, you see, this decision, right or wrong. Even then, you see, first, you see, consult with my friends, and I myself, you see, try, I mean, maximum, how to say, reflection on it. Then, develop, I am a developer, how to say, sincere motivation. Then, take the decision. No regret. Then, you see, no fear. Thus, again, I think, you see, finally, it is very much related with motivation.

[23:17]

There is no, you see, I mean, there is no some negative motivation. Selfishness is not something. So, therefore, deep down, there is no guilty feeling. So, as a result, you see, something very sincere. So, with that motivation, take the decision. Even things may not materialize, may not go as expected, no regret. Just one way. Then, another, you see, fear. Sometimes, you see, just imagination around. Imagination is fear. For that, you see, calmness, and more, how to say, You simply investigate more closely. You ponder it more closely, look into it in more detail, and then that imaginary fear dissipates. Thank you. Your Holiness, speaking of motivation, yesterday we spoke somewhat about dealing with enemies,

[24:33]

dealing with opponents, or dealing with people you are in dispute with. The question arose for several people in the audience is, what motivates someone to act compassionately in relation to an opponent or to an enemy? How do you build up that motivation to do that? What is it? Yes, what is it? What? What? Hmm. Cultivation of that type of compassionate motivation towards one's enemy could be accomplished

[25:34]

through reflecting upon a wider sort of perspective, taking a wider perspective, because since that individual is also a part of the living creatures, and you have the awareness that all living creatures are the same in having the natural instinct to be happy and enjoy happiness and avoid suffering, and also having the same right for being happy and to be rid of suffering. That realization of the sameness of all living creatures, which includes that particular individual, that realization would help you develop this kind of compassionate motivation. In brief, if you already have compassion, then you simply include that person in the group of all sentient beings for whom you already have compassion, so they are already set. But if you don't already have compassion for all sentient beings, then it's difficult to suddenly cultivate compassion for this person who has arisen as your enemy.

[26:37]

Hmm. So if you don't have... So if you don't have compassion for all sentient beings and you're simply focusing on this one person who is your enemy and wanting to feel compassion for him, you're going to be out of luck. All you'll be able to do is say, oh, compassion, but not much more. Your Holiness, today's topic is Paths to Freedom, which is another way of talking about one's response to suffering. And some of the topics we want to talk about today are the willingness to face suffering, which we talked about a bit, penetrating suffering, the willingness to confront all of life, everything, and not to turn away from anything, any aspect,

[27:41]

incorporating the dark side of personality, perhaps the afflictive emotions, for instance, and how to deal with those in life, and overcoming the sense of separateness that makes people... Sense of? Separateness. Oh, I don't see it. The difference, you know, this group is different from my group and so on. And I think our first question for today is from Jack Engler. Your Holiness, is this, is the microphone on? Yeah. Okay. We were talking before about what America's, what America's special mission might be. And I find that one thing we, a characteristic we all have is we tend to, we set out on a path, we tend to think of it in terms of a better technology or a better technique or a better method. And so we start asking questions right away about meditation, and that it's very important to begin approaching any kind of a path with the right view

[28:48]

so that there's some context in which to understand what we're doing. But when we come to this particular tradition, it begins with a very peculiar story of the Buddha's great renunciation, where this man, on one level, abandons his family and abandons his people, his kingdom, and he goes off on a very personal, private search. And the story doesn't tell us what happens to the family and the people so much. And I find myself at a peculiar point in my life, midpoint in my life, where I have, I don't know how this happened, you know, it feels like I've lived my life backwards. I started out as a sannyasi and then became a householder later on, and all my friends and I are passing in opposite directions.

[29:50]

So here I am, I have a home in the suburbs and two cars in the garage and a family and jobs that I work too many hours at, even though I love them. And so I come to this tradition and I say, but I'm still on my search and I'm very sincere about it. But when I come to it, when I come to you as a teacher, I bring my family and I bring my two cars and I bring the grass that won't grow any better than my father was able to make his grass grow. And I bring all of those things with me. What do you say? So first of all, it's not at all the case that such a path of a householder

[30:57]

fully engaged in society is somehow in contradiction or incompatible with the Buddhist path, regardless of the classical story of the Buddha's own life, that it is possible to follow the path to liberation as well as to the omniscient state of Buddhahood while being a householder. This is to be determined on the basis of one's own predilections, one's own interests, capacities. And we also need to take into consideration the needs of society, the needs of society whom we wish to serve. And usually I'm telling those new Buddhists or people who are taking keen interest about Buddhism that although... Although...

[31:59]

His Holiness often advises people in the West who have newly and freshly entered the Buddhist path that it's important as they pursue their spiritual practice not to divorce themselves from Western society. That's important. Wherever you live, you must remain as a good citizen or a good member of the society. That's very important. So from that viewpoint, become a monk, the society or community not very familiar about it, then under such circumstances sometimes... So His Holiness feels that it's quite possible that this being the case, if one were a Buddhist monk in the society,

[33:15]

it would be more difficult to be able to integrate with the society, to interact with people in the society to bring any benefit. So in this light, it seems that it may be better on occasion for a person to be a householder than to be a monk. There's another part of this, though, and that is the question which Dan Brown was going to frame for you, and that is, what can you get differently? Dan, why don't you... I think, Jack, what you have been raising is how in forming a path, how in this culture relationships are important as an aspect of that path, as an aspect of a search for truth. Dan, do you mean relationships as in romantic relationships or more broadly? Intimate relationships.

[34:16]

To give an example from my own personal experience, as Jack was saying, also as a seeker of truth, I spent almost twenty years trying to meditate, and sometimes more or less seriously, sometimes trying to do it with some intensity of twenty, twenty-four hours a day, trying to watch each mind moment in this country and sometimes in South Asia. And what I learned from that was a little bit about the value of the continuity of awareness. And what I also learned is that if you spend many hours watching the states of mind arise in your mind, then you can do that with a little less reactivity. The clinging and aversion still occur, but there's some distance on that. And what I also found valuable is

[35:19]

if you watch that process of constant change in the mind, then it is hard to find some solidness to the self. It is hard to see the ordinary self as... as self-existent. Those were all very useful lessons for me. And like Jack, my path was backwards. Having done all that meditation, I then did a lot of psychotherapy, our Western path, which meant five years of individual psychotherapy with a male therapist, and then seven years of psychoanalysis with a woman. And I found, having done the therapy and the psychoanalysis in this culture, after that presented me with a different sort of experience. And there was something about the quality of the relationship

[36:22]

if you, in psychoanalysis, lie on the couch and talk about your states of mind and verbalize them four or five times a week for an hour, then there's a certain merit and value in expressing those states of mind in the presence of another person whose explicit stance is to not be reactive in the sense of being blaming or criticizing you, and you learn about your own fear of being aware of and expressing whatever comes into your mind to another person, and you learn about that you can have those experiences without the fear of rejection or blame. And that that was not something I had learned so clearly from the meditations, because there was a certain value in exploring my states of mind in the explicit presence of another person whose role was to be accepting and non-judgmental.

[37:29]

And one of the things that I wonder about is how personally I integrate those two things. I see meditation and psychotherapy as both kinds of awareness training, but one tells me more about insight into the workings of the mind, and the other tells me more about intimacy, that is, how to be honest with myself and with the other person when I'm interacting with the other person. And they're both useful, but I don't know exactly how to put these together. And one of the things that I've wondered about is, would that be the character that American Buddhism may take in this culture, a much more relational form of practice? And I wondered what His Holiness would say about his impressions about the nature of relationships and intimacy as a path to practice, both in his culture and his impressions of Western psychotherapy.

[38:33]

Any questions? He's wondering if Western Buddhism... Relationship... He's wondering if Western Buddhism... Relationship... Relationship... For starters, His Holiness doesn't have any experience of this.

[39:58]

And what is this referred to is really the application of psychotherapy, Western psychotherapy, to the Buddhist path. This intimacy is also necessary for a spiritual practice, especially if that individual is trying to overcome his mental problems. Because when you open up yourself mentally, you only do so to someone whom you can trust, someone whom you entrust also from the depth of your heart, someone whom you feel very close, intimately close. And to be able to express this and open yourself

[41:12]

is a very important step in overcoming mental problems. He's wondering if Western Buddhism... So isn't it related to the Buddhist... Isn't it related to the chief practice of the Bodhisattvas, namely that one simply dedicates one's whole life to the benefit of others, one becomes something that is to be utilized, I am here for your use, for all sentient beings. Isn't it very closely related to that principle? So if the other person has this understanding that you are here simply for that person's well-being,

[42:14]

then the benefit can really happen. So His Holiness feels this is a similar situation. You'll find this in the Mahayana teachings dealing with the Bodhisattva way of life. Do you want to pursue the question? Yes, but in Buddhism there are... ... So this also relates, though, to the whole question of attachment. That is, as soon as we speak of intimate relationships, the question of attachment or clinging is bound to arise. And so there's a distinction here in the teachings of the lesser vehicle, the Hinayana teachings. If we look at the two mental distortions or afflictive emotions of hostility on the one hand and clinging on the other,

[43:15]

it's said that clinging is the chief affliction of the mind. If you look in the Mahayana teachings, those concerned with the Bodhisattva path, then between these two, hostility is regarded as the chief affliction of the mind. And moreover, in the Mahayana teachings, attachment or clinging can be brought onto the path, it can be bumped into service to a sentient being. I would like to pursue that a little further, because when I read some of the very excellent, authoritative scriptures in Buddhism on meditation, the path and the unfolding and the stages are very clearly specified. But if I'm interested in using relationship as a vehicle to pursue my practice and to pursue truth, then I don't find any clear way that this is specified.

[44:18]

For example, there are certain principles I can use from Buddhism, and to make it concrete, if I'm having some fight with my wife, it may cause in me hurt, it may cause in me anger, and it makes me want to push away. But at that point, it's useful for me to look at the state of mind, the hurt and the anger, and also to be somewhat self-transcending, to reach out and to say, well, maybe I wasn't being sensitive, maybe I wasn't being understanding, and to see her perspective. At that point, something in me shifts. This concludes Side 1. To continue listening, go now to Side 2. SIDE 2 The afflictions clear away. Now, I find those moments in my interaction with my wife and my friends

[45:19]

very useful as vehicles for growth. But in my opinion, I do not see any way that this has been spelled out or clarified as how one can do this as a practice in Buddhism. Is there such a vehicle? Thank you very much.

[46:32]

Thank you. ... ... ... Generally speaking, Buddha Dhamma, the teachings of the Buddha, are designed to provide remedies for the afflictions of the mind, the distortions or afflictions of the mind, mind, especially the clinging and the hostility. And so these are to be applied in any occasion in which these afflictions arise.

[47:36]

And so if they arise in the context of an intimate relationship, like a conflict arises with one's spouse, and let's say hostility arises, and the Buddhist practice comes in, and the Buddhist practice comes in and helps. It's just to finish that. So I think you already got the message, too, that so wherever the mental distortions may arise, the mental affliction, their Buddhism is to help, so in the context of intimate relationships or otherwise. But I think it's not quite hitting your question, Yen-Ching. Not very clear.

[48:37]

I don't know. Rephrase it. Because the situation is not quite clear, so if you could... There are, in the traditional accounts of practice, it usually comes in stages, and the Buddhist teachings on working with afflictions can easily be applied to conflict with my spouse. Easy. But what about insight? What about understanding emptiness? What about stilling the mind? But how can these principles be applied in the context of an intimate relationship? So His Holiness has a kind of a multifaceted response here, and that is, on the one hand,

[51:58]

we can speak of different domains of spiritual practice, and that is, there are domains or elements of spiritual practice that are more private, that there are more to be practiced in solitude for the cultivation of insight and so forth, and then there are other facets of practice which are better implemented in relationship with other people. So for example, we can say, well, why in Buddhism does one engage with other people? It's chiefly, in the bodhisattva context, to be of service to others. So these two are distinct, but nevertheless they are very related. It's easy to see how one's own private practice, solitary practice or personal practice, will enhance one's relationship with other people, and also, of course, one's interaction with others will act to store merit, or spiritual potential, if you like, on one's own stream, which will then help one in one's own private practice. But then the notion of how the interaction with other people could actually help one's own insight is an interesting area. And one thought that does occur to His Holiness is that in an intimate relationship where there is both love as well as attachment, and the two are mixed, prima facie, if you

[53:00]

should ask, well, how does this help me, how does this help the individual, it's hard to say. It's a complex situation, it's hard to say. But one area where it may be of help is, even in the case that there is attachment or clinging to another person, where the person is arising, the very strong object, and the attachment is arising with a strong sense of I, I love this person, I am grasping to this person. When that arises, it may be helpful then to see this false notion of self and have some insight in the context of that intimate relationship into the notion of emptiness. Since this is a very important question to many of us here, could he elaborate on that as a practice, how to do that? It's very, in that context it's quite easy to see the absence of a self-sufficient autonomous

[54:03]

ego or self in terms of one's own being. So in times of very strong passion, be it of hostility or of craving and desire, there does arise a strong sense of self, which will be arising with the sense that the self, the I, is self-supportive and substantial, self-supporting and substantial. So that one feels that sense of ego or self, and then as it's arising very distinctly, clearly to the mind, then one can turn around and investigate, does such a self exist in reality? One can find that it is not. And likewise when the mind is not particularly roiled up by some type of an affliction or

[55:45]

distortion, then we simply, in terms of the object and the mind that is perceiving object, it simply seems this connection of these two simply seem to be going on in a continuous flow. The momentary nature of these events may not be so evident. However, when the mind is disturbed and aroused with some passion of hostility or attachment, then we can see how agitated and dynamic the mind becomes, in which case it may be easier to realize the impermanence or transience of mental events. But now there is another realm of practice, and that is one recognizing that in the arising of hostility and attachment, there is certainly a lot of energy involved in that. And so in one domain of Buddhist practice, the task here is to not fall into the pitfalls

[56:46]

or the disadvantages of these mental afflictions, but to be able to utilize the energy that goes along with them. Very useful. Thank you. Thank you very much. In the time remaining, we want to turn to some other points, and if you have any questions of course, please feel free. And so His Holiness does have a question, and that is, it's standard practice in the

[58:39]

context of Buddhism, with regards to mental distortions, especially hostility and anger, to reflect again and again upon their disadvantages and destructive nature. The disadvantages, destructive nature, the negative qualities of these, and by so doing, this gradually attenuates or decreases this mental affliction. Now His Holiness has understood in Western practice, especially psychotherapy, that the disadvantages or the destructive effects of repressing these mental afflictions can have very, so very bad effects upon both the body and mind. Recognizing these disadvantages, His Holiness has heard that some people advise, well, you must express the hostility that arises. Is there a practice in Western psychotherapy, not simply for avoiding the repression, but is there a practice for actually reflecting upon the disadvantages of anger? Not simply when it arises, but simply generally, to reflect upon these disadvantages, yeah, the disadvantages of anger, and thereby dissipate it, or decrease its power. Generally speaking, do you feel that it's better to feel repeated anger towards another

[59:49]

person, or is it better not to feel repeated anger towards another person? Ah, that's one, that's one, that's one. So the point is, if we really feel that it's better not to feel anger, if this is our position, it's better not to feel anger, then it would behoove us to find methods that will prevent its arisal in the first place. And here's a question, and that is, what is your own view, that if our motivation is to decrease anger, we feel this is better, does it help in the decreasing of anger to express anger when it arises, or not to express it? Your Holiness, while Dan is thinking of response, let me tell you some...

[60:51]

You know, there's no one answer in Western psychology to question, everyone has a range of opinions, but there's one body of evidence that you may be interested in, it comes from research, not from clinical practice, and that is, it shows that people who express their anger openly, learn to express their anger openly, and more readily express it, that is to say, the more you do it, the more easily it comes. That's just a fact, a given. And that there's another body of research, you spoke about the effect of the emotions on the physical body, that the more readily one expresses anger, that is, the more hostile a person you are, the more prone to disease of every kind you are, physical disease, heart disease, cancer, colds, across the board. So that's an argument for not expressing anger. However, within psychotherapy, there are other points of view, and perhaps we can hear some of those. I'll try.

[61:52]

Gene, did you want to respond? I know Dan has... I think some other people should... I'll try something here. Gene, Stephen, I'd love to hear your ideas. Well, it's very individual to the person that I might be working with, but there is a first principle of knowing what it is you feel. And too very often in childhood, with certain kinds of families, children learn to suppress their feelings, and so they grow up numb, and they don't know what they feel. So that it's important to find out the feelings and actually be able to tap them and express them. And then the notion is that there is an observing ego, not just feelings that lash out, but an observing ego that can know why the anger, what it's about, and can also observe the

[63:01]

detrimental effects that it has on relationship. Gene, could you just clarify observing ego? Could you say it a little differently? Is that a problem? Yes. Oh. It seemed like it was very consistent with what I've been hearing is done in Buddhist practice. There is an observer of the emotion that comes up. There is the observer of the mental process. Observing mind, in other words. Observing mind would be the same as, I'm using observing ego. So that there is in the... to develop an observing ego or an observing mind that then understands when the emotion comes up, what triggers it, what sets it off. And often it is fear. Often it is a repetition of something that was hurtful in the past. And those insights help the person to move away from the situation. Also, often we find that people are angry not at the... we call it transference.

[64:05]

Someone resembles a significant negative figure in our past. Let me give perhaps an example. Your Holiness, if your parent beat you as a child and then later in life you have someone who resembles in some way the parent, you feel anger toward this person. They may not have done anything to you, but you feel the anger from childhood toward that person. That's what's called transference, like a condition. Also, a person often needs to learn that the anger that they've been bottling up for so long isn't really destructive. It doesn't destroy the therapist to express it. It doesn't make them rejectable. And that's a learning process. Often what we do in therapy is really reparenting a very damaged child that's now in the adult. But we also, at least my feeling is that we also are not developing someone who just is

[65:12]

able to easily express anger and just spreads it around. That is a very unhappy soul, a very unhappy person. Something is not right for which he or she should be continuing the work of a combination of spiritual practice, I think, and psychological practice. In my own Jungian analytic work, the two are not separated. One's assumption is that a spiritual element is an essential part of the human being, in the blood, so to speak, and it needs to be tapped. Just to summarize, if I could, the point about expressing anger is that the person will then feel the anger toward the therapist that comes from childhood, and the therapist will encourage them to express the anger, but to observe it with an observing mind. Isn't that correct? To express it verbally, that has to be clear. Express it verbally, yes. Not to flash it.

[66:13]

What you are saying is that as a child, if you are not able to learn how to express your emotions, it bottles up in yourself and you don't develop fully your personality. Therefore, it's better to express so that you can identify, you can observe the different states of emotions and learn to respond to situations which might give rise to them. That's what you are saying. I would add one thing to that. His Holiness feels that there is... His Holiness feels that there might be slight distinctions between mental conflicts, anxieties,

[67:29]

suffering, and so forth, that associates with hostility, feeling of emotions. So, what His Holiness' view is, is because there might be differences between mental conflicts, anxieties, suffering, and so forth, that associates with hostility, feeling of So, what His Holiness' view is, is because there might be slight distinctions between mental conflicts that one feels and the emotions that it gives rise to, anger, hostility, and so forth. Because not being able to express the mental conflicts that you have, then at a later point of your life, when you are able to express it, express these mental conflicts, your anxiety and suffering, then automatically it accompanies with hostility and anger.

[68:34]

So, the point is, it is important to express the suffering, not so much the hostility, but rather the suffering. That is also the point in therapy, too. The anger and the hostility is often the first layer under which the suffering, the suffering is underneath it. There is also a difference between anger and the hostile person. We see anger in children when they are frustrated, when they can't get their way, when they have tried to do something and it hasn't worked. Lots of reasons for getting angry based on frustration, and yet children are not hostile unless they have been maltreated. His Holiness would like to return to his original question, and that is, let alone one's whole

[69:41]

history and childhood experiences, right now one meets with something unpleasant, one feels anger. Is it best to express it or not to express it if one's basic wish is to decrease anger, feel it's better to be free of it? I think that what a lot of us are trying to discover is a middle way between the expression of anger and non-injury. We know that we can't let go of anything we don't accept, so there are qualities in the mind that are so subtle that not much awareness is touching them, or are so associated with confusion and injury in the past, it's very difficult to have access to them, and we find ourselves sometimes surprised at how we act when we're stressed. So I think that what we're trying to discover is how to allow this quality of anger not

[70:42]

to be suppressed or repressed, but to come fully, wholeheartedly into the mind, into awareness, so that they can be met and investigated, and seen as empty and changing. But it seems that if we don't allow it to come up, we can't investigate it. But as it comes wholeheartedly into the mind, it should also come wholeheartedly out of the mouth. I think if it comes wholeheartedly in the mind, there's no compulsion to act on it. It floats in space. One of the ways that that happens, often in psychotherapy, is that the person is encouraged to use fantasy and imagery as a way of imagining all of the possible ways of expressing and all of the consequences of the anger. In that way, the person is not directing the anger in a destructive way to the therapist

[71:44]

or to someone else out there. They're using fantasy and thought as a way of imagining and shaping possibilities. And oftentimes, when they allow themselves to express it in fantasy and to verbalize those fantasies, some shift occurs, some insight occurs. They may, for example, understand that the anger really isn't about the therapist or this other person, but it's conditioned by some event in their past. They may discover that the anger is not the real feeling, but they are feeling hurt, or they're feeling betrayed, or they're feeling rejected. And at that point, there's a space that one finds where the anger can be there in awareness without the need to do anything with it. And that awareness without the need to act is a kind of middle path between the extremes of having it out of awareness, suppressing it, or the other extreme of the compulsion to act in a destructive way. You're new.

[72:51]

Take care, OK? Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. You're welcome. OK. Is this on? Yeah. I must say, I must first of all express my profound gratitude to Dan Brown for his courage in opening what seems to me a groundbreaking vein of inquiry into the bridges between

[74:04]

Buddha's thoughts and what's going on here among us therapists, you know. I must also express my deep gratitude for Your Holiness's patience in trying to really understand what the question was in the first place. And I would only add to this whole line of discussion, which I found marvelous myself, I mean, I'm having a really wonderful time, the following, which is, I would say, Stephen, that perhaps the question is not to find a middle ground or a moderate ground, but rather to see how to integrate the dark side or the aversive emotions with the positive side.

[75:11]

And this is the nature of the creative process, which is after all what I have been trying to study for some two decades now. So that really the great revolution that Eric Erickson has brought, a quantum leap beyond Freud, is to say that what we are trying to do from the beginning of our development as babies in the mutuality, for instance, between a nursing mother and a baby, where both people are together getting something from the transaction, meaning it's not a question of one person simply giving to the other and the other simply taking. It's a mutuality. The mother is very relieved when the infant nurses. That's the model, it seems to me, both for psychotherapy when we're good, when we practice

[76:12]

it, but also for later human development, so that the real hope and aim is not simply a middle ground but an integrated ground, so that that part of the self which is going to war with another part of the self and be judging and harsh and punitive will now instead be compassionate to another part of the self. In our lingo we would call that a benevolent superego, for instance. In our language, lingo language. Don't use lingo. No, okay. So really finally only that I would say that the necessity not only to find an integrating way between a spouse who's arguing with, in this case, his wife, or within oneself, or

[77:18]

between two nations, that it's always the same to find a creative, negotiated, whether it's inside yourself or between two people or between two nations, to find a negotiated creative solution, so that when the most creative statesman, for instance, on our planet today, in my opinion, who was Gorbachev, says such a thing as what we need is a new way of thinking, he is really saying that history no longer permits us to keep doing what we were doing up till now in history, to settle questions of power, domination, oppression by violence, because the technology may wipe out the whole thing. So he's saying we are at a moment in history when we must find creative solutions so that we recognize what the differences are between us, but achieve something which really makes

[78:23]

the mutuality possible and thus coexistence possible. Any other final comments? We're reaching the end of our time for this morning's session. Any other questions, Your Holiness? Thank you very much. Please remain in the hall while His Holiness leaves. This concludes tape number three.

[79:07]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ