generosity & dignity

from beyond religion by the dalai lama

"a key element in biased feelings is what we can call 'attachment.' once, at a scientific conference in argentina, a mentor of my friend francisco varela told me that, as a scientist, he should not be too attached to his own field of research, as this might distort his ability to assess evidence objectively. hearing these words, i immediately felt they should also apply to the religious domain. for example, as a buddhist, i should strive not to develop excessive attachment toward buddhism. for to do so would hinder my ability to see the value of other faith traditions.

furthermore, when there is an element of attachment, our affection and concern for others are often dependent on the way those others relate to us. we feel concern for those who care for us and treat us well. but when our affection is dependent on the fulfillment of our own goals and expectations, which we project onto others, it will always be very fragile. so long as the others meet our expectations, everything is fine, but as soon as they do not, our feelings of affection can easily turn to resentment and even hatred."

"furthermore, although compassion arises from empathy, the two are not the same. empathy is characterized by a kind of emotional resonance -- feeling with the other person. compassion, in contrast, is not just sharing experience with others, but also wishing to see them relieved of their suffering. being compassionate does not mean remaining entirely at the level of feeling, which could be quite draining. after all, compassionate doctors would not be very effective if they were always preoccupied with sharing their patients' pain. compassion means wanting to do something to relieve the hardships of others, and this desire to help, far from dragging us further into suffering ourselves, actually gives us energy and a sense of purpose and direction. when we act upon this motivation, both we and those around us benefit still more."

"for many, it seems, there is a conflict between the principle of compassion, which implies forgiveness, and the exercise of justice, which requires punishment for wrongdoing. as they see it, the principle of justice or fairness, rather than that of compassion, must underpin any humanistic approach to ethics. to give priority to compassion and forgiveness, they argue, would allow perpetrators of harm to go unpunished and hand victory to the aggressors. the ethic of compassion, they say, amounts to little more than an ethic of victimhood, under which aggression always triumphs, wrongdoing is always forgiven, and the weak are defenseless. 

this objection rests, in my view, on a fundamental misunderstanding of what compassion entails in practice. nothing in the principle of compassion - the wish to see others relieved of suffering - involves surrendering to the misdeeds of others. nor does compassion demand that we meekly accept injustice. far from promoting weakness or passivity, compassion requires great fortitude and strength of character."

"compassion demands that we condemn wrong actions and oppose them with all means necessary, while at the same time forgiving and maintaining an attitude of kindness toward the perpetrators of those actions."

"an austrian economist named ernst fehr introduced an interesting concept that he calls 'altruistic punishment.' he illustrated the concept by means of a game of trust. the game is played in rounds and involves ten players. the players are given equal amounts of money and asked to contribute some of it to a collective fund. the experimenter explains that in each round the total amount the players contribute to this fund will be doubled and then redistributed equally among them. in the early rounds, most players are quite generous, making substantial contributions to the central fund, in the belief that others will do the same. this, i think, reflects the intuitively optimistic side of human nature. inevitably, however, there are some individuals who hold back and contribute nothing. in basic monetary terms, they see that what profits them most is to keep their share of what is given, without spending any money of their own. such people, i understand, are known in the language of economics as 'free riders.' as a result of their behavior, the other players start to feel they are being taken advantage of, and begin to contribute less and less to the central fund until finally, usually by about the tenth round, the entire system breaks down. at this stage, no one is willing to contribute, even though the experimenter's offer to double any money contributed is still in place. 

at this point the players are introduced to the notion of altruistic punishment, a mechanism by which they can punish the free riders. by contributing some of their own money to a nonrefundable punishment bin, they are able to force free riders to pay double that amount. so, for example, by spending three dollars on punishment, a player can make the free rider pay six dollars. as it turns out, once this system is introduced into the game, cooperation between players can be sustained more of less indefinitely. would-be free riders are deterred from taking advantage of others, and as a result the players continue to contribute to the central fund and everyone benefits. 

although this experiment was principally designed to test a theory in economics, i feel that it also contains a universally applicable message. it shows us that punishment can be exacted in a way that benefits everyone, including wrongdoers themselves. it illustrates the point that punishment which does not exact revenge, but rather corrects the wrongdoer, is in everyone’s interest.”

"in moments of anger or irritation, we may be rude to loved ones or aggressive toward others. later we may feel some remorse or regret, but when looking back on our outburst, we do not fail to distinguish between what we did and who we are. we naturally forgive ourselves and perhaps resolve not to do the same thing again. given that we find it so easy to forgive ourselves, surely we can extend the same courtesy to others! of course not everyone is able to forgive [themself], and this can be an obstacle. for such people, it may be important to practice compassion and forgiveness towards themselves, as the foundation for practicing compassion and forgiveness toward others."

"practicing awareness is not quite the same as listening to your conscience, however. in buddhist ethical theory there is no idea of the conscience as a distinct mental faculty. but being conscientious is still very important. it is described in terms of two key mental mental qualities, namely self-respect and consideration of others.

the first of these, self-respect, relates to having a sense of personal integrity, a self-image as a person who upholds certain values. so when we are tempted to indulge in harmful behavior, our self-image acts as a restraint, as we think 'this is unbecoming of me.' the second mental quality, consideration of others, pertains to having a healthy regard for others' opinions, especially for their potential disapproval. together, these two factors give us an added level of caution about doing wrong which can strengthen our moral compass."

"in the context of secular ethics, perhaps the antidote to destructive emotion with the most urgent and immediate relevance for our everyday lives is what is called soe pa in tibetan. though usually translated as patience, soe pa also includes the virtues of tolerance, forbearance, and forgiveness. what it really means is the ability to endure suffering. it entails not giving in to our instinctive urge to respond negatively to our difficulties. but soe pa has nothing to do with being either passive or impotent. it is not a case of tolerating something just because you do not have the ability to hit back. nor is it enduring injustice grudgingly, through gritted teeth. instead, genuine patience requires great strength. it is fundamentally the exercise of restraint based on mental discipline. there are three aspects of patience, or forbearance, to consider: forbearance toward those who harm us, acceptance of suffering, and acceptance of reality."

"the only effective antidote to greed is moderation and contentment.

of course, in extolling the benefits of simplicity and modesty, i am not suggesting that poverty is acceptable. on the contrary, poverty is a tremendous hardship, one that we must do all we can to end. in addition to making survival a struggle, poverty tends to disempower people and make them feel cowed or demoralized. in these ways, it makes the poor suffer greatly. on the personal level, however, the sooner we accept that riches alone do not bring happiness, and the sooner we learn to live with a sense of modesty, the better off we will be, especially with respect to our happiness. 

time and geography will always impose limits on how much wealth anyone can succeed in accruing in a single lifetime. given this natural limit, it seems wiser to set one's own limits through the exercise of contentment. in contrast, when it comes to acquiring mental riches, the potential is limitless. here, where there is no natural limit, it is appropriate not to be contented with what you have, but to constantly strive for more. unfortunately, most of us do the exact opposite. we are never quite satisfied with what we have materially, but we tend to be thoroughly complacent about our mental riches."

"it is useful to begin by reflecting on the harm we do to ourselves, even physically, when we succumb to temptation and bad habits. then we can also consider the harm that our bad habits inflict on others. it is easy to assume that our personal behavior and habits have no real effect on others, but this is seldom the case. suppose, for example, that one member of a family is addicted to drugs. although, of course, the other family members will not suffer the direct physical and mental ill effects of the drug, this does not mean they will not be harmed. in all likelihood they will be deeply afflicted by worry and concern, as well as by whatever other agonies and complications may accompany the situation. so, when considering the harm we inflict through a lack of self-discipline in our personal habits, we should always be mindful of those who care about our welfare and those whose welfare is intimately connected to our own.

it can also be useful to consider the harmful effects of a lack of self-discipline at a wider social level. in my view the problem of corruption, which is prevalent in so many parts of the world, is actually nothing but a failure of self-discipline. corruption is always a surrender to self-serving attitudes of greed, bias, and dishonesty. even the existence of a fair and just legal system becomes of little value when that system is paralyzed by corruption.

with the awareness that comes from contemplating the consequences of a lack of self-discipline, we can gradually develop a greater ability to resist temptation in our own life. eventually, with sustained practice, self-discipline will start to come naturally and will no longer require conscious effort and willpower. at that point, when restraint and moderation come naturally, we begin to feel the great sense of freedom that comes with self-mastery. this virtue of self-discipline is extolled in all the world's major religious traditions. . .

gaining mastery over our destructive propensities through the exercise of awareness and self-discipline at the levels of body, speech, and mind frees us from the inner turmoil that naturally arises when our behavior is at odds with our ideals. in place of this turmoil come confidence, integrity, and dignity"

"classical buddhist texts describe generosity in terms of four kinds of giving: first, the giving of material goods; second, the giving of freedom from fear, which means offering safety and security to others and dealing with them honestly; third, the giving of spiritual counsel, which entails offering comfort, concern, and advice to support others' psychological and emotional well-being; and fourth, the giving of love.

an important point to recognize at the outset is that the aim of any of these four kinds of giving should never be to ingratiate oneself with others, but should always be to benefit the recipient. if one's motivation is in any way connected to seeking one's own benefit, this is not genuine generosity.

classical buddhist texts also note the need to be discerning when engaging in acts of generosity. for example, in addition to ensuring the soundness of one's motivation, they discuss the need to be aware of specific contexts in which giving might not be appropriate. giving disproportionately, or giving to someone at a wrong time, might do the recipient more harm than good. and clearly there are certain items, such as poisons or weapons, which are, by their very nature, inappropriate for giving. if what we give is likely to be used to harm others, the principle of compassion dictates that we shun giving in that context. furthermore, these texts emphasize the need to be sure we are giving out of respect for the recipient, not out of a sense of superiority. a genuine act of generosity will honor the recipient's dignity."

the world of our emotions

excerpt from beyond religion by the dalai lama

interestingly, in the classical buddhist science of mind in which i am trained, there is no concept of emotion as a single category that precisely corresponds to the understanding of emotion in contemporary western psychology. indeed, there is no word in either sanskrit or classical tibetan that exactly translates the word "emotion." instead, all mental states are understood to include both cognitive and feeling dimensions to some degree, and to contain five omnipresent mental factors, of which "feeling" is one. the other four are discrimination, volition, attention, and contact. so even a cognitive mental process as simple as counting from one to ten is regarded as having some kind of "feeling" or "feeling tone," which naturally is related to context.

there are also various ways of categorizing our emotional states. for example, in contemporary psychology the main distinction is often drawn between emotional states which, on the one hand, are pleasurable or joyful and are described as positive, and those which, on the other hand, are unpleasant or painful and are described as negative.

in classical buddhist psychology, however, the distinction is rather different. instead, the primary distinction is not between those states which are pleasurable and those that are painful, but between those that are beneficial and those that are harmful. "afflictive" mental states, known as nyonmong in tibetan or klesha in sanskrit, are those which undermine our long-term well-being, while "non-afflictive" mental states are those which have no such destructive impact.

given these different ways of categorizing emotional experience, it is important for readers not to confuse those emotions which are afflictive - that is to say, harmful to our long-term well-being - with those which simply don't feel good. of course, sometimes these overlap. feelings of hatred, for example, are both destructive and unpleasant to experience, but there can also be experiences which may not be pleasant but can nevertheless be beneficial, and in the same way there can be feelings that are pleasant which nevertheless can be destructive. for instance, feelings of sadness, grief, and remorse are certainly not pleasurable, but they need not in themselves be afflictive. when faced, say, with the death of a loved one, feelings of grief and sorrow may actually be quite constructive in helping us come to terms with our loss and move on with our lives. in the same way, emotions which may initially seem pleasurable can nevertheless be destructive at a deeper level by undermining our mental peace and stability. one example might be lust, or excessive longing for a particular object. such longing may in some sense seem pleasurable. but eventually obsessive craving will erode our capacity for genuine contentment and undermine our mental equilibrium, and should therefore be considered destructive.

in the context of secular ethics, this distinction between those mental states which undermine well-being - our own and that of others - and those which promote survival and well-being can be very useful, since it is directly relevant to our pursuit of happiness and an ethically sound way of life. given that people come from many different backgrounds and cultures, which states are to be considered destructive and which are to be considered beneficial may vary in particular cases. generally speaking, we can define destructive emotions as those states which undermine our well-being by creating inner turmoil, thereby undermining self-control and depriving us of mental freedom. within this, it is also possible to distinguish between two sub-categories: those emotional states that are destructive in themselves, such as greed, hatred, or malice; and those states, such as attachment, anger, or fear, which only become destructive when their intensity is disproportionate to the situation in which they arise.

from a biological perspective, all our basic emotions evidently have evolutionary purposes. for example, attachment helps bring us together and enables us to create bonds, anger helps us repel forces that are detrimental to our survival and well-being, fear enables us to respond to a threat with vigilance, and envy prompts us to compete with others so that we do not overlook our own needs. scientists have demonstrated that these basic emotions have clear biological dimensions. when we face an immediate danger, for example, and fear arises, extra blood rushes to our legs, and with increased adrenaline and our hearts beating faster, the emotion of fear literally prepares us to flee. in contrast, when anger arises, more blood goes to our arms, preparing us to confront the threat. so the important point to bear in mind is that these feelings are not destructive in themselves; they become destructive only when their intensity is out of proportion to the situation, or when they arise in situations that do not call for them.

as for attachment, which after all is the feeling that holds families and communities together, we do not usually think of it as destructive. however, when this basic emotion becomes excessive and wants to control its object, it does become destructive. this is true also of desire. in itself, desire is not destructive. after all, without desire, the human race would cease to exist altogether! in fact, desire is the emotion that drives many of our day-to-day activities -- from getting up in the morning to eating, working, and pursuing our immediate and long-term goals in life.

similarly, even anger is not always destructive. for example, in some situations strong compassion may give rise to an equally strong sense of outrage -- that is, anger -- about an injustice. again, feeling angry can, in the short term, make our minds more focused and give us an extra burst of energy and determination. in these ways, anger can, in certain situations, make us more effective in getting things done and in obtaining what we seek. however, when anger extends beyond this practical function, most of the energy it brings us is not helpful at all. since all of us have probably, at one time or another, been on the receiving end of other people's anger, we all have experience of its unpleasant consequences.

however, while anger may sometimes have a constructive element, hatred never does. hatred is always destructive.

like anger, fear is not destructive in every situation. fear makes us more attentive and guards us against danger. it is also a powerful motivating factor, forcing us to be cautious and to take care of our well-being. but when fear is obsessive, it can paralyze us and become a very destructive mental condition. furthermore, excessive fear gives rise to a persistent state of anxiety, which is harmful to our health. i therefore often distinguish between reasonable fear and unreasonable fear. the first kind is not only legitimate but actually necessary to our survival. if a mad dog comes running at us, we need to respond to this danger with fear. this is obvious. in contrast, unreasonable fear occurs when the source of threat is largely our own mental projection. we need to keep this kind of fear in check, for it is totally useless and often destructive. what we need to counter unreasonable fear is a better understanding of the situation at hand.

this dual aspect of emotions -- that all of them have destructive and nondestructive sides -- can also be seen in other mental states such as doubt, shame, grief, competitiveness, and even our sense of ego itself. doubt is the mental factor that enables us to inquire and seek out understanding. indeed, i always say that a dose of skepticism is quite healthy in that it opens our minds to questioning and new knowledge. however, when doubt becomes pathological it can paralyze us and prevent us from taking any decisive action. the same is true of shame. at the basic level, shame is an important social emotion which has a constructive function; nevertheless, when shame becomes extreme, it can lead to low self-regard and negative self-judgment, which are clearly not constructive. with respect to grief or sorrow, in some situations this emotion is constructive and has a positive effect. but when it becomes something like a habit of mind, divorced from any realistic cause, it may be destructive, as when it manifests as self-absorbed grief or as depression.

competitiveness, too, can be constructive, as when our competitive urge motivates us to strive to achieve something better or higher. however, when competitiveness acquires an aspect of wanting to put others down or hold them back so we can out-achieve them, it then becomes destructive.

in egoism, too, we can distinguish between two kinds. a strong sense of self can be constructive, the basis for generating self-confidence -- the state of mind that allows us to feel, "yes, i can do this." but another form of egoism is evident when, in pursuing our own self-interest, we become totally oblivious to others' welfare and even willing to exploit others to benefit ourselves. this type of egoism is clearly destructive.

so, when we are dealing with matters as subtle a human mental processes, it is important not to be too dogmatic. it is difficult or impossible to determine whether or not a given mental state is destructive without knowing its context. often we can make this determination only by taking into account the underlying motivation, the specific object of the emotion, the consequences of the emotion, and so on. in the area of the human mind, therefore, we should always maintain an attitude of open-mindedness, pragmatism, and flexibility.

(((())))

one feature that characterizes all destructive emotions is a tendency to distort our perception of reality. they cause us to narrow our perspective so that we fail to see a given situation in its wider context. for example, when we are feeling an extreme form of attachment -- such as intense desire, lust, or greed -- often we are projecting a level of attractiveness onto the object of our desire which far exceeds what is really there. we become blind even to quite obvious shortcomings and in our obsessive clinging we create a kind of insecurity in ourselves, a feeling that we need to obtain the object of our desire and are incomplete without it. excessive attachment tends also to involve a desire to control, which can be very suffocating when the object of that desire happens to be another person. because of this, extreme attachment is by nature quite unstable. one moment we may feel great affection for something or someone, but when, for example, our desire for control is thwarted, this feeling can easily turn to resentment or hatred.

a similar loss of perspective characterizes extreme of intense emotions of aversion, such as anger, hatred, contempt, or resentment. when we are gripped by intense anger, for example, the object of our rage will always appear one hundred percent negative, even though in moments of calm we may recognize that the same person or thing has many admirable qualities. the overly strong emotion causes us to lose our capacity for discernment. we cannot see the long- and short-term consequences of our actions, and as a result we are unable to distinguish between right and wrong. we literally, for a moment, become almost mad, incapable of acting in our own best interest. and then, after the event, when the emotion cools, how often we regret what we have done or said in anger!

. . .

the point about all these afflictive mental states is that, in one way or another, they obscure our vision by clouding our capacity for discernment. they make us incapable of rational judgment, and thus we might say they steal our minds.

(((())))

one helpful approach to understanding our destructive emotions is to view them as related families distinguished by the kind of underlying state of mind they involve. for example, as i have said, the emotions of the anger family, such as hatred, enmity, and malice, are characterized by an exaggerated repulsion, while those of the attachment family, such as greed, lust, and craving, are characterized by an equally exaggerated sense of attraction. the other main families of afflictive emotions -- envy, pride, and doubt -- involve mixtures of excessive attraction on the one hand (such as the excessive attachment to a deluded self-image in the case of pride) and excessive repulsion on the other (such as the excessive sense of enmity toward a rival in the case of envy). as we have already seen, in addition to this element of excessive revulsion or attraction or unhealthy mixtures of the two, all afflictive emotions are further characterized by an unrealistic or deluded perspective.

envy is a somewhat complex family of afflictions, since its root lies in attachment and attraction yet it also has a strong element of anger, hostility, and repulsion. recent scientific research on happiness has found that one of the primary sources of discontent in today's world, especially in the more affluent societies, is our human tendency to compare ourselves to those around us. fundamentally this comes down to the problem of envy.

the afflictive family of pride or conceit, which includes destructive attitudes such as arrogance, prejudice, and even obsessive or unrealistic embarrassment, also involves a mixture of attraction and repulsion: attraction, for example, to an unrealistic or deluded self-image, and repulsion or disdain toward anyone or anything that threatens that cherished self-image. this attachment to an inflated self-image, whether based on social status, accomplishment, or the circumstances of our birth, may prompt us to actions that are disrespectful of others, and such actions are destructive both to the welfare of others and to ourselves.

finally, there is the family of afflictive doubt, which encompasses such destructive emotions as anxiety and obsessive guilt. these are grounded in habitual fear and in unrealistic self-loathing, which are very damaging to our ability to be compassionate. emotions of the afflictive doubt family can therefore be highly detrimental to our own sense of well-being.

these then are the destructive emotions which i consider the main obstacles to human well-being -- not only our own individual well-being, but also that of those around us, and ultimately that of the very world we share. these emotions fundamentally undermine our capacity to put positive ethical values, such as compassion, into practice. only when we fully recognize the negative repercussions of such destructive emotions and expose their futility and impracticality as responses will we be able to go about tackling them effectively.

our inner development with regard to regulating our destructive emotions calls for a two-pronged approach. one the one hand, we must seek to reduce the impact of the destructive potentials that are inherent within us; on the other, we must seek to enhance the positive qualities that also naturally exist within us. this two-pronged approach to mental training is what i consider to be the heart of genuine spiritual practice.

(((())))

in order to go about dealing with these destructive emotions, it is first of all necessary to adopt a general attitude or stance toward them: a stance of opposition.

such a stance involves recognizing that the law of opposition -- whereby positives cancel out or neutralize negatives -- applies not just to the physical world but also to our inner or mental world. in the great wisdom traditions we find clear lessons both on the mental states that are to be tackled and on the need to cultivate and deploy their antidotes. if no opposing forces exist for our destructive emotions, then there is nothing we can do about them. however, if opposite, positive forces do exist, then they can become powerful antidotes. for example, the main antidote for anger is forbearance, for greed is contentment, for fear is courage, and for doubt is understanding.