The Dalai Lama at Stanford

October 21, 2010 12:39 PM

The Dalai Lama on changing minds only through compassion and respect. He spent several days at Stanford recently, and this session focuses on the neuroscience of compassion. Watch it in full here.
posted by philipy (56 comments total)

I Kinda don't like it when religion (mine included) uses science to back up their own claims of faith. It seems like they're picking and choosing what science to accept, and which to not.

Kinda bothers me.

But living with compassion and respect...its probably some good living.
posted by hal_c_on at 12:42 PM on October 21, 2010 [3 favorites]

I think Dalai Lama is a pretty cool guy. eh proclaims that Steven Seagal was a tulku and a reincarnated lama of Tibetan Buddhism and doesnt afraid of anything.
posted by signalnine at 12:53 PM on October 21, 2010

For further info, one of our profs has a longstanding relationship with His Holiness and a bunch of other Buddhist monks. He uses brain imaging to map out things like mindfulness and meditation in relation to compassion and kindness, and his research has shown that meditation can indeed change brain wave patterns.

I'm kind of surprised, actually, that he wasn't at the accompanying conference at Stanford, but maybe the compassion is mixed with a bit of competitiveness :)
posted by Madamina at 12:54 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I Kinda don't like it when religion (mine included) uses science to back up their own claims of faith. It seems like they're picking and choosing what science to accept, and which to not.

I'm not sure that that sort of thing really applies in the case of the Dalai Lama, though. He's made it pretty clear on several occasions that he believes that science trumps blind faith, and that he thinks that faith needs to adjust itself based on science, not the other way around. For example, he's quoted as saying:

My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 12:57 PM on October 21, 2010 [23 favorites]

if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

Seriously?

A quick looking over in wikipedia (yeah, yeah...apologies from the getgo) shows a lot of the claims to have been conclusively proven as "not good for you" by science.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:10 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't know that science has ever addressed the concepts of karma or rebirth.
posted by rtha at 1:17 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't know that science has ever addressed the concepts of karma or rebirth.

Nor moral rectitude, nor any number of ineffable things.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:45 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't know that science has ever addressed the concepts of karma or rebirth.

Actually I had this explained to me once and I can't recite it. It had to do with transference of energy, it wasn't supernatural at all, strictly physics. Yeah I know, this comment is specious, and before I get crucified for sounding like a non-atheist on Metafiler, let me just say that it made some sense at the time and I'm not a complete idiot, believe it or not.
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:08 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

> I don't know that science has ever addressed the concepts of karma or rebirth.

I'm not religious or "spiritual" by any stretch of the imagination, but the topic of rebirth has been scientifically investigated. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation was written by University of Virgnia professor Dr. Ian Stevenson, who used fairly rigorous methods to show something like reincarnation could have happened with the people he examined, without relying on or referencing any philosophy or theology.
posted by ayerarcturus at 2:10 PM on October 21, 2010

UPDATE...Dalai Lama after meeting with Tea Party activists: "Never mind that compassion horseshit...these nitwits need to be kicked until their asses order out for Chinese."
posted by Pants McCracky at 2:23 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

It had to do with transference of energy, it wasn't supernatural at all, strictly physics.

As you predicted, this comment made my eyes bulge from their sockets. Just because an explanation is couched in scientific terms does not make it science. The idea that a soul is just some sort of vague energy stuff hasn't been seriously considered by science since the early 19th century. The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is so much more interesting than a simple repository for Energy.
posted by IjonTichy at 2:23 PM on October 21, 2010 [4 favorites]

If a paunchy, middle-aged Christian with a working class accent and the wrong shirt uttered the same sentiments as Mr. Lama, you'd all turn deaf.
posted by Faze at 2:24 PM on October 21, 2010 [10 favorites]

As you predicted, this comment made my eyes bulge from their sockets. Just because an explanation is couched in scientific terms does not make it science. The idea that a soul is just some sort of vague energy stuff hasn't been seriously considered by science since the early 19th century. The mind is what the brain does, and the brain is so much more interesting than a simple repository for Energy.

Yeah yeah. Don't get bent outta shape. I said I didn't recall it correctly. It probably wasn't even about the dreaded "energy" word.
posted by Liquidwolf at 2:30 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

The way reincarnation was explained to me by Tibetans in the context of a sky burial in Tibet was that it's not that your self is some coherent thing that enters the body of something else, but that the energy that comprises your body and your self dissipates and returns to the system from which it came. That's all. No magic. Nothing to believe except that we're comprised of something.

This is from both some country-ass Tibetans miles and miles outside of Lhasa and a gentleman belonging to, I gather, the hip youth of Lhasa.
posted by cmoj at 2:31 PM on October 21, 2010

If a paunchy, middle-aged Christian with a working class accent and the wrong shirt uttered the same sentiments as Mr. Lama, you'd all turn deaf.

If the paunchy middle-aged Christians who are running this country were talking about compassion and respecting those you disagree with I, for one, would most certainly not turn deaf. My head might explode, but that's a different issue.
posted by cmoj at 2:34 PM on October 21, 2010 [12 favorites]

The way reincarnation was explained to me by Tibetans in the context of a sky burial in Tibet was that it's not that your self is some coherent thing that enters the body of something else, but that the energy that comprises your body and your self dissipates and returns to the system from which it came. That's all. No magic. Nothing to believe except that we're comprised of something.

The problem is that it's tautological; yes, our component parts are broken down and are made into other things by the natural processes of the world (i.e. plants, animals, and bacteria feeding on our carcasses. No, there's nothing mystical or spiritual about that; to quote a wretchedly overquoted work, we're the same decaying organic matter as everything else. To elevate that to some kind of spiritual insight is like saying "objects in motion tend to remain in motion, while objects at rest tend to stay at rest" and having everybody ooh and ahh over how deep you are.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:36 PM on October 21, 2010

Mr. Lama?
posted by Marty Marx at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2010

"The way reincarnation was explained to me by Tibetans in the context of a sky burial in Tibet was that it's not that your self is some coherent thing that enters the body of something else, but that the energy that comprises your body and your self dissipates and returns to the system from which it came. That's all. No magic. Nothing to believe except that we're comprised of something."

This is like saying that if I build a pirate ship out of Legos, and then an awesome castle, that the castle is a "reincarnation" of the pirate ship.

Now, you can of course define your terms such that this is a true statement; if you do so, however, I would claim that the concept of "reincarnation" is no longer useful or meaningful.
posted by IjonTichy at 2:41 PM on October 21, 2010 [4 favorites]

The problem is that it's tautological

I agree, and I suspect we're saying the same thing here. There's a Western brand of Eastern philosophy that bends everything into a spiritual shape rather than a mostly logical one. Which is fine if it helps you understand it, but for a lot of people that also comes with some sense of "being with it" or something that translates into a holier-than-thou-ness that's totally unpalatable. I don't read the Dala Lama as feeling that way.

As always, IANAB.
posted by cmoj at 2:44 PM on October 21, 2010

This is like saying that if I build a pirate ship out of Legos, and then an awesome castle, that the castle is a "reincarnation" of the pirate ship.

Exactly!

Now, you can of course define your terms such that this is a true statement; if you do so, however, I would claim that the concept of "reincarnation" is no longer useful or meaningful.

I find it pretty useful and meaningful to understand that I'm not discrete from the rest of the universe.
posted by cmoj at 2:46 PM on October 21, 2010 [6 favorites]

"The way reincarnation was explained to me by Tibetans in the context of a sky burial in Tibet was that it's not that your self is some coherent thing that enters the body of something else, but that the energy that comprises your body and your self dissipates and returns to the system from which it came. That's all. No magic. Nothing to believe except that we're comprised of something."

This is like saying that if I build a pirate ship out of Legos, and then an awesome castle, that the castle is a "reincarnation" of the pirate ship.

Now, you can of course define your terms such that this is a true statement; if you do so, however, I would claim that the concept of "reincarnation" is no longer useful or meaningful.

Karma is a complicated subject. There is karma in a table, in a chair, in a knife, all sorts of things.

The other thing is that it clumps. So both of you could be right. A portion of a person's Karma can go into another person's body.

But I think that Borges put it best:

There is, furthermore, the legend of Buddha. We may disbelieve this legend. I have a Japanese friend, a Zen Buddhist, with whom I have had long and friendly arguments. I told him that I believed in the historic truth of Buddha. I believed and I believe that two thousand five hundred years ago there was a Nepalese prince called Siddharta or Gautama who became the Buddha, that is, the Awoken, the Lucid One – as opposed to us who are asleep or who are dreaming this long dream which is life. I remember one of Joyce’s phrases: “History is a nightmare from which I want to awake.” Well then, Siddharta, at thirty years of age, awoke and became Buddha.
I argued with that friend who was a Buddhist (I’m not sure that I’m a Christian and am sure that I’m not a Buddhist) and I said to him: “Why not believe in Prince Siddharta, who was born in Kapilovastu five hundred years before the Christian era?” He replied: “Because it’s of no importance; what’s important is to believe in the Doctrine”. He added, I think with more ingenuity than truth, that to believe in the historical existence of Buddha or to be interested in it would be like confusing the study of mathematics with the biography of Pythagoras or Newton. One of the subjects of meditation which the monks in the monasteries of Japan and China practice is to doubt the existence of Buddha. It is one of the doubts they must assume in order to reach the truth. The other religions demand much more credulity on our part. If we are Christians we must believe that one of the three persons of the Divinity condescended to become a man and was crucified in Judea. If we are Muslims we must believe that there is no other god than God and that Mohammad is his apostle. We can be good Buddhists and deny that Buddha existed. Or, rather, we may think, we must think that our belief in history isn’t important: what is important is to believe in the Doctrine. Nevertheless, the legend of Buddha is so beautiful that we cannot help but refer to it.

It doesn't matter whether or not reincarnation is true. It makes the Dharma no less of the right way to live one's life.

Now I believe that some sort of strange physics covers the way that we interact with one another and that the energy put in motion does tend to stay in motion, and that life is lived best when that motion is stilled. I also am pretty confident, that one of the ways that energy stays in motion is in staying somewhat clumped in a group and entering the stream of life in another location.

But I don't need that to know that the Dharma has a lot to teach me, and that I have a lot more of it to learn.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:51 PM on October 21, 2010 [5 favorites]

I find it pretty useful and meaningful to understand that I'm not discrete from the rest of the universe.

But that's already right there, in the science! I guess I'm just failing to understand what the spiritual gloss of calling that "reincarnation" adds.
posted by IjonTichy at 2:51 PM on October 21, 2010

She has spoken wisely and well for a woman. Believe me then when I note that it also not easy for me as a man to age and find my handsomeness , well, beginning to fade a bit.
posted by Postroad at 3:06 PM on October 21, 2010

But that's already right there, in the science! I guess I'm just failing to understand what the spiritual gloss of calling that "reincarnation" adds.

So it can only be spiritual if it has no relationship with science? That's very, umm, Western of you.

When I started college I took a bunch of philosophy classes, because I loved reading Hofstadter and Dennett and really wanted to know how the mind works. I was shocked when all my classes delved into a bunch of nonsense about truth and justice -- unprovable, unscientific, hand-wavey crap, I thought.

It took years after that to come to appreciate the notion of philosophy not as "how things work" but as "principles of deliberative existence." I still think a lot of philosophy gets hung up on questions like "is there free will in a deterministic universe?" when the real question is "how do you assign responsibility for a decision?" There may or may not be overlap with science, and in many cases the answer may seem a trivial restating of empirical fact, but the two really have little direct bearing on each other. Philosophy (and I consider most of Buddhism as more philosophy than religion) is a study of the questions faced by all conscious, moral, mortal agents in an ephemeral universe; as such an agent, this notion of reincarnation is neither meaningless nor trivial.
posted by bjrubble at 3:17 PM on October 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

So it can only be spiritual if it has no relationship with science?

I'm sincerely puzzled, as I honestly cannot find where I said that.
posted by IjonTichy at 3:19 PM on October 21, 2010

From the wikipedia entry:

There are many references to rebirth in the early Buddhist scriptures. These are some of the more important; Mahakammavibhanga Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 136); Upali Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 56); Kukkuravatika Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 57); Moliyasivaka Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 36.21); Sankha Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 42.8).
Some English-speaking Buddhists prefer the term "rebirth" or "re-becoming" (Sanskrit: punarbhava; Pali: punabbhava) to "reincarnation" as they take the latter to imply a fixed entity that is reborn.[10] It is said to be the "evolving consciousness" (Pali: samvattanika viññana, M.1.256)[11][12] or "stream of consciousness" (Pali: viññana sotam, D.3.105).[13] that reincarnates. The early Buddhist texts make it clear that there is no permanent consciousness that moves from life to life.[14] The lack of a fixed self does not mean lack of continuity. In the same way that a flame is transferred from one candle to another, there is a conditioned relationship between one life and the next: they are neither identical nor completely distinct.

You don't just wake up in some new body. This is a very, very complex subject.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:31 PM on October 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'm sincerely puzzled, as I honestly cannot find where I said that.

You said, "But that's already right there, in the science!" I took this to mean that it isn't a real spiritual precept unless it's non-scientific.
posted by bjrubble at 4:17 PM on October 21, 2010

At first, I read this as "The Dalai Lama changing mind on compassion and respect."
posted by parmanparman at 4:49 PM on October 21, 2010

At first, I read this as "The Dalai Lama changing mind on compassion and respect."

He certainly might if he spent enough time in MetaTalk.
posted by sonika at 4:57 PM on October 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

A quick looking over in wikipedia (yeah, yeah...apologies from the getgo) shows a lot of the claims to have been conclusively proven as "not good for you" by science.

???

I see nothing in that page that supports your assertion. Which claims?

As far as soul and karma and reincarnation and all that mystical stuff goes, how can "Science" ever disprove any of that? We don't even have any idea what "mind" is. How then can we say whether or not two minds (one of which is already dead) are the same?

Another thing that Science cannot explain is my love for jazz. And kittens.
posted by phliar at 5:23 PM on October 21, 2010

We don't even have any idea what "mind" is. How then can we say whether or not two minds (one of which is already dead) are the same?


I fully agree. We make a lot of conclusive assumptions about life and the universe based on things that we derived from something that we barely understand - The mind.
posted by Liquidwolf at 6:19 PM on October 21, 2010

I'm not religious or "spiritual" by any stretch of the imagination, but the topic of rebirth has been scientifically investigated. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation was written by University of Virgnia professor Dr. Ian Stevenson, who used fairly rigorous methods to show something like reincarnation could have happened with the people he examined, without relying on or referencing any philosophy or theology.

Uh, hate to break it to you, but traveling around and gathering anecdotes - mostly from children via shoddy translation, trying to prove a conjecture he was already convinced of does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute science.
posted by signalnine at 6:30 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

The mind is what the brain does, [...]

Yes, this is an article of faith for today's adherents of scientism.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 7:28 PM on October 21, 2010

I just stopped by to say that the fact that bodies in motion tend to remain in motion is totally awesome and mind-blowing to me, even though I know it well.
posted by freecellwizard at 7:36 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

My take on Buddhist belief is that the Buddha's original messages have been bound up with tons of religious ritual, much of which is simply ephemeral mind-garbage people have created over time to keep themselves busy, much as early Christianity's messages were both distorted and developed over time by successive generations. The Dalai Lama can no more reject his culture's cultural underpinnings than the Pope could do so. Subtract out this window-dressing and Buddhism is a technology for having a happy and fulfilling life based on love and compassion independent of the circumstances of your life.
No other spiritual tradition speaks to me, as pretty much an atheist, as this one does. I also find it pretty amusing that the two posts bracketing this one, the Joust record breaker and Paulina Porizkova both have 90+ comments while this thread has 30 or so.
posted by diode at 7:36 PM on October 21, 2010

If a paunchy, middle-aged Christian with a working class accent and the wrong shirt uttered the same sentiments as Mr. Lama, you'd all turn deaf.

And we'd be worse off for it.
posted by surenoproblem at 8:28 PM on October 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Every comment in this thread is quite beautiful.
posted by kaspen at 12:32 AM on October 22, 2010

Mindfullness on display is sufficient proof all round.
posted by kaspen at 12:34 AM on October 22, 2010

At first, I read this as "The Dalai Lama changing mind on compassion and respect."

Nah, that happened years ago when he gave up on CIA-sponsored coups to drive out the Chinese and decided to become a celebrity Eastern Guru.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:45 AM on October 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

....A post about someone discussing the importance of kindness and compassion has devolved into yet another "religion vs. science" dick-measuring contest?

Really?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:23 AM on October 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

....A post about someone discussing the importance of kindness and compassion has devolved into yet another "religion vs. science" dick-measuring contest?

I, for one, am surprised in no way whatsoever. I personally had a post about the Dalai Lama devolve into how he doesn't do enough for gay rights. As a Buddhist, I'm always slightly disappointed - but never, ever surprised - to find that even non-theistic religious belief is something that MetaFilter doesn't do poorly, but doesn't quite do well either.

(I would like to recommend for anyone who is interested, "Mr. Lama"'s book The Universe in A Single Atom. I got quite a lot out of it, and my husband the hard scientist found quite a bit in it that he was able to connect with as well. It's definitely a book for the lay person - both scientifically and spiritually - but it covers a lot of ground and does so quite well, IMHO.)
posted by sonika at 4:42 AM on October 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yes, this is an article of faith for today's adherents of scientism.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 3:28 AM on October 22

These days, use of the word "scientism" is a handy flag, for me. Just as when people say "atheism is a belief/faith" or "the New Atheists are as bad as religious fundamentalists" it just saves me the bother of wasting time getting into an argument.

And I'm afraid nothing old reincarno-boy says is ever going to reach me as effectively as Skunk Baxter's solo in this Bodhisattva.
posted by Decani at 5:01 AM on October 22, 2010 [3 favorites]

IjonTichy: This is like saying that if I build a pirate ship out of Legos ...

Its 'Lego bricks', not 'Legos'

*loses all compassion*
posted by memebake at 5:05 AM on October 22, 2010

Its 'Lego bricks', not 'Legos'

Common usage, baby.

As for the rest, yeah, "scientism" is my cue to exit. The piecemeal breakdown of the mind as the brain is damaged is conclusive evidence that the mind is what the brain does. I cannot even in principle come up for an explanation for Gazzaniga's split-brain patients that's consistent with the soul existing in some vague Elsewhere, sending radio signals to the pineal gland. If that's scientism, then I guess I'm a scientismist.

So, uh, have fun, everyone!
posted by IjonTichy at 6:34 AM on October 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

One of the things about Zen in North America is that it's demonstrably possible to proceed without referring to reincarnation at all. Which is cool, because we don't need to mash that concept into either a religious or a scientific framework - just ignore it and move on. Nothing to see here, folks!
posted by sneebler at 8:29 AM on October 22, 2010

....A post about someone discussing the importance of kindness and compassion has devolved into yet another "religion vs. science" dick-measuring contest?

Really?

It's hard to take him seriously (and sosrs threads about him) when Steven Segal is proclaimed to be a tulku (a reincarnated lama), and says things like, "to have sexual relations with a prostitute paid by you and not by a third person does not constitute improper behavior."

Plus, if they never "devolved," we might not be able harvest gems like this to laugh about later:

"I also am pretty confident, that one of the ways that energy stays in motion is in staying somewhat clumped in a group and entering the stream of life in another location."

As for myself, I use it as an opportunity to dig up a link to this.
posted by Brocktoon at 8:57 AM on October 22, 2010

I guess not many people in this thread took any interest in what neuroscience and Buddhism can learn from each other.

If you're interested in that, a good place to start is the book Destructive Emotions: A scientific debate with the Dalai Lama, by Daniel Goleman. There's a detailed essay reviewing it here: (13 page PDF).
posted by philipy at 10:54 AM on October 22, 2010

I guess not many people in this thread took any interest in what neuroscience and Buddhism can learn from each other.
posted by philipy at 6:54 PM on October 22

I'll 'fess up to that. I haven't felt so ashamed since that one thread where I failed to take any interest in what cosmology and Rastafarianism could learn from each other.
posted by Decani at 12:11 PM on October 22, 2010 [2 favorites]

I'll 'fess up to that. I haven't felt so ashamed since that one thread where I failed to take any interest in what cosmology and Rastafarianism could learn from each other.

This comment is in a nutshell why I think that having a reasonable discussion about any kind of religious belief on MetaFilter is as likely as ending dependence on fossil fuels by next Wednesday.

You want to have a discussion about a topic that includes religious belief? Great! Be prepared to be treated like a total idiot!
posted by sonika at 12:21 PM on October 22, 2010

The way reincarnation was explained to me by Tibetans in the context of a sky burial in Tibet was that it's not that your self is some coherent thing that enters the body of something else,

This is the part that hangs a lot of Westerners up, the inability to avoid thinking there's an ego-containing soul that leaps out of a dying body into a new fetus. But of course it can't be your "self" that gets reincarnated into the next life, since your "self" does not actually exist in the first place. I have sometimes found it useful to imagine the insanely complex pattern that your mind and body make through space and time during your life, and how that pattern reverberates or connects into the patterns of living beings into the future, and think that's something like what reincarnation means.
posted by aught at 12:40 PM on October 22, 2010

eh proclaims that Steven Seagal was a tulku and a reincarnated lama of Tibetan Buddhism

Not a comment on Segal being a tulku or not, but for whatever it's worth I think it was H.H. Penor Rimpoche who recognized Segal as a tulku, not H.H. the Dalai Lama.
posted by aught at 12:44 PM on October 22, 2010

I failed to take any interest in what cosmology and Rastafarianism could learn from each other.

If you think neuroscience and Buddhism don't have interesting things to say to each other maybe you don't know much about either.

The book I mentioned earlier describes discussions at a five day workshop where leading neuroscientists and Buddhists swapped ideas. As far as I know cosmologists and Rastafarians don't get together to have seminars like that. (And if they did, I'd be pretty intrigued to discover what they found to talk about.)

If you want to know what neuroscience and Buddhism could actually have to contribute to each other, check out my earlier links, or this from Stanford Medical School. According to the report:

... there were many “aha” moments on both sides.

I was hoping for some interesting discussions and some "Aha" moments here on MeFi too.
posted by philipy at 5:34 PM on October 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

These days, use of the word "scientism" is a handy flag, for me.

As for the rest, yeah, "scientism" is my cue to exit.

Karl Popper, one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century, used the term. With all due respect, I think I'll go with Sir Karl's assessment on this. But, you know, don't let me dissuade you. Comments like this are a handy flag for me.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 2:43 PM on October 23, 2010

If you're citing Popper as some kind of authority, you're about a half-century out of date, sorry.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:46 PM on October 23, 2010

If Popper's not a legitimate authority, then who is? Richard Dawkins? Sam Harris?

If you're suggesting that "scientism" is a discredited term, what's your source?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 4:11 PM on October 23, 2010

You want to have a discussion about a topic that includes religious belief? Great! Be prepared to be treated like a total idiot!
posted by sonika at 8:21 PM on October 22

You got it. I wonder why that is?
posted by Decani at 2:31 PM on October 30, 2010