Nedenfor er noen sitater fra en tale han holdt i forrigårs, i forbindelse med åpningen av en konferanse om vitenskap i Sikkim, India (noe redigert av meg). Jeg tar med hensikt med lange sitater, fordi dette er tema som trenger refleksjon, ikke 10-sekunders telegram-budskap.
Om viktigheten av mer fokus på menneskenes "indre liv" og følelser:
At the "academy" level - knowledge level - modern science about the "external" things is highly developed, really remarkable. Yet, about inner science, about the human mind, about inner peace or mental stability, everybody has experience, but very little knowledge. Very little knowledge about how important this is and how to develop inner peace and mental stability. Eastern philosophy, particularly India's tradition, has a lot of material about emotion, about mind, about how to shape a positive mind. For thousands of years they have practiced the mind.
Om vitenskap, etikk, sekularisme og utdanning:
I practice Buddhism. I do 4-5 hours meditation/prayer per day. But I am sceptical about the power of blessing and prayer. I recently told a meeting in Hiroshima, at the final day with a big gathering, including Nobel laureates and other important people: "World peace cannot come through prayer, it must come through action." Another example: Recently the Chief Minister of Bihar state told me that he expects his state to do well now with Buddhas blessing. I told him: "Buddhas blessing is nice, but it must go through the Chief Minister's hand. Your progress won't happen due to some lamas carrying around some incense. You must work hard."
The 20th century was a really marvelous century in terms of science and technology, but a lot of the technology also became destructive, for instance nuclear weapons and neutron bombs. These achievements, instead of bringing more happiness brought more fear, more destruction. In the 20th century, according to some historians, over 200 million people were killed by violence. The concept of war has been there for thousands of years, but the destruction used to be limited because the destructive power was limited. I think that those people who invented these sciences and technologies never intended to bring more suffering, more fear on humanity. But that is what happened. That clearly shows that if we just leave science and technology on its own. I am not very sure whether they will really bring happiness or fear. I think that due to this factor, at the end of the 20th century the top scientists began to feel the importance of the human mind and certain human emotions. Because of their really subtle research into the brain - and neural system (they really reach a very high level) - they now begin to pay more attention to the emotions, to the mind. That is the "academy level". On another level, more and more people are saying: We need moral ethics.
In the religious field also, due to lack of moral ethics, religion is becoming an instrument of exploitation. Sadly, this has also happened in the Buddhist community. Some dirty things have been happening. Usually when I talk to people, they say "dirty politics". .My view is that politics is a very important - another instrument to serve people, to serve community, to serve country. It is necessary. There is nothing dirty about politics, but because politicians lack moral principle "politics" becomes "dirty politics".
Similarly, if someone like me in monk's robes thinks only about money or name, then religion becomes "dirty religion". The same in the economy and even with scientists. Science can also become "dirty science". Everywhere there is corruption now, almost like a universal disease. Just killing a few people - the death sentence - is not the answer. We must build moral ethics based on the realisation of human value. Thinking people everywhere are realising that we have a problem due to lack of inner strength, moral ethics.
There are different views about how to promote these moral ethics. Some of my friends - Muslim, Christian, Buddhist - have great reservations when I talk about secular ethics. They say that secularism is something a bit negative towards religion. Many believers think that any moral ethics must be based on religious faith. The late pope John Paul came from Poland, and so had similar experience as me [political repression]. We had a very close brotherhood. One time I boldly asked him whether moral ethics should be based on religious faith or not. He didn't answer, but his lieutenant answered that any moral ethics must be based on religious faith. My point is: Everybody agrees that moral ethics is necessary. If moral ethics must be based on religion, then the problem arises - which religion? Which faith? Look at India - there are so many different religions in this country, very difficult. Therefore, all these great scholars - Gandhi etc - decided when they created the constitution that India must be based on secularism. So secularism does not mean disrespect of religion, but rather respect for all religions equally. This is really wonderful. Also, there must be a secular way to promote ethics. From my point of view, any ethics must be based on a sense of concern for others' well-being. If you have a geniune sense of concern for others' well-being, there is no opportunity to harm others. There is no room to cheat. There is no room for exploitation. And as long as you have a concern for others' well-being, you can be open, transparent, truthful. That really brings trust. Trust is the basis of friendship. We are social animals. We need cooperation. For that we need genuine friendship. For that we need trust. In order to develop trust, you should be honest. Transparent. Then the inner strength comes, and self-confidence.
So religious faith is not necessary. We can use our common sense, use our common experience. More warmheartedness is beneficial to achieve healthy individual, healthy family, even healthy body. Ultimately, world peace, greater equality, reduced difference between rich and poor - at a global level and at a national level - are ultimately related to inner moral ethics. If we require moral ethics to be pursued through religious faith, then there is more complication.
Education in moral ethics is for one's own benefit, one's own happy life. Everybody is selfish. So if people realise that this warmheartedness is of immense benefit to oneself and one's own family, then they will pay more attention to these things. If we say that you should practice compassion because Buddha loves compassion, or because Jesus Christ loves compassion, then many people say "I don't care!". But if you say compassion is important for your own health, for your own happy day and night, then people pay attention.
I am Buddhist, I respect Buddha, as do all other sorts of religious leaders. I think they showed us a certain method to promote these things, but frankly speaking more or less failed. Of course some individuals have benefited. But humanity as a whole, nearly seven billion people... I don't think so. Now we need a secular way to promote this - not through lama, not through teacher, not through saint, but through education. That we can do. Using these materials, of which the most important part is scientific findings.
So that is why - to bring happy humanity, happy society, happy individual - moral ethics are important. But the way to promote it is not through religion, but through the secular way based on scientific research.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar