Dalai Lama & Forum 2000--the Courage to Take Responsibility

Prague, Czech Republic, 18 October 2016 - The overcast skies and cold weather did not detract from the warmth of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s reception by the Minister of Culture, Mr Daniel Herman, and a group of parliamentarians of the Christian and Democratic Union - Czechoslovak People's Party. The Minister and His Holiness first visited a chapel within the Ministry before sitting round a table to exchange views.

His Holiness remarked that human beings have a unique ability to extend their concern to all other beings. Scientists report findings that indicate that human nature is basically compassionate. He suggested that this accords with the idea of being creatures of a creator who embodies infinite compassion.

“Among 7 billion human beings none are free from problems,” he said, “but the best way to keep calm under such circumstances is to cultivate compassion for others. Religion should have a role in reducing violence by fostering a calm mind. Violence springs from anger, hatred and fear. However, in the world today, in addition to those who have no faith, there are those who only pay lip-service to religious belief and practice. If religion is to mean anything to us, we need to be serious about it.”

The Minister thanked His Holiness for his advice and told him he and his colleagues were interested in practical ways to move forward.

“In today’s world we have a quite materialistic culture,” His Holiness remarked, “but material goods only provide us with physical comfort. Compassion, on the other hand, brings inner strength and inner peace. No matter how prosperous or poor you may be, if you have compassion for others you can be a peaceful happy person. However, it seems there are those who attend their places of worship, but whose lives are relatively untouched by the religious teachings involved.”

His Holiness mentioned his admiration for Pope John Paul II and the inter-religious Assisi meeting he organised in 1986. He reported his telling the Pope it should be the beginning of a movement for religious groups to get to know each other and exchange their different experiences with each other. As the gathering broke up, members of the parliamentary group clustered round His Holiness, requesting him to sign books or take selfies with them.

Minister Herman accompanied His Holiness on the short drive to Manes Hall where they were both due to be panellists in a discussion of the Paradox of Religion as part of Forum 2000. Moderator of that meeting, Shlomo Avineri welcomed them on arrival. He introduced the panellists, who also included Egyptian author and journalist, Tarek Osman to the audience of 150 and invited the Minister to begin. He spoke of being a Roman Catholic with Jewish roots who found, as he grew up in Czechoslovakia, that religion gave him a freedom of heart that remains an inspiration in his work as an active politician.

His Holiness spoke of his own three commitments.

“As a human being I am concerned with encouraging people to be happy, to understand that if their minds are upset mere physical comfort won’t bring them peace. Whereas if their minds are at peace even physical pain won’t disturb their calm. Over the last 30 years I’ve had serious discussions with scientists. I take their finding evidence that basic human nature is compassionate as a source of hope.

“On the one hand, all major religious traditions convey the same message of love and compassion. On the other, more than 1 billion people today have little interest in religion. Therefore, we also need to find other ways to educate people about the importance of inner values, such as compassion.

“In seeking to promote harmony among our religious traditions, it is useful to realise that the once prevalent notion that there can only be one truth and one religion best applies to personal practice. In terms of community and the world at large, there are evidently several truths and a multiplicity religions. When I was still in Tibet, I considered Buddhism was best. But once I reached India and came into contact with people like Thomas Merton and Mother Teresa, as well as wonderful Hindu, Jewish and Muslim friends, I developed a real appreciation and respect for other traditions.”

In discussing a secular approach to ethics, His Holiness remarked that there are different ways to understand the word secular. He prefers to use it as it is understood in India to mean an unbiased respect for all religions and even the views of those who have no faith. He suggested that when Bolshevik and French revolutionaries historically advocate secularism, they were less opposed to religious teachings than to religious institutions.

In his contribution, referring particularly to the Middle or Near East, Tarek Osman spoke of its recent turbulent history. He suggested that in a climate of turbulence, religion has the appeal of providing order. Difficulties arise however when that sense of order becomes control.

Daniel Herman mentioned parallels he has drawn between experience of the collapse of communism and the biblical account of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt and their 40 years in the desert on the way to the Promised Land. A real change in mentality takes more than one generation to achieve.

His Holiness returned to his emphasis that too many problems facing humanity revolve around too great a focus on secondary differences of faith, race, nationality, economic status and so forth. The important thing to remember is that fundamentally we are all the same—we are all equally human beings. Challenges like climate change and upheavals of the global economy require us to acknowledge the oneness of humanity. Because we have to live together, we have to be more realistic.

Shlomo Avineri wound up the meeting by recalling what his friend Edward Said had said about the responsibility of intellectuals to speak truth to power, but added that power has to be open to dialogue.

After lunch at the Zofin Palace, His Holiness walked to the Forum Hall to attend a closing panel on The World and Its Current Challenges. He was joined on the panel by Prof Tomas Halik, President of the Czech Christian Academy and Manal al-Sharif, a Writer and Women’s Rights Activist from Saudi Arabia. She is a recipient of the Vaclav Havel Prize for Creative Dissent.

Moderator, Sociologist Surendra Munshi, took some time to give an overview of the conference so far that touched on issues of leadership, the role of intellectuals, and a sense of truth. He invited His Holiness to speak first.

“I feel that if looked at from a close and narrow perspective our problems can seem intractable. However, if we can step back and view them from a wider perspective and in the longer term, they don’t seem so grave and often reveal positive aspects.

“Since common sense and scientific findings indicate that anger, hatred and fear disturb our peace of mind, our education systems need to pay more attention to inner values like compassion and warm-heartedness. The need is to be more concerned about the whole of humanity, as well as concerned about our planet. I admire the spirit of the European Union in according greater concern to the larger community than to narrow national interests.

“If we can develop inner peace, we can build on it to create world peace. Many experts agree that current education systems are. What we require is a more universal approach to human values that can appeal to everyone. There are grounds for optimism.

He concluded: “I admired President Havel and is struggle for truth. And although he is no longer physically with us, we have a responsibility to carry his spirit forward and to fulfil his vision.”

In his remarks Prof Halik referred to the effects of globalisation and the need for confidence. He expressed the view that globalisation defeated communism, which as a monopoly could not withstand an open society. Today however, we are experiencing a less positive response to globalisation. The world is fragmenting and globalisation may have contributed to the outbreak of religious extremism. Halik added wryly that the invisible hand of the market has given rise to the hidden hand of corruption.

Manal al-Sharif mentioned that realisation has dawned that her country, Saudi Arabia, exports oil, but has also exported a brand of fundamentalist Islam. She reported that despite being informed that God had appointed guardians for them, women were now saying, “I am my own guardian.” She said it takes courage to take responsibility for your situation and it takes courage to take action.

His Holiness added that there are three aspects to religious traditions: basic religious practice of love and forgiveness; philosophical views such as whether or not to believe in a creator and cultural aspects. Cultural aspects relate to customs and ways of life from the past. Many of them are now out of date and so should change.

In answering one or two questions from the floor, Manal al-Sharif observed that there are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, while ISIS comprises perhaps 4000 fighters. This is an example of the loud minority and quiet majority. In connection with resolving the growing gap between rich and poor, His Holiness stressed the importance of self-confidence in people’s ability to improve their lot. His final remark was that while killing in the name of religion is wrong, to remain indifferent to it is wrong too.

Surendra Munshi brought the meeting to a close with thanks to the panellists for sharing their thoughts. Once again members of the audience converged on the stage clamouring for His Holiness’s attention as they sought his signature, a handshake or the opportunity to take a photograph with him. He steadily met all requests before going into his final meeting of the day with the Forum 2000 International Advisory Board.

original link & photos http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/1477-forum-2000---the-courage-to-take-responsibility

Speech of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the European Parliament

By the Dalai Lama

Madame Speaker, Honourable Members of the Parliament, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honour for me to address the European Parliament. I believe the European Union is an inspiring example for a cooperative and peaceful co-existence among different nations and peoples and deeply inspiring for people like myself who strongly believe in the need for better understanding, closer cooperation, and greater respect among the various nations of the world. I thank you for this kind invitation.

I consider it as an encouraging gesture of genuine sympathy and concern for the tragic fate of the Tibetan people. I speak to you today as a simple Buddhist monk, educated and trained in our ancient traditional way. I am not an expert in political science. However, my life-long study and practice of Buddhism and my responsibility and involvement in the non-violent freedom struggle of the Tibetan people have given me some experiences and thoughts that I would like to share with you.

It is evident that the human community has reached a critical juncture in its history. Today’s world requires us to accept the oneness of humanity. In the past, communities could afford to think of one another as fundamentally separate.

But today, as we learn from the recent tragic events in the United States, whatever happens in one region eventually affects many other areas. The world is becoming increasingly interdependent. Within the context of this new interdependence, self-interest clearly lies in considering the interest of others. Without the cultivation and promotion of a sense of universal responsibility our very future is in danger.

I strongly believe that we must consciously develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. We must learn to work not just for our own individual self, family or nation, but for the benefit of all mankind. Universal responsibility is the best foundation both for our personal happiness and for world peace, the equitable use of our natural resources, and, through a concern for future generations, the proper care for the environment.

Many of the world's problems and conflicts arise because we have lost sight of the basic humanity that binds us all together as a human family. We tend to forget that despite the diversity of race, religion, culture, language, ideology and so forth, people are equal in their basic desire for peace and happiness: we all want happiness and do not want suffering. We strive to fulfill these desires as best we can. However, as much as we praise diversity in theory, unfortunately often we fail to respect it in practice. In fact, our inability to embrace diversity becomes a major source of conflict among peoples.

A particularly sad fact of human history is that conflicts have arisen in the name of religion. Even today, individuals are killed, their communities destroyed and societies destabilized as a result of misuse of religion and encouragement of bigotry and hatred. According to my personal experience the best way to overcome obstructions to inter-religious harmony and to bring about understanding is through dialogue with members of other faith traditions. This I see occurring in a number of different ways. In my own case, for example, my meetings with the late Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk, in the late 60s, were deeply inspiring. They helped me develop a profound admiration for the teachings of Christianity. I also feel that meetings amongst different religious leaders and joining together to pray from a common platform are extremely powerful, as was the case in 1986 during the gathering at Assisi in Italy. The recent United Nations Millennium World Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders held last year was also a laudable step. However, there is a need for more of these inititiatives on a regular basis. On my part, to show my respect for other religious traditions I went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem - a site holy to three of the world’s great religions. I have paid visits to various Hindu, Islamic, Christian, Jain and Sikh shrines both in India and abroad. During the past three decades I have met with many religious leaders of different traditions and have discussed harmony and inter-religious understanding. When exchanges like these occur, followers of one tradition will find that, just as in the case of their own, the teachings of other faiths are a source of both spiritual inspiration and as well as ethical guidance to their followers. It will also become clear that irrespective of doctrinal and other differences, all the major world religions help to transform individuals to become good human beings. All emphasize love, compassion, patience, tolerance, forgiveness, humility, self-discipline and so on. We must therefore embrace the concept of plurality in the field of religion, too.

In the context of our newly emerging global community all forms of violence, including war, are totally inappropriate means of settling disputes. Violence and war have always been part of human history, and in ancient times there were winners and losers. However, there would be no winners at all if another global conflict were to occur today. We must, therefore, have the courage and vision to call for a world without nuclear weapons and national armies in the long run. Especially, in the light of the terrible attacks in the United States the international community must make a sincere attempt to use the horrible and shocking experience to develop a sense of global responsibility, where a culture of dialogue and non-violence is used in resolving differences.

Dialogue is the only sensible and intelligent way of resolving differences and clashes of interests, whether between individuals or nations. The promotion of a culture of dialogue and non-violence for the future of mankind is a compelling task of the international community. It is not enough for governments to endorse the principle of non-violence without any appropriate action to support and promote it. If non-violence is to prevail, non-violent movements must be made effective and successful. Some consider the 20th century a century of war and bloodshed. I believe the challenge before us is to make the new century one of dialogue and non-violence.

Furthermore, in dealing with conflicts too often we lack proper judgment and courage. We fail to pay adequate attention to situations of potential conflict when they are at an early stage of development. Once all the circumstances have progressed to a state where emotions of the people or communities involved in disputes have become fully charged, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent a dangerous situation from exploding. We see this tragic situation repeated time and again. So we must learn to detect early signs of conflict and have the courage to address the problem before it reaches its boiling point.

I remain convinced that most human conflicts can be solved through genuine dialogue conducted with a spirit of openness and reconciliation. I have therefore consistently sought a resolution of the issue of Tibet through non-violence and dialogue. Right from the beginning of the invasion of Tibet, I tried to work with the Chinese authorities to arrive at a mutually acceptable, peaceful co-existence. Even when the so-called Seventeen Point Agreement for the Peaceful Liberation of Tibet was forced upon us I tried to work with the Chinese authorities. After all, by that agreement the Chinese government recognized the distinctiveness and the autonomy of Tibet and pledged not to impose their system on Tibet against our wishes. However, in breach of this agreement, the Chinese authorities forced upon Tibetans their rigid and alien ideology and showed scant respect for the unique culture, religion and way of life of the Tibetan people. In desperation the Tibetan people rose up against the Chinese. In the end in 1959 I had to escape from Tibet so that I could continue to serve the people of Tibet.

During the past more than four decades since my escape, Tibet has been under the harsh control of the Government of the People´s Republic of China. The immense destruction and human suffering inflicted on the people of Tibet are today well known and I do not wish to dwell on these sad and painful events. The late Panchen Lama’s 70,000-character petition to the Chinese government serves as a telling historical document on China’s draconian policies and actions in Tibet. Tibet today continues to be an occupied country, oppressed by force and scarred by suffering. Despite some development and economic progress, Tibet continues to face fundamental problems of survival. Serious violations of human rights are widespread throughout Tibet and are often the result of policies of racial and cultural discrimination. Yet they are only the symptoms and consequences of a deeper problem. The Chinese authorities view Tibet’s distinct culture and religion as the source of threat of separation. Hence as a result of deliberate policies an entire people with its unique culture and identity are facing the threat of extinction.

I have led the Tibetan freedom struggle on a path of non-violence and have consistently sought a mutually agreeable solution of the Tibetan issue through negotiations in a spirit of reconciliation and compromise with China. With this spirit in 1988 here in Strasbourg at this Parliament I presented a formal proposal for negotiations, which we hoped would serve as a basis for resolving the issue of Tibet. I had chosen consciously the European Parliament as a venue to present my thoughts for a framework for negotiations in order to underline the point that a genuine union can only come about voluntarily when there are satisfactory benefits to all the parties concerned. The European Union is a clear and inspiring example of this. On the other hand, even one country or community can break into two or more entities when there is a lack of trust and benefit, and when force is used as the principal means of rule.

My proposal which later became known as the “Middle Way Approach” or the “Strasbourg Proposal” envisages that Tibet enjoy genuine autonomy within the framework of the People’s Republic of China. However, not the autonomy on paper imposed on us 50 years ago in the 17-Point Agreement, but a true self-governing, genuinely autonomous Tibet, with Tibetans fully responsible for their own domestic affairs, including the education of their children, religious matters, cultural affairs, the care of their delicate and precious environment, and the local economy. Beijing would continue to be responsible for the conduct of foreign and defense affairs. This solution would greatly enhance the international image of China and contribute to her stability and unity -- the two topmost priorities of Beijing -- while at the same time the Tibetans would be ensured of the basic rights and freedoms to preserve their own civilization and to protect the delicate environment of the Tibetan plateau.

Since then our relation with the Chinese government has taken many twists and turns. Unfortunately, I must sadly inform you that a lack of political will on the part of the Chinese leadership to address the issue of Tibet in a serious manner has failed to produce any progress. My initiatives and overtures over the years to engage the Chinese leadership in a dialogue remain unreciprocated. Last September, I communicated through the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi our wish to send a delegation to Beijing to deliver a detailed memorandum outlining my thinking on the issue of Tibet and to explain and discuss the points raised in the memorandum. I conveyed that through face-to-face meetings we would succeed in clarifying misunderstandings and overcoming distrust. I expressed the strong belief that once this is achieved then a mutually acceptable solution of the problem can be found without much difficulty. But the Chinese government is refusing to accept my delegation till today. It is obvious that Beijing’s attitude has hardened significantly compared to the eighties when six Tibetan delegations from exile were accepted. Whatever explanations Beijing may give concerning communications between the Chinese government and myself I must state here clearly that the Chinese government is refusing to talk to the representatives I have designated for the task.

The failure of the Chinese leadership to respond positively to my Middle Way Approach reaffirms the Tibetan people’s suspicion that the Chinese government has no interest whatsoever in any kind of peaceful co-existence. Many Tibetans believe that China is bent on complete forceful assimilation and absorption of Tibet into China. They call for the independence of Tibet and criticise my “Middle Way Approach”. Others are advocating a referendum in Tibet. They argue if conditions inside Tibet are as the Chinese authorities portray it to be and if the Tibetans are truly happy, then there should be no difficulty holding a plebiscite in Tibet. I have also always maintained that ultimately the Tibetan people must be able to decide about the future of Tibet as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, stated in the Indian Parliament on December 7. 1950: “…the last voice in regard to Tibet should be the voice of the people of Tibet and nobody else.”

While I firmly reject the use of violence as a means in our freedom struggle we certainly have the right to explore all other political options available to us. I am a staunch believer in freedom and democracy and have therefore been encouraging the Tibetans in exile to follow the democratic process. Today, the Tibetan refugees may be among the few communities in exile that have established all the three pillars of democracy:- legislature, judiciary and executive. This year we have taken another big stride in the process of democratisation by having the chairman of the Tibetan Cabinet elected by popular vote. The elected chairman of the Cabinet and the elected parliament will shoulder the responsibility of running the Tibetan affairs as the legitimate representatives of the people. However, I do consider it my moral obligation to the six million Tibetans to continue taking up the Tibetan issue with the Chinese leadership and to act as the free spokesman of the Tibetan people until a solution is reached.

In the absence of any positive response from the Chinese government to my overtures over the years, I am left with no alternative but to appeal to the members of the international community. It is clear now that only increased, concerted and consistent international efforts will persuade Beijing to change its policy on Tibet. Although the immediate reactions from the Chinese side will be most probably negative, nevertheless, I strongly believe that expressions of international concern and support are essential for creating an environment conducive for the peaceful resolution of the Tibetan problem. On my part, I remain committed to the process of dialogue. It is my firm belief that dialogue and a willingness to look with honesty and clarity at the reality of Tibet can lead us to a mutually beneficial solution that will contribute to the stability and unity of the People’s Republic of China and secure the right for the Tibetan people to live in freedom, peace and dignity.

Brothers and sisters of the European Parliament, I consider myself as the free spokesman for my captive countrymen and women. It is my duty to speak on their behalf. I speak not with a feeling of anger or hatred towards those who are responsible for the immense suffering of our people and the destruction of our land, homes, temples, monasteries and culture. They too are human beings who struggle to find happiness, and deserve our compassion. I speak to inform you of the sad situation in my country today and of the aspirations of my people, because in our struggle for freedom, truth is the only weapon we possess. Today, our people, our distinct rich cultural heritage and our national identity are facing the threat of extinction. We need your support to survive as a people and as a culture.

When one looks at the situation inside Tibet it seems almost hopeless in the face of increasing repression, continuing environmental destruction, and the ongoing systematic undermining of the culture and identity of Tibet. Yet I believe that no matter how big and powerful China may be she is still part of the world. The global trend today is towards more openness, freedom, democracy and respect for human rights. Sooner or later China will have to follow the world trend and in the long run there is no way that China can escape from truth, justice and freedom. The consistent and principled engagement of the European Parliament with China will accelerate this process of change that is already taken place in China. Since the Tibetan issue is closely related with what is happening in China, I believe there is reason and ground for hope.

I would like to thank the European Parliament for the consistent display of concern and support for the non-violent Tibetan freedom struggle. Your sympathy and support have always been a deep source of inspiration and encouragement to the Tibetan people both inside and outside Tibet. The numerous resolutions of the European Parliament on the issue of Tibet helped greatly to highlight the plight of the Tibetan people and raise the awareness of the public and governments in Europe and around the world of the issue of Tibet. I am especially encouraged by the European Parliament’s resolution calling for the appointment of an EU special representative for Tibet. I strongly believe that the implementation of this resolution will enable the European Union not only to help promote a peaceful resolution of the Tibetan issue through negotiations in a more consistent, effective and creative way but also provide support for other legitimate needs of the Tibetan people, including ways and means to preserve our distinct identity. This initiative will also send a strong signal to Beijing that the European Union is serious in encouraging and promoting a solution of the Tibetan problem. I have no doubt that your continued expressions of concern and support for Tibet will in the long run impact positively and help create the conducive political environment for a constructive dialogue on the issue of Tibet. I ask for your continued support in this critical time in our country’s history. I thank you for providing me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

Thank you.