DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) Compassion is what we are aspiring for. The whole notion of narrow-mindedness, the downside of being narrow-minded, is part of the argument for the need for compassion.
When you advertise, if you talk about dealing with narrow-mindedness, people might think, “What is it for?” Whereas, if you say, “cultivation of compassion,” people can relate to it. But the problem is that though most people may share the idea that it is a very valuable thing, a precious thing, sometimes people have a rather naive understanding of what compassion is. But people might also feel that it is a noble idea and it is a noble value. We need to give people a deeper understanding of compassion, grounded in a real appreciation of its need and value.
EKMAN: But there is the serious challenge of scale. How do we do this on a global level? For instance, we have to address the disproportionate use of the world’s resources. Americans are not the majority of the world’s population, but in terms of the world’s oil consumption, they consume a disproportionate amount.
DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) It is partly because America has quite a large landmass, so you have to drive long distances. (Ekman laughs.) If it were a smaller country, there would be less scope for consumption.
EKMAN: We eat a lot of beef, which requires an enormous amount of energy to produce compared to diets that are more common in other parts of the world. If we were to make things more equitable worldwide, in order for the poorest to not be so poor, the richest might not be able to live so luxuriously as they now live.
Some economists argue that is not true. But some argue that it is very true, that people do not want to give up either their individualist aspirations or the fact that they can drive huge cars, go wherever they want, and eat steaks every night. “And you are telling me I have to maybe only have steak once a week? Or I have to drive a smaller car? Is that what compassion requires?”
I say this with a bit of a smile, but I think it is a serious problem to confront, how we share the world’s resources equitably when we have an inequitable situation to begin with and a very powerful nation that is benefiting from the inequity—this may be a very large obstacle to achieving global compassion.
DALAI LAMA: (Translated.) One of the things that people can consider or have brought to their attention is the question of the sustainability of their current lifestyle. If we were to continue on this path of consumption, at this current level, how long could this last?
EKMAN: Some might think, “As long as it lasts for me and my children, why should I be concerned?” That is the problem, as I see it.
DALAI LAMA: Oh.
EKMAN: Matters are getting to the point where people are beginning to worry: “Maybe my children will have a burden if we do not change things now.” For example, America is mortgaging itself with a deficit that may be a burden to our children. I believe that we should recognize this as bad selfishness.
DALAI LAMA: Mm-hmm.
EKMAN: As a parent with children, I realize that if I give up a little bit of my standard of living, it will be better for my children and grandchildren. It will not benefit me, but if I make some reductions, it will benefit them. From a Buddhist view, giving up attachment—to material comfort or lifestyle or whatever—if accomplished freely, not begrudgingly, there will be psychological benefits in the state of the person’s mind as a consequence of this compassionate act.
DALAI LAMA: Yes.
EKMAN: So, it is the built-in compassion we have for our offspring that may help to save the world. It may be difficult to care about the children in Darfur, but worrying about my own children and grandchildren is easy. I better start reducing the inequity, for my own children’s sake. So, it is building on what is already there.
DALAI LAMA: Yes. That is how we start: family level. (Translated.) Part of the tension here may be arising from a fairly standard Western attitude for dealing with problems that you want to solve. The world has many problems, and the idea that all the problems can be solved is probably not very realistic. There were great teachers in the past, across many cultures, who have taught certain ways of being, but if you look carefully, it seems that none of these teachers premised their teaching on the assumption that everyone is going to listen or going to change themselves and follow them.
Similarly, Darwin expressed very powerful sentiments [about the need for the welfare of all sentient beings]. He probably did not expect that they would be achieved. (Ekman laughs.) He probably did not write them on the assumption that everybody was going to listen to him.
The same applies to us. Our responsibility is to try our best and do what we can. Then that will be a part of things that we may achieve. Ten people follow a practice—good. One hundred—better. A thousand—still better. Not all 6 billion.
EKMAN: Maybe over time.
DALAI LAMA: (Switching to English.) If the work is something that is worthwhile, then, regardless whether we can achieve it or not, make attempt. That is, I think, important. Courageous.
THE HEROINE WITH ONE THOUSAND FACES
Lisa Bennett
MY SONS WERE BOUNCING on their beds before bedtime when I pulled out a new hand-me-down pair of pajamas for my youngest son, Julian. The top was covered with a bright blue-and-pink image of Kim Possible, Disney’s teenage superhero.
Julian was thrilled. Aidan, my oldest, smiled indulgently: How could his little brother embrace a girl superhero? Then I reminded him that the pj’s were once his, ones he had pleaded for. He reddened and stopped bouncing. “They were?” he said. It’s true: Kim Possible, cheerleader and crime fighter, was once his hero.
But somewhere between the age of 3 and 8, all that changed, and the only form of hero for him now was a male one: Obi-Wan Kenobi, Anakin Skywalker, Han Solo, almost anyone of Star Wars fame—save, well, Princess Leia. When he and his best friend recently played a Star Wars computer game that required players to take on the role of Princess Leia, they laughed uncomfortably, as if partaking in something they’d best keep secret.
Not too long ago, female superheroes were scarce, mainly limited to Wonder Woman. But in recent years we’ve seen a rise in female heroes and superheroes—for both children and adults—on television, in comics, and in film. Among the more famous: Xena the Warrior Princess, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Jean Grey of the X-Men, and, for the younger set, Powerpuff Girls. Yet the very idea of a female hero remains complex. Challenge yourself right now to think about a real-life hero. Who comes to mind? Chances are it is a man in a dramatic situation, running into a burning building to save someone or fighting in a war. Women do the same things, of course. But our common archetype of modern-day heroes seems to revolve around acts of dramatic male physical prowess and risk taking.
Recent research, however, has started to challenge that narrow conception of heroism. Alice H. Eagly, of Northwestern University, and Selwyn W. Becker, of the University of Chicago, studied the extent to which men and women participated in a variety of risky and heroic situations, such as rescuing Jews during the Holocaust. They also compared the number of men and women who had been awarded a Carnegie Medal, which is given to people who risk their lives trying to save someone else, and examined less dramatic actions that still involved risk, such as donating a kidney or joining the Peace Corps.