The following is a report from the Seeds of Compassion event in Seattle, which occurred this past weekend in Seattle. This was a massive, five-day event which was meant to highlight the need for wide, societal changes through compassion. I feel it is relevant to pass this report on here because the affect that aggression has on the health of society is not dissimilar to the affect that it can have on the health of the human body. The key-note speaker was the Dalai Lama (whose presence unintentionally coincided with the recent political unrest between Tibet and China).
The point that I am trying to make here is that we all need to engage in meaningful dialogue, regardless of where we exist within cultural, religious and political spectrums. I myself am staunchly conservative in some regards and downright leftist in others and, thus, would make for a poor pundit or punching bag for any point of view. If however, you are able to glean from this a particular viewpoint that is different from your own, then please remember that the views that the authors express in this blog are not necessarily the views of the institution to which we are employed or to which we attend…
In 1995, I was completing a Master’s degree in Tibetan Buddhism while living in Katmandu, Nepal. During a break in our studies, several friends tried to persuade me to go with them to Tibet. I was aiming for a doctorate in Buddhist-Christian dialogue and had devoted the last several years of my life to the study of Tibetan religion and culture, even learning the language. Because I had studied Christianity as a philosophy major at a seminary, going to Tibet during the Buddhist part of my studies seemed like the logical step.
But I felt angry over what I thought was an oppressive occupation of Tibet by the communist government of China. During the Reagan era, I had been to both the Soviet Union and Sandinista controlled Nicaragua and knew well the oppression we would see in Tibet. I to
ld my friends that I would go to Lhasa only after the Chinese left and I went instead on a retreat to a Tibetan monastery just outside Katmandu, to live with the community as it exists in exile. I don’t regret that decision in the least but ever since then I have harbored a strong resentment toward the Chinese government for, in my mind, denying me this opportunity.
But while attending the Seeds of Compassion event this Saturday in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said something that greatly affected me. In his usual Tibetan style of broken English, he said,
“The twentieth century was a century of bloodshed. But I think it is our responsibility to make this the Century of Dialogue.”Despite how inauspicious this century has started, he added, there is still plenty of time left for us to affect this change toward dialogue.
Obviously as a comparative-religion doctoral wannabe, this language of dialogue is very appealing to me. In these times, there is a heightened need for dialogue between those of all political and religious beliefs. Then, the Dalai Lama relayed an idea that I have heard him propose in other talks. In his plan, all the leaders of the world would come together for a two-week vacation with no written, political agenda. They would come with their spouses and children and interact as normal people. It is a great idea actually. In fact, it is not all that different from the atmosphere that President Carter tried to create in his Mid-east peace talks at Camp David. Although I am sure that Sadat and Begin never splashed around in a swimming pool together and, in fact, the Peace Accords have gone through several stages of complete unraveling, the relentless commitment to sequestered dialogue was the driving force behind that initial success. But that was when dialogue and negotiation were held in higher regard than they are now.
I am not certain why we Americans have changed so much but can you imagine a president who would do such a thing now? There was uproar from the other candidates and pundits when Senator Obama stated that he would even consider a presidential meeting with Iran. Why has dialogue fallen so far from grace? The Dalai Lama is right. Our American leadership should not fear meeting and talking with other leaders, even those who are hostile to us. Just as the Chinese should not fear to sit down and speak honestly with the Dalai Lama. Yet I do not see either of these things happening anytime soon, and as I sat in Qwest Field last Saturday, I felt my anger grow again.
Then the moderator fielded a question from the public which asked what we as citizens can do to affect the attitudes of those who are in power. I, along with the rest of the righteously indignant crowd, burst into a loud cheer. But then he did what any good Buddhist would do, he turned it inward. The most effective way that we can change our leaders, he said, is to change ourselves.
We must not simply blame those in power, for they are in some ways reflections of ourselves. Rather, if we each succeed in engendering compassion within ourselves, societal changes will follow much more easily. Just as it is important that governments commit to nuclear disarmament, he said, “We first need to disarm ourselves.”
I attend many events on religious and political dialogue and people always ask a version of that same question at the end- what can we as individuals do to affect change? Most speakers advise people to start by doing whatever they can do. Regardless of final results, at least try to do something; try to influence a few people along the way. 
But the Dalai Lama said it a bit differently. He said that the one thing that we as individuals can do is change ourselves. If we all succeed in doing just that, everything else will follow naturally. It is not a new idea but it was a succession of ideas and points that resonated with me on a level I was both expecting and not expecting.
Traveling to Tibet is a bit dicey at the moment but maybe now more than ever is the right time for me to return. I feel the need to see both sides of this issue, to clearly distinguish between the government of China, which truthfully I will always disagree with, and the people themselves. This is always the first step toward peace, understanding the point of view of those you perceive as your opponent. In the sort of cosmic coincidence that I am growing to expect in life, my good friend from Georgia, with whom I was traveling in ‘95, has recently asked if I might be interested to go with him back to Tibet once the travelling bans are safely lifted and I do believe I will this time. Not because our touring of Tibet will mean anything to anyone or because I am under some narcissistic delusion that these events have anything to do with me, but just so that I can create a change in my own life as the Dalai Lama suggested. So that I finally can let go of my anger and return to the country in which I feel I have spent countless previous lives.