will you make me sad... or happy

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard discusses the subtle points of Buddhist thinking with the philosopher Jean-Francois Revel, who is also Mattheiu’s father. Towards the middle of the book, a dense 330 page dialogue between father and son, they argue the flaws and merits of Buddhism’s approach to solving social ills such as war, poverty and disease. Revel is quick to point out that Buddhism’s approach is more passive than the one taken in the West, where problems are tackled head-on using technology or by leveraging political power. Ricard counters that many of the problems can be solved from within, to which Revel objects, particularly in the case of illness.

Ricard’s arguments in the discussion of the solutions to war were particularly thought-provoking. His father asks how Buddhism would bring an end to armed conflict, to which Ricard replies, “…outer disarmament can only take place through inner disarmament. If the individual doesn’t become more peaceful, a society that’s the sum total of such individuals will never become peaceful either. … To think otherwise is surely utopian.” I find this particularly striking, since at first glance, it seems quite the opposite; the suggestion that every individual in every nation must go through a self-driven process of introspection and spiritual learning before peace can be achieved seems fairly utopian. However, this is a viewpoint in which I find much truth. How could anyone expect peace between nations, states, tribes, or even neighbors when all parties involved have not developed their compassion to a level where it rules over anger, animosity, and jealousy? Hateful thoughts lead to hateful deeds; this cannot be denied.

The argument conjures up my personal perception of the West’s general viewpoint concerning conflict -- that as long as man exists, there will be war. Greed and animosity will persevere for as long as humankind; we will never see an end to strife. However, I would like to add a conditional statement to that view, that there will always be war only if individual people do not make a conscious attempt to express love rather than hate, or gratitude rather than jealousy. If we trust the ancient wisdom of Buddhism and its science of happiness, we know that the path to individual happiness involves undertaking those very efforts -- elimination of animosity and ignorance in favor of compassion and wisdom. Therefore, however unlikely it may be that all humans simultaneously begin to practice Buddhist ideals, it is not unreasonable to assume that if we all make an effort to be individually happy, the horrors of war would become a thing of the past. All we need to do is to make an effort towards real happiness. I cannot conceive of a task for which we should have greater motivation, considering it is our own condition -- misery, happiness or something in between -- that we decide.

Certainly a logical argument, anyways.