14. IN CONCLUSION

Building Bridges

ROBERT LIVINGSTON: Your Holiness, I should like to begin with a little story. When I first went to San Francisco, the Golden Gate and Oakland/San Francisco Bay Bridges were being built. People started with the idea of having rapid two-way exchanges across the bay. Specialists studied where to locate the bridges. Some experts, like Willis Bailey at Stanford, forewarned that the Golden Gate Bridge would likely fall down during an earthquake because its foundations would be based on serpentine rocks, unstable under powerful shearing forces. Nevertheless, given public authority and the will to proceed, engineers built huge foundations and anchorages for the suspension systems. They then had tugboats pull two wires from shore to shore for each bridge. When those tenuous threads had been lofted and secured in place, mechanical shuttles propelled themselves back and forth, eventually spinning and sheaving enormous cables from which vertical supports for roadways were suspended.

We are engaged in similar teamwork and expect similarly exciting and progressive developments and mutual advantages from facilitated two-way exchanges. Within our respective traditions, each side has been somewhat chary and perhaps condescending in evaluating the enormous philosophical, psychological, and cultural contributions made by these two disparate conceptions of reality.

You nonetheless have expressed personal interest in bridging the gap between the theoretical and practical knowledge resources of Buddhism and Western life sciences. Fortunately, the idea of bridge-building appeals to resourceful constituents on both sides. The most significant fact is that both sides were originally founded on the principle that if there is substantial evidence to refute existing assumptions and hypotheses—no matter how long established and widely believed these may be—verifiable evidence will replace them with new explanations. This ensures the progressiveness that distinguishes Buddhist and Western scientific traditions from most ideologies.

At the first Mind and Life Conference, some tenuous threads were strung across. But we have not yet established foundations for deciding what may be the most fruitful questions to ask of one another, what experiments might contribute most effectively to mutual progress, and how we should go about verifying one another’s evidence.

DALAI LAMA: Two years ago we had the first Mind and Life dialogue. We have then and now been experimenting with different possible approaches and possible grounds for future dialogues. Sometime in the future it might be quite beneficial if we could concentrate on certain points raised in these two Mind and Life dialogues. At these meetings, points are raised which open new possibilities for pursuing more in-depth research, credible research with precision instruments. With experimental investigation of some of these points, I think we might obtain better evidence and a deeper understanding.

The subjects for such research must be not merely Buddhist scholars but rather practitioners who have some contemplative experience. In the past, some such practitioners have visited laboratories in which their bodily responses were measured. Dr. Benson, for example, performed physiological tests and found that extra energy is mobilized during meditation. Thus meditative experiences gave rise to biological changes within the body. So, I suggest that we proceed like that. I think then we might get a clearer picture, for the scientists as well. Experiment on capable practitioners to analyze their mental states and brain functions—I think maybe that could yield interesting results. Perhaps it could also lead to more questions being raised as well as some being answered. I think that’s the path of progress, isn’t it?

We have had two dialogues now on Mind and Life that have been fairly diverse in the topics that we have explored. What I would like to do in the future is to pinpoint one topic and really come up with ideas for further research that are more clearly channeled and focused. This is more an objective for group consideration than for me to decide. It is for us to decide among ourselves.

There is another point I should mention. I always believe that each individual human being has some kind of responsibility for humanity as a whole. Particularly, I always believe that as scientists, you have a special responsibility. Besides your own profession, you have a basic motivation to serve humanity, to try to produce better, happier human beings. Whether we understand consciousness or not, we must produce warmhearted persons. That is important. I want to express that. Whenever I meet scientists, I always have to say this.

Through my own profession, I try my best to contribute as much as I can. This proceeds without my being concerned whether another person agrees with my philosophy or not. Some people may be very much against my belief, my philosophy, but I feel alright. So long as I see that a human being suffers or has needs, I shall contribute as much as I can to contribute to their benefit. Scientists and medically qualified people can contribute especially. That’s different; that’s a particular context. A human being needs to be cared for according to your professional calling. You can contribute; that’s your shared professional responsibility.

Especially now in the twentieth century, I think the scientists’ role is important and urgent. Scientific evidence and explanations can make something that is unseen into something that becomes manifest and understandable. In contrast, explanations, arguments, and interpretations of mind and life that the religious traditions recommend tend to be based more on subjective experience and advocacy. A scientific explanation can usually be objectified and shared on the basis of instrumental evidence that can detect and measure things otherwise obscure. This makes the scientific explanation more tangible and cognizable than a religious explanation that may be mainly derived from introspective experiences. A scientific explanation, of course, would be more effective.

From within the scientists’ circle, it is not clear whether affection and compassion are illusions or real. Often we cannot specifically pinpoint the objects of our compassion, of our projected kindness, the objects of our affection. Anyway, having compassion is something very important throughout human society, isn’t it? Whether compassion has an independent existence within the self or not, compassion certainly is, in daily life, I think, the foundation of human hope, the source and assurance of our human future.