War is an anachronism
WAR, or any form of organized combat, developed alongside civilization and seems to be part of history and of the human temperament.
However, the world is changing, and we have understood that we cannot solve human problems with weapons. The disputes that result from differences of opinion should be settled gradually through dialogue.
Obviously, wars produce conquerors and conquered, but only temporarily. The victories or defeats resulting from wars cannot last very long. Moreover, our world has become so interdependent that the defeat of one country has repercussions throughout the rest of the world and leads directly or indirectly to suffering and loss for each one of us.
Today, in such an interdependent world, the concept of war seems anachronistic, stemming from outmoded attitudes. We are always talking about reform and change. Many traditions from the past are no longer adapted to the present and are even counterproductive and have thus been relegated to the dustbins of history. War should also be consigned to the dustbins of history.
Unfortunately, although we’ve entered the twenty-first century, we haven’t made a clean break with past habits: I refer to the belief that we can solve problems with weapons. It is because of this idea that the world continues to experience all sorts of difficulties. But what should we do? What is to be done when the major world powers have already made their decisions? We can wish for a gradual end to the tradition of wars.
Naturally, one doesn’t easily put an end to the militaristic tradition. But think about it. If there is carnage, the men in power or the leaders will have safe shelters; they will escape the painful consequences by finding asylum. But what will happen to the poor people, the children, the old, the sick? They are the ones who will have to bear the brunt.
When weapons speak, they create death and destruction without distinguishing between the innocent and the guilty. The missile launched by the enemy does not respect the innocent, the poor, the defenseless—the very people deserving of compassion. As a result, the real losers are the ones who lead a simple life.
The only positive point: those benevolent organizations that bring medical and humanitarian aid and intervene in regions torn apart by conflicts. The development of these organizations is a victory of the heart in the modern era.
Let us hope and pray that there is no war at all, if possible. If a war breaks out, let us pray that there is the least possible carnage and suffering. I do not know if our prayers will bring any aid, in concrete terms, but it is all we can do for now.
This declaration was made in Dharamsala on March 11, 2003, when threats of war in Iraq were looming. Six months later, in October 2003, during teachings given in Paris, the Dalai Lama noted that, in the accusations made against Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, no mention was made of the fact that the dictator’s weapons had been made with the use of Western technology. He pointed out that the greed of the weapons-trafficking governments should be denounced along with the bloodthirsty tyrant.
In January 2009 in Sarnath, the Dalai Lama recalled this example in order to illustrate interdependence and the necessity of every individual becoming aware of the universal responsibility we all share and recognizing that the smallest action affects the world.
Everyone must assume a share of universal responsibility
IDON’T BELIEVE IN THE CREATION of mass movements or in ideologies. And I do not appreciate the fashion of creating an organization in order to promote one idea or another, which implies that one small group is solely responsible for carrying out a given project, to the exclusion of everyone else. In the present circumstances, no one should assume that someone else will solve his problems. Everyone must assume his own share of universal responsibility. This way, as the number of concerned, responsible individuals increases—first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands and even hundreds of thousands—the general atmosphere will be improved.9
The Dalai Lama does not subscribe to ideologies that distance individuals from the awareness necessary to assume their humanity fully. The freshness of his position consists in centering the resolution of problems on the individual and on ethics.
Compassion is the truth of the human being, and it comes about by developing an altruistic attitude on the individual level. On a global level, compassion leads to developing universal responsibility. During a time of globalized history and worldwide civilization, we all assume our share of universal responsibility wherever we live. Every individual action has widespread repercussions. Every person’s field of action has become global, with individual freedom conferring duties as well as rights.
As a result of our interdependence, impoverishing a country, a people, or a culture deprives humanity of an irreplaceable share of its rich diversity.An attack on the basic rights of one human individual becomes an attack on the dignity of all.
What’s more, according to the Dalai Lama, awareness of universal responsibility should extend to the realm of the sciences. For human dignity is flouted not just by the policies of repressive and totalitarian governments or by armed conflicts. The moral integrity of human beings has for decades been facing a new challenge that becomes even more pressing as science and technology continue to make new advances. These disciplines now have the power to manipulate the actual genetic codes of life.
To allow science to assume its responsibility in the service of the human individual, the Dalai Lama has been engaged in a dialogue with scholars of worldwide renown. On the basis of Buddhism, understood as a science of the mind, he has emphasized the convergences between his own contemplative tradition and the contemporary neurosciences. As a result of this dialogue, a definition of ethical principles applicable to the scientific realm has emerged, along
