MATTHIEU RICARD: So meditation.
So first of all, meditation
is basically about silence.
So I don't really need to come.
And my dear mother
who's 92 said "silence
is the language of the future."
But since I came, I'll
just share a few words.
So I think in a way it's nice
in the kind of world we live,
which is mostly a secular
world and although we
have many other
options, meditation
is a bit of a
culturally loaded word.
We always think of something
exotic, not from here.
And then also there are cliches
about meditation, like just
empty your mind and relax.
So relaxing, of
course we can do.
Emptying your mind?
I don't know how
long you can do that.
But anyway, if you look
at the roots, in Sanskrit,
bhavana means to cultivate.
In Tibetan, [? gom ?] means to
become familiar with something.
So obviously it's like training.
So what are you training?
You play badminton or chess?
They're not quite the same.
So now familiarization can
also be cultivating a quality,
like loving kindness,
mindfulness, open presence,
pure awareness, loving
kindness, rejoicing,
and so forth-- emotional
balance and all these things.
And if you are going to teach
in schools or in enterprise,
if you say we're going
to do medication,
there might be some resistance.
But if you say we
are going to help
you to have better attention,
better emotionally balance,
and better [? prosocial ?]
behavior, everybody goes wow.
So familiarization
could be also not just
captivating something
but becoming
more familiar with the
nature of your mind.
What is behind all of these
whirlpools of thoughts?
Is there something
like a pure awareness
that is free from mental
constructs, hope and fear, that
is the most fundamental
aspect of mind from which
all emotions, recollections,
reasoning, perceptions, inner
and outer perceptions come.
Without this luminous quality of
the mind, this basic cognitive
faculty, none of it will happen.
A glass doesn't think anything,
doesn't feel anything,
doesn't remember anything.
It doesn't has this luminous
quality of cognition.
So that basic nature that
we sometimes don't perceive
because of so many
movements in the mind,
we could also become
more familiar with that.
And that's also one of
the aspects of meditation
that doesn't necessarily need to
have an effortful cultivation.
So all of those fall
within the scope
of what we call meditation.
So as you see, it's a very
generic term, like training.
So this is why the idea of
cultivating, familiarization--
mind training tells more.
So now again, what are
we going to train in?
So mindfulness and
any other things
related with presence, with
attention, is, of course,
extremely useful.
Because if your mind is
constantly distracted,
you're going to
cultivate anything.
So that's why most
mediation begins
with refining that tool of
mindfulness, and attention,
and vigilance, and presence.
And as you know,
since many of you
are engaged both in
the well-being program,
the search inside
yourself program,
in this-- what do you call that?
The G--
AUDIENCE: G Pose.
MATTHIEU RICARD: G Pose.
In France, there's a
[? 3D ?] meditation
that is sold on the internet.
And you can get subscribed
for $30, $40, $50.
And then depending on that, you
get more and more beautiful,
young, and all kinds of things.
I don't know.
So I gather the G
Pose is not like that.
So anyway to achieve
that as you do,
a simple mind exercise to have a
clearer, more stable, more calm
mind.
And you do that often
with watching your breath.
Why is this is a good
object of attention?
Because you see, if you have
one of those red flashing lights
as you find sometimes on the
highways, very aggressively
flashing red lights, and it's
right in front of your eyes,
and you say focus on that
and don't get distracted,
even if you're totally
distracted, you still see that.
There's no way to escape.
So there's no help to find
out whether you're distracted
or not.
But breath is
something invisible.
You really have to pay attention
to be aware of the coming
and going of your breath.
If you are distracted,
it's gone because it
doesn't impose itself to your
attention no matter what.
So therefore it's a good
way to have something
that is subtle enough that you
can realize that at some point
that you have been distracted
because it's just not
there anymore.
And you can bring
back your attention.
So as you do often,
I'm share, for those
who practice the
G Pose and Search
Inside Yourself and well-being
program, so what do you do?
Balance posture?
You don't have to
torture yourself
by trying to sit in
the full lotus posture
unless it's natural to you.
But the balance posture, not
to slack, or no self-induced
torpor.
Well, we call that in
the neuroscience lab
the self-induced absorption
in cognitive opacity.
Well, we don't want to do that.
So a [? set ?] of clarity-- you
don't need to close your eyes.
But you can just gaze
in a very panoramic way,
not focusing on
anything and just simply
be a aware of the coming
and going of the breath,
a tickling, or warm, or cold
sensation, or the movement
of your lungs or abdomen.
And just keep on
that, very simply.
I've felt distracted, just
like the butterfly who
goes out of the flower
and just come back.
And don't make a fuss about it.
Oh, I've been distracted.
I'm no good.
That's another kind
of distraction.
If you are aware that you have
been distracted, that's it.
You are mindful again.
So that's.
Just resume your mindfulness.
So let's do that
for a few moments
and then see how we can
embed this caring dimension
you into it after that.
While you do that,
thoughts will come.
Once they are there,
they are there.
So there's no idea
of blocking them.
But the problem is
not when they come.
It's what you do after that.
Do they proliferate or
do they just dissolve?
That's the main thing.
So imagine that a thought comes.
Don't run after it.
Don't try to block it.
Let it pass like a bird
passing through the sky.
If you do so, they
will not multiply.
And if a bird passes
through the sky,
you can still very well be
aware of the sky that has not
changed behind the bird.
So that's the pure
mindfulness or pure awareness.
So imagine that you have
done that for 5, 10 minutes,
whatever you can afford to do.
Then you have a relatively more
clear, relatively more calm,
relatively more
stable state of mind.
That will come with practice.
As you have seen with
the neuroscience data,
anything you practice
will change what you are.
So if you have done
that within a session,
then you can use that calmer,
stable, more clear state
to go to cultivate
something wholesome,
like altruistic
love or compassion.
So altruistic love, remember
that beautiful child
we saw after the image of
saying man is a willful man?
So when you see and think
of such a beautiful child,
what do you wish except may
that child be safe, happy,
may he or she flourish in life.
May he spared
terrible suffering.
May those who are
around him also
enjoy a sense of flourishing.
So just wishing
good to that person.
So that's altruistic love.
So let's start with something
easy, like this young child,
and then we can extend it to
other people, like strangers.
Why not?
Why should the sun
not shine on everyone?
It doesn't cost more.
It's just a
qualitative experience,
not like a keg that we
have limited resources of.
Just extend that to all,
that same benevolence.
Let this loving kindness
or this altruistic love
completely fill your
mental landscape.
If you are distracted,
come back to it.
If it sort of becomes
dim, revive it.
So nourish it.
Keep its quality
vivid, intense, clear.
And then if you
think how could I
do that with bloody dictators?
So in that case, it's
not wishing success
to that person's
terrible projects.
It's not liking that person.
You can have total disgust
for the person's action,
but still what shape
would altruistic love
take in front of this dictator?
It becomes a wish of compassion.
May the suffering and the causes
of suffering be dispelled.
And of course, a dictator is
a cause of immense suffering.
So you might wish may his
action be counteracted.
May the cruelty, the
difference indifference,
the greed that motivates such
a destructive state of mind
be dispelled.
That, you can wish, of course.
So that's how we can
shift to compassion.
Compassion is not fundamentally
different from altruistic love.
Altruistic love was
wishing everyone happiness
and the cause of happiness.
When it meets suffering,
it becomes compassion,
which is the shape that
altruistic love takes
when it encounters suffering.
It is the wish may the beings
suffering and the cause
suffering be dispelled.
So for that, we may
visualize intense suffering--
and there's so many
in this world--
and wish those beings be
spared that suffering,
the causes of
suffering be remedied--
a sort of intense compassion.
And if you feel somehow
overwhelmed by the magnitude
of suffering, you
should think that this
needs to be met not with some
kind of empathic distress
but with a magnitude of
compassionate courage.
Then sometimes,
we must still feel
overwhelmed by so
much suffering.
Though then we can also
think of wonderful people who
are imbued with such
great quantities
of compassion, of
knowledge, of wisdom,
of dedication to
others-- social workers,
spiritual teachers,
great luminaries,
those who bring new ideas
into this world and rejoice.
Without any other thoughts,
just fully appreciate them.
It's a very altruistic
thing to rejoice.
Because there's nothing
to gain from that.
Nobody's going to praise you if
you rejoice in Gandhi's life.
Nobody's going to
blame you if you
don't have this state of mind.
They won't know.
So it's really part
of altruism to rejoice
in the goodness of others,
and their qualities,
and achievements.
And rejoicing is
also the antidote
to envy, jealousy, feeling
miserable because others have
quality, which is pretty silly.
And besides altruistic
love, compassion,
rejoicing and
celebrating, there's
a fourth thing that we need.
That's impartiality.
We cannot know compassion--
and altruism is not a reward
for good behavior or for
the way people treat you.
Compassion aims at removing
any suffering wherever
it is, however it manifests.
So it's not a moral judgement.
Moral judgement
exists, but it's not
about the way people behave.
It's about remedying
the causes of suffering.
Therefore, that we wish to
dispel the causes of suffering
can apply to all-- close
persons, strangers, even
obnoxious people.
So we need that powerful
wish, like the sun,
which shines on everything.
And when some
people tell you how
can I not love more my
children, and my dear
ones, and my companions,
and so forth?
Yes, of course.
No, if the sun shines, if
life circumstances bring
them very close to you, they
get naturally more light
and more warm.
But it's not at the
cost of discriminating.
Just they happen to be there.
But the sun still
shines on everyone.
If you are to concentrate
your reserves on those people,
actually, you will shine
less well, less intensely,
with less light on those.
So everyone is losing.
By having this attitude
to all, you also
love better your loved ones.
So this is a much
better situation.
Just extend your altruistic
love, your compassion to all.
That's called impartiality.
So of course, we did that
for a very short time.
But you can see you could
expend those periods of silence,
which are the real thing.
And then also you can
switch between those.
For instance, if altruistic
love turns a little bit
into attachment, then
go to impartiality.
If impartiality becomes
a bit of indifference--
you're impartial, but
you're not caring very much,
then move to compassion.
Think of the
suffering of beings.
And if you're overwhelmed
at some point,
then move again to rejoicing.
So likewise, skillfully,
by combining those four,
then the four of
them go together.
And then you get this profound,
you could say, good heart
or good-heartedness, this
is fundamental quality
of goodness.
So that's what
meditation is about.
So you see, of course,
mindfulness is a precious tool,
and it does extreme
good in the world,
in the clinical world, in the
world of the working place,
and many other areas.
But I think if we never lose
sight that mindfulness should
go always and unambiguously
with a caring quality,
then it will have its full
potential to help you, I think,
even more.
So thank you.
And at the end of any
practice, in the same way
at the beginning, which
is why I'm doing that,
not just for me, for all
sentient beings, at the end,
at the conclusion,
dedicate whatever good we
did this morning, may
that benefit everyone.
Why not?
And it's not like a piece of
cake that you put in pieces.
Everyone gets everything.
That's a good deal.
So thank you.
So if you have any
questions, welcome.
AUDIENCE: Yeah.
Thank you so much for the
talk and the meditation.
I'm over here.
So my question is how can
our micro actions really
help people who are
quite far away from us
and are experiencing extremist
violence in different parts
of the world?
And somewhat relatedly, how
can consumer technology,
or how can technology in
general, like Google, Facebook,
everything here
in Silicon Valley,
really help accelerate
social change ?
MATTHIEU RICARD:
Well, you see, you
must remember once when
I did a small book called
"The Art of Meditation"--
or I think it's called
"Why Meditate?" in English, it
was the time of the Iraq War.
And then people said,
how can this help?
You're meditating?
That's great, but how
can this help globally?
And that is true, that when the
forest is on fire, why are you
going to talk about the sparks?
But the problem is the fire
started with the spark.
And there's no war,
or discrimination,
or massacre that didn't start
with hatred, or at least
with devaluing others.
If you value others and
you are concern by others,
then how can you exert harm
if you are genuinely concerned
with the well-being of somebody?
So it did start with the mind.
There's no war that didn't
start with someone, somebody,
a group contagiously having this
dehumanization of the other,
reducing them the
state of thinking
they are like animals, inferior,
and so forth and so forth.
So that's why.
The fact that immediately
a change of mind,
first, would not solve
immediately a conflict
that is raging somewhere.
But after all, conflicts
are made with people.
People have different
states of mind.
And that's exactly what
I mentioned earlier
about the articulation point
between individual and societal
change.
A culture that is based
on nonviolent values,
on compassion and
altruistic love,
it's much more likely
that they will not
be resort to violence
to solve conflicts.
They will not impose
terrible things onto others.
So it start with someone.
Then it grows to family, the
community, the working place,
the society, the
village, the culture.
And then culture can
become also contagious
or succeed better than
other cultures, which
are more individualistic,
everyone against everyone.
So the evolution of
culture can favor that,
and it starts with the people.
A society is made of people.
So if you have a culture that is
nonviolent because generations
of people have
cultivated those virtues.
And if someone is
promoting violence,
then your children will also
grow in that environment.
So it's not the
immediate, magic solution.
But it's the only way that we
gradually change individuals
and by extension society.
So we should not worry
that immediately I
may not have an effect, some
kind of magic vibes going
to solve conflicts.
But the more there are people
thinking that way, especially
in the global world,
virtual world,
where altruistic
people have a tendency
to get together and cooperate,
while the free-riders,
the really selfish
guys, they kick
each others' legs all day long.
So as a group, they have
a selective disadvantage
to a group of altruistics
who cooperate.
That's clear.
All the models have shown that.
So we should not
get discouraged.
It's one by one, thought after
thought, emotion after emotion,
individual after individual.
And somehow you
create a culture.
That may take a few
years or some whatever,
but you can make a real
difference, because everyone
can make a difference.
And that difference ripples out.
So that's why movements started.
When I first came here, I think
there was not much question
about [? G Pose ?] and--
AUDIENCE: Bowel movements.
MATTHIEU RICARD: Huh?
AUDIENCE: We had
bowel movements.
MATTHIEU RICARD:
Yes, bowel movements.
[GIGGLING]
So within a number of
years, less than 10 years,
it becomes part of the culture.
And then the people
who do that, they
will go about their
activities in different ways.
So that's what the
culture is about.
Yeah.
Whoever, yes?
AUDIENCE: Hi, thank you.
I just loved that
image of mindfulness
versus caring--
mindfulness, the sniper,
versus caring mindfulness.
Can you provide a
little inspiration
for how we, as an organization
that wants to provide things
with the right language,
the right approach
so that things can
scale and organizations
that don't have
exposure to this,
we can incorporate this
idea of caring mindfulness
into everything that we do?
MATTHIEU RICARD: We talked a
little bit about that, about
economics first.
As you say, if you take the
definition of homo economicus--
I don't know if you are
too familiar with that,
but there was somebody
called Francis [? Edwards. ?]
He was one of the fathers of
classical and modern economics.
He said there's no place for
altruism in economic systems.
Maybe he was not a bad
person, but this is not
about economics.
So of course, it's
a big caricature.
[INAUDIBLE] said,
for example, it's
absurd to think that people
only think of promoting
their personal interests.
Human beings don't
function like that.
We are not so reductionist.
So to postulate
everything on that?
So then we say can we have
a compassionate, caring
economics?
If you say that to
mainstream economists,
they say it's very nice,
and that, of course,
I agree that individually we
can and should be altruistic.
But that is not about economics.
Basically, economics
is economics.
So be altruistic, but
one altruistic economics?
Who is going to
take us seriously?
But today, if you say
now about inequalities,
about the environment, I
don't care, that discourse
doesn't work anymore.
It's like saying let's
put back slavery.
I don't care a damn
about the environment
and I don't care a damn
about poverty in the world.
Who can say that?
A few might, but basically
it's really the extreme fringe.
So that's why it's
more acceptable,
and that's why economists like
[? Dennis ?] Nour and others
speak of caring economics
as a real important concept.
You could expose that
in Davos Economic Forum.
It's acceptable
because it makes sense.
And it's not words that
are chosen properly.
So likewise I think
the concept of caring,
mindfulness, if you bring these
to different companies that
are maybe not so enlightened
in the beginning,
if you go in the
corporate world,
it's not always that they put
altruism as a core component.
But the notion of caring, they
can all resonate with that.
We need more caring in the
workplace with each other.
You need to be more
caring with your family
So the idea of leadership,
being more of service--
I remember in Davos when there
was an evening on leadership--
I can never remember the name
properly-- Price Cooper Water
or something like that.
I don't know where
the Water comes from.
So anyway, they had
invited Christine Lagarde
and the head of
"The New York Times"
to discuss her leadership.
And Christine Lagarde could
not come, so one smart guy
though, hey, would you come?
I say, oh, of
course, but they will
be quite surprised to see me
instead of Christine Lagarde.
Anyway, I went there,
and I said what can I
say about leadership?
And I thought of
people I admire.
I had some wonderful
doctors or people
I met in
[? Imagine World. ?] We have
a big organization with them
and still maintain the spirit.
I thought, well, leadership
is to serve, serve the purpose
of what you're doing.
Google has to achieve
certain things,
doing what Google needs to
do to survive and prosper.
Then you have to
serve the people who
work here by providing a
nice environment to work in.
You have all these people
going to the swimming
pool at 10 o'clock
in the morning,
but they do their work
the rest of the time.
And you have nice
food everywhere.
Last time, it was 100 feet.
I don't know if you
still have that.
So serve the people so they
feel happy to be there,
and then they'll fulfill
their aspirations.
And then serve society
by doing something
that's not harmless to
society, like selling
substances like
tobacco that kill
6 million people every year.
That's 100 million in a century.
We don't serve society
by telling lies.
So that's not serving.
So likewise, this idea
of service, I think,
caring goes well with this idea.
So I think it's an
acceptable thing.
So then when you practice
and introduce something
like mindfulness, which is
pretty new-- now in France
when it was being
introduced, meditation
in the corporate world,
nobody would go for that.
This is just not our thing.
Now, yoga, you can
see or go to do yoga.
Nobody minds, but
it took 20 years.
So mindfulness,
people accepted that.
And it's thanks to Jon
Kabat-Zinn and all this work.
Now in the clinical world
and corporate world,
it's widely accepted,
a mindful revolution.
But then if it's not done
probably by the right people,
you could imagine using
it for just efficiency,
cold efficiency, so therefore
they make a mindful psychopath.
So that's why I think caring
is very acceptable, politically
correct, you could say.
And therefore, the
notion of caring,
I think, in now
world I don't see
why it should meet any
resistance, why you would say
that compassion,
altruism-- although it's
the same thing--
it's a little bit too
far from the usual
preoccupations
of those corporate
worlds, for instance.
So it's a skill, like
meditation in the school.
If you say we'll teach you
attention, emotional balance,
and prosocial behavior,
any parents and any teacher
will go for it.
So meditation in
school, they say mhm!
I heard from Mark Greenberg,
who's an educator.
He said when he wanted
to put meditation
in school in Texas or
somewhere, the parents
threatened to pull
out their kids.
They were teaching meditation.
They thought they were
going to indoctrinate them
in some weird oriental
metaphysics or something.
CHADE MENG TAN:
Two more questions.
AUDIENCE: Thank you for your
inspiring and interesting talk.
I cannot see clearly the
difference or they need
of saying caring mindfulness
and mindfulness because, for me,
according to my experience
when I practice mindfulness,
this caring feeling or need to
take care of myself and others
is born naturally.
MATTHIEU RICARD: Yes.
So that's exactly what
Jon Kabat-Zinn said,
and he's right.
If you do it properly
with the right instructor
in the right way, he
says it always witnesses
a strong opening to others.
Great.
But you know, it's still
an expected byproduct.
And it depends on
how it's taught.
But again to take the sniper
example, he's mindful.
No question.
So he's not caring.
So you could have that.
So just to avoid that
and to reinforce that
among the qualities that
mindfulness should bring,
caring is one of
the most powerful.
And actually many
studies have shown,
like Tania Singer's one year
study, that mindfulness alone
reduces stress, doesn't
bring prosocial behavior.
Although the people say
they're actually more caring,
but in behavior they don't
really make much difference.
So nothing wrong.
Nothing to put it down.
But the scientific results
show that it doesn't per se
automatically bring about
more prosocial behavior
while loving kindness
[INAUDIBLE] does in a big way.
So when those results
are be published,
I think that we'll also
clarify the situation then.
Yes, when it's well
done, probably yes.
But not necessarily with
every instructor, not with
every practitioner.
So then why mention
it so clearly
that you can't escape it?
Yes.
And then also you have
a lot of programs,
like Search Inside
Yourself, the well-being,
the mindfulness
training, and MBSR, MBCT.
And a few friends
thought should also
gather meditation
instruction that
includes very clearly the notion
of compassionate altruism.
So there's a trailer
now that will be
completely online from August.
It's called "Imagine Clarity."
And I participate in helping
them to build up those apps
and among other teachers
to-- I'm not a teacher,
but to share those instructions.
And so you can look
at that as well.
I think already a trailer
on "Imagine Clarity."
And also to do things
like what Meng is teaching
with this 10 second meditation.
I think it's very powerful.
And one example that I
gave over to Meng to use
is, why only 10 seconds,
but actually it's
more than 10 seconds?
And for example, if you open a
flask of perfume for 10 seconds
and close it, perfume
still will last longer.
And if you open it often
enough for 10 seconds,
it will be there all the time.
So it's just that we're
setting something in motion.
It's not just 10
seconds and then
we go back to bashing
people and slapping them.
CHADE-MENG TAN: Let me
clarify the 10 second thing
you're talking about.
The 10 second exercise that
Matthieu's talking about
is every now and then
just spend 10 seconds,
identify two human
beings, and secretly
wishing for them to be happy.
So that is very powerful.
MATTHIEU RICARD: So people can't
say that don't have 10 seconds.
People maybe don't have time.
They don't have 20 minutes.
But 10 seconds?
Nobody can dare to say
I don't have 10 seconds.
CHADE-MENG TAN:
The last question.
AUDIENCE: Thank you.
I'm losing things
from my pocket.
When I first encountered
loving kindness practice,
it seemed very conceptual--
I wish you joy.
I wish you peace--
without a feeling quality.
Sometimes, a real feeling
of warmth is there,
and I can feel it.
And when I accompany those
thoughts of may you be happy,
may you be free from
suffering with that feeling,
it becomes much more powerful.
But sometimes that
feeling isn't there
and I don't know how to generate
it effectively or consistently.
Do you have any advice for that?
MATTHIEU RICARD: So I remember
not far from here many years
ago, I met Paul Ekman, who's
a great scientist on emotion.
He asked me this question.
When you feel
compassion, do you have
to feel the suffering of others?
At that time, I had
not worked with people
working on empathy so I was
not sure-- be Sometimes yes,
sometimes no.
I was not sure.
Then we distinguished
nicely empathy, compassion,
and so forth.
So in short, when you
think of all the suffering,
just thinking with empathy,
like those Romanian children.
There is a strong
emotional component
that then triggers and
should bring about loving
kindness and compassion.
But there's also a
cognitive aspect.
In Buddhism, we
think that suffering
is not just headache,
or being tortured,
or terrible things like
that which are obvious.
Why did the Buddha teach
of the four noble truths,
the truth of suffering first?
We don't need the Buddha to
tell us headaches or toothaches
are suffering.
But he meant much
more than that.
He meant that as long as you
are a man, you're deluded.
And as long as
you strongly grasp
the solidity of permanence,
and friends, and enemies,
and those solidifications of
reality and distorting reality,
you are bound to suffer.
This is not very emotional.
The root is that
distorting reality brings
hatred, jealousy-- all that.
So you can, of course,
take compassionate
about the root of suffering,
but it is not very emotional.
But you understand the
deep cause of suffering.
So depending upon times, we have
seen many times the Dalai Lama.
You're having tears in
the middle of teaching.
And he said the
last 30 years when
he does his four hours of
meditation in the morning,
there's hardly any morning where
I didn't have tears thinking
of the suffering of beings.
So you could say it's
emotional, but also he meditates
on the lack of solid reality.
And I'm sure it's tears
that come at that time.
It's understanding wisdom
that reinforces and deepens
his compassion.
So those two-- it doesn't have
to be always the emotional.
There's this cognitive
dimension that
is very important,
especially in Buddhism,
but I think in
general, because you
go at the root of suffering.
CHADE-MENG TAN: Thank you
so much, my dear friend,
for benefiting us, for
teaching, and for being a life
in this world.
Thank you.
MATTHIEU RICARD: We'll
see how long it lasts.
