Dialogue for monastics includes the public forum. On his 2003 visit to America His Holiness the Dalai Lama followed his usual pattern of making many public appearances. He visited his brother, Dr. Norbu, in Indiana, where he blessed a new temple, and then went to New York and on to Boston. It’s almost routine, and his presence lifts up the spirits of literally millions of people. He’s so powerful with his presence and his teachings. This monk is the embodiment of Gandhi for our times.

One report in the New York Times ran with the headline “Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply” and included quotations that would discredit the Dalai Lama’s credibility as an ambassador for peace through nonviolent means. The interviewer, Laurie Goodstein, quoted His Holiness as saying, “Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, and we have to take countermeasures.” Another quotation seemed to indicate that His Holiness condoned the Iraq War: It’s “too early to say” whether the Bush war against Iraq was mistaken; “I feel only history will tell.”

Those comments are disturbing, indeed, coming from the New York Times, our country’s most honored source of news and views. Colman McCarthy embellished the significance of these remarks with a column that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter on October 10, 2003, in which he challenged the Dalai Lama’s reputation by presenting him as a Superstar selling out. McCarthy reduced the teachings of His Holiness to the simplistic message of: Think positive, live with hope, reduce negative motivations, have a good attitude, learn compromise, be aware, be happy. He then concluded his punchy report by saying: “The Dalai Lama joins a long list of people who, in the parlance of celebrity, are famous for being famous. He is an entertainer, a headliner, a showman—complete with maroon robes and a bare shoulder. Nothing wrong with that. A shtick’s a shtick. But he’s nowhere close to being in the company of Gandhi, who said, ‘I do not believe in any war’, or the Mennonites, Church of the Brethren, or Quakers who don’t hedge their antiwar convictions, much less wait for history.” (Colman McCarthy directs the Center for Teaching Peace in Washington. His email address is colman@clark.net.)

For the record, those of us who have been with the Dalai Lama both here and in India and have listened to his teachings can testify that his witness and motives are ones of courage, integrity, consistency, and nonviolence in mind, speech, and attitude. I wrote to his office in the United States and asked for clarification. Here is the text of my inquiry and the response I received from the Office of Tibet in New York. These letters speak for themselves. I regret that Colman McCarthy and Laurie Goodstein did not make similar consultations before they put into writing so many errors that could diminish support for the Dalai Lama in his amazing exile and life devoted to teaching and being Peace.

On November 4, 2003, I wrote the following email message to Annie Warner of the Office of Tibet in New York City:

Dear Annie,

I feel as though you could best answer my question: I’m getting mail and honest inquiry about His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s recent visit to the US. The reports of his comments seem to indicate a shift from nonviolence in the face of aggression. I’ve read some of the newspaper quotes and it does seem that he suggests that Bush was justified in invading Iraq. This seems to be a departure from his previous teachings. Could you point me to some counter texts, or is this really a shift in his view in the face of terrorism? Or should I make an appointment with Rinchen Dharlo or his Representative Nawang Rabgyal? I’ll be in New York City the first week of December. Was going to stop in anyway to thank you for arranging the audience for Professor Don Mitchell and Abbot Damien Thompson. I do realize all the complexities of your role!

My thanks,
Sister Meg

Annie Warner replied to me the same day as follows:

Dear Sister Meg,

Thank you for contacting me with this question. We believe that much of the confusion regarding His Holiness’ views of nonviolence stems from the New York Times article dated September 18, 2003. In all honesty, we were quite upset with the article—and the headline, especially—and did our best to try and clear the matter before His Holiness left the United States.

His Holiness is still very much a believer in nonviolence. His position has not changed on the topic whatsoever. During the interview with the NY Times, He stated that certain countermeasures may be necessary in order to help Iraq, and the reporter took that to mean violence. It was a misrepresentation of His beliefs.

I am attaching the Letter to the Editor that we sent immediately after the article was printed. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at any time.

With best wishes,
Annie Warner
The Office of Tibet

The letter sent from the Office of Tibet to the New York Times read as follows:

September 19, 2003

To the Letters Editor of the New York Times:

Your headline, as well as the report on the interview with His Holiness the Dalai Lama by Laurie Goodstein (“Dalai Lama Says Terror May Need a Violent Reply,” September 18, 2003), gives the misleading impression that His Holiness is endorsing violence as a way to confront terrorism. I am sure, as many of your readers are aware, His Holiness has always advocated nonviolence as the most effective method for dealing with conflict. More specifically, with regard to the war on Iraq, His Holiness publicly issued a statement expressing his opposition to war as the momentum was building towards an invasion.

As the Official Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, I was personally present at the interview that was the basis of your article. I can assure that your article has taken His Holiness’ comments out of context. For example, on the question of countering terrorism, His Holiness emphasizes the need for another level of response. This is the long-term approach. Efforts should be made towards transforming human hearts and minds, which His Holiness suggested would require, among other things, an emphasis on closer contacts between the Western world and the Middle East. A truly effective counter to terrorism is to transform the human emotions of hatred and suspicion that motivate acts of terror.

Furthermore, the reference to Osama Bin Laden is not reported the way His Holiness put it. In response to Laurie Goodstein’s question on how one can understand Osama Bin Laden’s behavior of expressing delight in the death of thousands of people as a result of the terror acts, His Holiness stated that it is partly a question of conditioning. He gave the example that although an average person may feel hesitant from killing animals, because of their conditioning butchers learn to kill animals without experiencing such discomfort.

Sincerely,
Nawang Rabgyal
Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama to the Americas