The Spanish Inquisition was a stain on world history, but it needn’t have been. It was badly botched. An inquisition is, after all, merely a formal inquiry. There’s nothing in the term that connotes punishment, torture, or malice. It’s simply a search for facts. In more tolerant times, the Spanish might have gathered testimony on why Jews choose Judaism over Christianity and left it at that. Instead, their proceedings were poisoned by hatred. A calamity was inevitable.
We have learned better. We need to give it another go, but with an entirely different mission. Today, there are dozens of people who have tens of millions of fervent followers. They are political leaders, religious gurus, people of enormous wealth, and various others possessed of exceptional charisma. They command extraordinary power. From the standpoint of public safety, it’s imperative to know the histories of these people, the beliefs they hold, and the social agendas they support.
I propose that an alliance of governments, perhaps with the help of philanthropists, create an International Inquisition Academy (IIA). The academy would consist of acclaimed critical thinkers from all parts of the globe. Their task would be to interview powerful people and publish a transcript. It would have an addendum titled “Assessment,” where interviewees are judged on their credibility, honesty, and rationality. Instances of factual error, deliberate lying, evasion, and oversimplification would be called out. Regardless of the contents, interviewees would earn the IIA seal as evidence they had submitted to the extensive questioning of experts.
You may wonder why powerful people would agree to such an ordeal. They’d do it for the seal, a symbol that they had done a civic duty and had the courage to “bare all.” Any public figure who declines an IIA invitation would, in effect, imply they have something to conceal from the public. (The rules of the interview would stipulate that no question about sexual conduct is admissible, unless its intention is to reveal the interviewee’s hypocrisy.)
It may be difficult to imagine how an IIA interview might go, so I’ve chosen to do a mock interview of a popular holy man whose opinions have been widely published. He is the Dalai Lama, a title that means “Ocean of Wisdom.” He was born in Tibet in 1935, with the name Lhamo Thondup. Later, he took the name Tenzin Gyatso, meaning “Upholder of Teachings.”
What follows are the Dalai Lama’s essential teachings, shown in bold italics, and my corresponding questions.
A positive state of mind is not merely good for you, it benefits everyone with whom you come into contact, literally changing the world.
I prefer “constructive state of mind” to “positive state of mind.” What do you think?
Doesn’t a “state of mind” suggest a continuous outlook? Therefore, wouldn’t a “positive” state of mind be one in which a negative thought rarely intrudes? And when one does, wouldn’t “thought editing” be likely?
Do you equate critical thinking with negative thinking? What effect do you think this teaching might have on critical thinking?
Anger, hatred, and jealousy never solve problems. Only affection, concern, and respect can do that.
This seems self-evident, though I do have a quibble with “affection.” If one likes the parties to a quarrel, might that not complicate the path to the optimal solution. Wouldn’t substituting “cooperation” for “affection” make your observation sounder?
Remember that the best relationship is the one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.
Are “love” and “need” attributes that can be isolated, or are they intermingled and hence unmeasurable? If they can be measured, by what means?
Does your observation apply to both sexual and nonsexual love?
What are the negative consequences if one needs more than loves, and have you observed them? Can one love to excess?
Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive.
You often insert “love” or “affection” when they are seemingly superfluous to your thought. Is it any less true to say “copulation and compassion are necessities for humanity to survive”?
Love and compassion benefit both ourselves and others. Through kindness to others, your heart and mind will be peaceful and open.
Isn’t this yet another vague use of “love”? Why not use “kindness” in both sentences?
Am I correct in assuming that love is a central concept in all your teachings? As such, doesn’t it behoove you to be an expert on the subject? Yet you’ve never been amorous with a woman, another man, or even a well-groomed Irish setter. What, then, is the source of your expertise?
Perhaps you’re thinking of love only in its nonsexual sense, as in parental love, friendship, or affection for a pet. Or do you have a kind of sibling love in mind that can somehow be mimicked with strangers? Do you agree that without much more elaboration of your conception of love, your teachings suffer greatly?
A sense of concern for others gives our lives meaning; it is the root of all human happiness.
This is a strong, surprising claim. What evidence do you have that it’s true? Should I conclude that all those driven to create art, pursue science, or make money are unhappy? What about the billions of people who live in the unreflective cycle of work-play-sleep? Are they unhappy, too? Is the entire Republican Party secretly miserable?
When you think everything is someone else’s fault. you will suffer a lot. When you realize that everything springs only from yourself, you will learn both peace and joy.
Are you asserting that each of us is the source of whatever we experience? If I’m mugged, am I the cause of it? Should I reprimand myself for my lost wallet, or should I report the incident to the police in hopes of preventing others from being mugged? What if I’m walking with a friend and we’re mugged together? Do we share the responsibility?
You’ve no doubt observed that acts of cruelty and brutality occur continually all over the world. Do those acts spring from me? This thought does not bring me peace and joy.
Never give up. No matter what is happening, no matter what is going on around you, never give up.
W.C. Fields once said, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it.” What do you say to that?
Have you ever offered this advice to Donald Trump?
Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.
What was your thought process in choosing this as the “prime” purpose? Do you think loving people is a prerequisite for helping them?
Pain can change you, but that doesn’t mean it has to be a bad change. Take that pain and turn it into wisdom.
Is it that easy — just a wave of the hand? If not, what’s the process? Wouldn’t a genetic predisposition or some factor in one’s early life play a determining role?
If someone does not smile at you, be generous and offer your own smile. Nobody needs a smile more than the one that cannot smile at others.
Would you agree that people have a repertoire of smiles, among which is a perfunctory smile? Isn’t a perfunctory smile no more than a concession to good manners? Is this the smile you have in mind?
Who are these people who cannot smile to others? Even sociopaths, among them serial killers, are known to smile.
The greater the level of calmness of our mind, the greater our peace of mind, the greater our ability to enjoy a happy and joyful life.
Isn’t this a tautology? If not, you must be saying that “calmness” has plateaus, like “stillness,” “peacefulness,” “tranquility,” and “serenity.” How are you able to identify these plateaus?
Will sedation take me to a higher plateau?
Are you simply confessing that you’re a pothead?
The more we care for the happiness of others, the greater is our sense of well-being.
What evidence do you have that the correlation is continuous? Will our sense of well-being scale up as we drop more money from more helicopters? As we give more bags of groceries to more food banks? Is this a path to Nirvana?
True friendship develops not as a result of money or power but on the basis of genuine human affection.
Isn’t this a truism in virtually every culture? Can you say what genuine human affection is the result of?
When you talk, you are only repeating something you already know. But if you listen, you may learn something new.
Asking a question, speculating, negotiating, persuading, bantering, imagining out loud, and ordering from a menu are cases of talking, but are they cases of repeating what we know?
Further, if a listener is intent on learning new things, isn’t it necessary for teachers to repeat what they already know?
Women have the capacity to lead us to a more peaceful world with compassion, affection, and kindness.
Is this a cry of injustice at the universal practice of treating women as second-class people, or is it a claim that women have a special gift? Will you acknowledge there are politically prominent women who spread hatred and divisiveness.
Unfortunately, I can’t offer an assessment of the Dalai Lama. I’d need his answers and any followup questions and answers. I can say that I get a strong sense of honesty and goodwill. I see the influence of Buddha, Christ, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, but I also see oversimplification and a streak of irrationality at the heart of his teachings.
I hope that among my readers there are some with deep pockets and friends in high places. I’d like them to think of this post as my job application to the IIA.
The Scratching Post 