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 has publicly issued a statement expressing his opposition to war as the momentum was building towards and 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 contering 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
