On February 13 this year, CommonWealth Magazine had the honor to conduct an exclusive interview with the 14th Dalai Lama, the religious and political leader of the Tibetan people and a respected world spiritual figure.

Before the backdrop of the snow-covered Himalayas under a bright sunny sky, we met with the Dalai Lama, whose Tibetan name is Tenzin Gyatso, in the northern Indian town of Dharamsala at the office of the Tibetan government in exile. Sitting on a sofa in his orange and burgundy monk's robes, the Dalai Lama frequently broke into his trademark joyous laughter during the interview.

In order to qualify as a state, a country must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, and a sovereign government. Under this definition the Dalai Lama possesses virtually nothing that would make him a worldly leader.

However, an essential prerequisite for being a leader is having followers. And when it comes to the spiritual realm, the Dalai Lama has millions of followers around the globe.

We took pictures of the Dalai Lama standing on the rooftop in front of the Himalayas. For the Tibetans, the Himalayas are sacred, and the Dalai Lama is their anchor of strength. Therefore, every Tibetan aspires to meet the Dalai Lama once in his life.

However, for the Dalai Lama, home is on the other side of the Himalayas, and the majestic mountain range behind him also means responsibility and homesickness.

Departing from his own predicament, the Dalai Lama faces the world's thorny issues, sincerely contemplating and attentively listening.

During half a century of life in exile he has evolved as the guardian of the world's conscience.

The Dalai Lama does not call for Tibetan independence, but advocates that Tibet retain a high degree of autonomy within the Chinese state. In 1989, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his consistent opposition of the use of violence. On Oct. 17, 2007, the U.S. Congress presented him with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian honor, on Capital Hill in Washington, in recognition of "his many contributions to peace and religious understanding."

Faced with an uncertain future, increasingly scarcer resources, slowing economies, deteriorating moral and spiritual values, and the onslaught of globalization, leaders around the globe have found forging ahead in the face of adversity to be their universal task.

What kind of leader does Taiwan need as it is about to elect its next president?

Flying from Taiwan across the Himalayas to the Indian subcontinent, CommonWealth Magazine had the honor to be the first media outlet to interview his Holiness, the Dalai Lama, directly after he ended a period of retreat earlier this year.

Some people say that as a representative of Asian core values, the Dalai Lama is a confidante for the leaders of the world. If you understand him, you will be able to understand compassion. If you listen to him, you will hear wisdom. If you get close to him, you will be able to feel joy.

Let's listen closely to the Dalai Lama, the advice he offers leaders in search of solutions to difficult problems, as well as the reminders and blessings he has for the Taiwanese people.

Q: This is the age of globalization, which brings a lot of chances but also a lot of challenges. What are your major concerns about globalization?

A: There are two aspects. There is globalization – my tongue is not well equipped for this word, so I use "global economy," which has the same meaning.

As for the global economy, I think there are two aspects. One, I think, is more normal. That means in the whole world, communication – not only information but also transportation – all these are now much easier. They use materials that come from the other side of the world. Eventually, I think, food style, food habits, and clothes nowadays are changing. Even in Dharamsala, which was quite remote when I first came here in 1960, now today, let's say – (after) more than four decades, I think local people's lifestyle has changed. The local people's life, I think, becomes easier – better facilities.

I think Taiwan also – 1949, 50 in comparison with today has much changed, including your dress (laughs). I think this is normal, the world becoming smaller. And something useful, a useful thing, which comes from the other side – okay, adopt, use it – no problem.

There's another aspect, the local economy. Multinational companies, huge sort of capital, their money cannot be competed with by local, smaller ones. So the local production, which is useful to the local people. But due to the global economy, the foreign money damages the economy. I think that is one negative side.

So I think the two need to talk, need to engage in dialogue. In the business field, also, there must be some rules or regulations. The concerned governments and national companies may find some way to bring the good things from the multinational corporations without damage to your own local economy. I think that can be done.

Then sometimes we have so-called American culture invasion. I think that is okay, so long as you have your own strong cultural heritage. For example, the Chinese, wherever they live, in America or Europe or Canada, and even in India, wherever they live, create small Chinatowns, small China. In the Chinatown the Chinese language is used, the Chinese script, Chinese food, so the Chinese culture or the Chinese spirit keeps very much alive. So there's no problem.

If your own culture, tradition, is forgotten or weak, then the new cultural heritage, including songs or these things, may overwhelm the local heritage and make it disappear. Like some native people in America and also in Australia and in some other places, the native indigenous people whose cultural heritage is, in a way, a bit weak, so naturally it will change, it will be lost.

Q: How can a dialogue be started? Who should engage in this dialogue, and when?

A: When different interests are about to clash, then you need to start dialogue.

I think, firstly, the weaker side, the loser side, must raise the issue and then talk. Your interest, if you think only about your own interest without proper respect for our interest, then clash will come.

So therefore, we must find a mutually acceptable solution. We are not rejecting your interest, but in the meantime you must respect our interest, isn't it? The stronger side usually may not notice much. They just go like that. So the weaker side then feels fear or difficulties. They must raise their voice. I think that's quite logical.

Q: Can you give an example of a successful dialogue?

A: I think the change in South Africa. The black people, the native people, carried the struggle for years and years. The struggle started from the weaker side, not the white people. It was the same in all these former colonized countries. Firstly, the weaker side, the disadvantaged side started to complain against their injustice. Then the stronger side, those who were more morally equipped, were willing to listen. Of course, [there are cases] like Tiananmen – one million people resented, made noise, but no sign of willingness, suppressed.

Q: Do you think you have been successful in engaging in dialogue with the world?

A: Successful – I don't know. But I believe in dialogue. Firstly, I am totally committed to non-violence. Non-violence or peace does not mean there is no longer any problem. The problem is there. Injustice is there. There is a problem. Now, we need to face the problem. Now, the way to tackle the problem is not in a violent way, but through non-violence.

Non-violence does not mean we remain indifferent. We have to engage. We have to be fully involved. We have to tackle the problem, I think, to take our full strength, full determination. The method – not violence. Keep their interest, and understand the reality. Today's reality: You can't win 100 percent, because the other side will not accept 100 percent loss. And in the meantime we have to live together. I mean, here in the economy, on this planet we have to live side by side. In the Tibetan case our Chinese brothers and sisters and we Tibetans, we have to live side by side. We have to understand that reality, then try to mutually agree on a solution. That's what dialogue means.

In order to develop genuine harmony among the different religious traditions, if your stance is "my religion is superior, my religion is the only religion," then you cannot make dialogue, you cannot make genuine harmony.

You must extend your respect to other traditions. Then there is a possibility to expect respect from the other side.

First, our side must show respect, then there is a possibility that they also show you respect. Then in that way there is genuine harmony, genuine close friendship on the basis of mutual respect. So in this field I am fully committed.

Q: In this fast-changing world, it's rare to have great political leaders. In your opinion, what makes a good political leader?

A: Generally, I feel, let's say, I think in the latter part of the 20th century, at least some world thinking changed.

In previous times, till the early part of the 20th century, I think leadership – that means political leadership – political leaders very much relied on force. In the latter part of the 20th century, this changed. I think the spirit of dialogue, the spirit of co-existence, these became more significant. Perhaps if the thinking of the 19th century or early part of the 20th century still remained unchanged, then South African change would not have taken place.

India, all these colonial rules, still may remain, but these are signs of change – less imperialist. Once they occupied these countries, colonized these countries, thinking they may be there forever. But then times changed. They recognized that their rule is out of date, unjust.

Also, for example, the word "non-violence" – the Indian original word "ahimsa" – that word, now – non-violence – that becomes political reality. One example, under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, South Africa was transformed peacefully. And then like Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin (in the Palestine conflict), they had two decades of fully engaged violence, but then later these people also tried to solve the conflict through peaceful means. Therefore, the two sides received the Nobel Peace Prize. I think these are signs of change in the political field.

Then another aspect – the word compassion. In the past, I think, in political statements the word compassion had no room. I noticed one time in one of Ms. Thatcher's speeches, that the word compassion fortunately found a place to sit there in Ms. Thatcher's speech. At that time she was prime minister. Now more and more leaders seem to pay some attention to the value of compassion. This, I think, is positive change.

Firstly, the idea of co-existence – during the Cold War, eventually the word co-existence developed. Co-existence means to understand and recognize differences. That means the basis of dialogue, non-violence. That developed further –a step further– that's now compassion. I think in material science, the word compassion is now coming, and in the circle of education it is also now gradually entering. So these are positive sides, positive changes.

In democratic countries, I think, leadership also requires eloquence – like the former British prime minister, I think, a very sharp mind, talking like that. But in the meanwhile, being truthful, honesty – these are very important. In order to be truthful, honesty and compassion are very much related.

A more compassionate person has a greater chance to be more truthful. Less compassion means more doubts, more suspicion, more fear – as a result, a double face.

I think now the material field has highly developed, and the time has come that we should pay more attention to our emotions, motivations, which emotion is destructive, which emotion is constructive. Doing more analysis in the field of emotion is very important. This is mainly in the field of science and also health. I think healthy politics is a healthy economy, healthy body, healthy mind. In all these fields I think compassion has a great role.

Q: How can leaders deal with self-doubt and fears?

A: That I don't know. Doubt? Naturally, unless one is over self-confidence, like Chairman Mao…Over self-confidence is dangerous. I think sometimes self-doubt is necessary. With self-doubt, then more discussion with concerned people, and then genuine collective leadership will emerge.

Anyway, under the democratic principles, under the law, all people are equal. And also, I think, no one can be 100 percent correct, so over-self-confidence, that I'm 100 percent right, that's dangerous.

I think that self-doubt is to some extent necessary, but again, too much self-doubt means indecisiveness. That also is disaster.

Q: In divisive election campaigns, how can leaders maintain compassion and idealism?

A: I think (people) support different party not due to different persons, but rather different policies. So, competition between parties is not because of individual persons but rather different policy.

When they are criticizing other parties' policies, I think that is okay, but when that leads to attacks on individual personalities, that is not very healthy. Of course, I do not have such experience, so my knowledge is very limited. If I was involved in a political contest and if the other side criticizes me personally, then I don't know what my reaction would be. Probably, I would also criticize the other person (laughs).

Q: Should business leaders play a constructive role in changing the world for the better?

A: Oh yes, certainly, I think, today the business – in the field of the economy, the environment issue. The farming systems are also very much involved with the environment. I think poultry, piggery, beef farms, some people say they are very bad for the environment, isn't it?

When people just think about profit regardless of what the consequences for the environment are, this is harmful, not right. Those big industrialists, they are using different sorts of materials and they cause pollution, water or atmosphere pollution. That's relevant in the ecology field.

Another thing is the gap between the rich and the poor. Not only on the global, but also on the national level, we have rich and poor. This is not only morally wrong, but practically also a source of problems. In the 20th century the initiative by Karl Marx, socialist economy theory, developed, and the former Soviet Union implemented that, the People's Republic of China also implemented that, but that more or less failed.

Q: We are in an age of scarcity, with diminishing resources. But a lot of people still define success as expansion, growth, being big…Should we start to re-think the meaning of success in this world?

A: Maybe success needs to be defined according to the context. For example, we are now carrying out an interview – so far, quite successful. Then you get some material that you can show when you go back. Now, that's success.

Material success or a nation's material economic success – that actually depends on one's view. I think the same event, some people see it as very successful, while some see it as non-success. It's a question of subjective feelings. Success, I think, very much depends on satisfaction. Satisfaction means the mental attitude. In reality, in objective terms, we may not well define success. In science, space technology, for instance, if you look at the landing on the moon, it is objectively a great success. But if you think of Mars and Venus and even farther away planets, then we cannot say just landing on the Moon is a success.

If you reach the edge of the Milky Way, it is still not a success, because there are other galaxies. It's a matter of the subjective view.

The same goes for the economy. Taiwan's economy nowadays compared to twenty, thirty years ago, today is more difficult. But your economy compared to North Korea's economy is still very successful. But North Korea compared to Afghanistan is still successful. So things are relative. According to that relative reality, the definition of success depends on the perceiver's perspective.

Q: Do we need to redefine what we see as success?

A: I think it is universally accepted that we should overcome poverty, defined as an income of less than one dollar per day. It is wrong to tell an individual that one dollar per day is sufficient for you to survive on that.

Q: Is success always to be equated with material gains?

A: If we talk of a successful life, we cannot ignore inner values. Someone who materially is a billionaire, is very rich, owns many buildings, homes on each continent and many cars, but the person deep inside is a very unhappy person, so his life is not successful. But on the other hand, a person in the mountains or in the streets, a beggar, who is really very poor and gets some beer and feels happy, we can also not say that this is a successful life – that's the other extreme. So if materially on the universal level you are quite comfortable and meanwhile on the mental level also happy, satisfied, that's, I think, meaningful life. Successful life, happy life must be a combination of material facilities or material values and internal values. They must be together.

Q: How can one achieve internal happiness and internal values?

A: Broadly speaking, I think it's education – proper education. Through education you can develop a realistic approach. A realistic approach brings more mental peace. And also – we already touched that today – compassion. That's a key factor in order to cultivate internal values. Ultimately, warm-heartedness, a good heart, compassion, affection, because we are human beings. The human being is a social animal. Therefore, a happy society, happy family, happy individual are ultimately based on warm-heartedness.

Compassion, affection are the basis of a sense of community. If you put two people together in a room and they always keep quarreling, can you imagine a sense of community in that room? The same goes if ten people who share the same building are always fighting, always suspect each other. We cannot say this is a good community. They will never have a sense of community. Community means a friend. If I need, I can rely, I can ask – he or she will help me. Therefore, ill feelings, hatred, anger – these are the destroyers of a sense of community. Compassion, respect, spiritual brotherhood, sisterhood are the very creators of community. Basically, we are social animals. Our life, the very survival of our lives, is based on community.

Q: We live in an age of decline. What can we do to develop inner values or dialogue with ourselves?

A: A person or people who live in a big city with skyscrapers – inside, they have the television, the furniture, everything. It's a very comfortable life. They live a very easy life, unless the electricity fails. Everything you see is very comfortable, very easy. But that person who enjoys all these things still wants to keep some flowers, some green things, plants. Still, we are human beings, so we love green things, even artificial flowers to some extent. But the living, genuine flower is better, isn't it? And then occasionally we go outside, see the garden, trees, the birds, so you feel some kind of comfort.

So therefore, in our lives, the later part of our lives, individually, I mean – two parents, a couple of two, both have some sort of job and a salary, are more or less economically independent. So the old parents are taken care by some organizations. Then you feel independent. Your children are taken care by school. So at a certain level you are now distanced from basic human nature, but that does not mean we are no longer human beings. We still are human beings.

Therefore, for our lifestyle, compassion and a sense of community are not so relevant. You are independent, because of the so many days and weeks you work and get a salary, and daily routine goes like that. So compassion seems not relevant, sense of community not much relevant, so long as you have money, you have a healthy body. These are certain hopes, certain beliefs on the basis of artificial. Still, we are human beings. The person who enjoys all the material facilities, but because deep inside you are still a human being you need more vegetation, green things or more birds or these things.

Modern lifestyle – in a way we are a little bit distanced from basic values, but ultimately, we are still human beings. There's no point in neglecting these basic values.

Q: How can young people in Taiwan find confidence in the face of an uncertain future?

A: We have the same – uncertainty, an uncertain future (laughs). Our boss is in Peking. Our future is beyond our control, to some extent. It's in their hands. Our Taiwanese brothers and sisters also, your future depends on them.

Q: So, how should we face this challenge?

A: I think, unity among yourselves, and work hard with determination. You have democracy, rule of law, which are universal values, universally recognized values. Because the People's Republic of China is lacking these values, you already have them. On top of that, the economy, the basic economic structure, is also good. And then education. And also, whether you consider it Taiwanese culture or Chinese culture, but the traditional sort of culture is there. In China, during the Cultural Revolution or before, a lot of damage has happened. But in Taiwan the thousands-year-old Chinese tradition is still there. So you are the real representative of a five-thousand-year-old civilization.

So think along these lines. Think about it – you have a reason to feel proud and determined. We Tibetans also, we have a rich cultural heritage, our cultural heritage is a thousands-year-old cultural heritage. Now today in many parts of the world [there is a great interest in the] Tibetan cultural heritage and in particular the rich Buddhist tradition and our medical system. And although we are refugees, stateless, but our administration here is fully democratized, so we feel proud. The power of guns is temporary; the power of real values is a long run. So now, unity is important.

Since my last visit to Taiwan, seven years have passed. I really feel regret, since originally every two years I wanted to visit Taiwan, because a lot of our friends are there and certainly because of a mutual sense of brotherhood. And I have always admired Chinese civilization, and on top of that there are many Buddhists in Taiwan. Since my first visit I was very much impressed about your development – as I said, economy, education – and the preservation of ancient culture and Buddhist tradition, including the highest ordination of Buddhist nuns. But then after my second visit in 2001, then in 2002 we started direct contact with the Chinese government. The Chinese government was very much against or very much unhappy with my visit to Taiwan, so with great regret, I could not realize my visit to Taiwan. So still I always feel hoping that one day [I will be able to] visit Taiwan.

Since then I am outside at a distance, but according to newspapers you utilize the freedom of speech. That is the healthy aspect of democracy, very good. However, arguments or criticism should respect democratic principles and aim for the common interest – that's important. But sometimes the common interest becomes second rate, and the party politics become No. 1 – that's not very healthy. That's my view.

Q: Could you say a few words to the general public in Taiwan?

A: I think as I mentioned earlier, the unity is extremely important. And economic development is also equally very important. Then, wider contact with the outside world – important. Then, close contact with mainland China – also very important, very good. I think, besides the government, businesses, scholars or students should participate in exchanges, go to mainland China and see. Similarly, people from mainland China should come to Taiwan and see what is the reality. Then a political solution is entirely up to the Taiwanese people. And one thing – it must be through dialogue, not by using force.

Q: How would you describe India, how can we understand India?

A: Equally, India is a very, very ancient nation. India got independence through non-violence through the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, so I think that's really almost a new pattern in this world. And then, India, like China, is a vast land, has a big population, different areas, different states, different languages, different scripts, and with some extent, different cultural heritage. But in spite of all the problems, they still remain one country, because of the rule of law, democracy and the freedom of expression, free press information. So all these problems immediately come out – nothing remains hidden. So that's why I feel the greatness of India, the strength of India.

And then basically, religious tolerance. This country, throughout many centuries – religious tolerance has been very much alive. So India is in fact a model for the rest of the world, in particular in these days that sometimes, unfortunately, conflicts involve also religious men. During such a period India is a good example for the rest of the world.

Q: India and China follow different development models. But how do you see the caste system and the gap between the rich and the poor in India?

A: In the beginning India also tried socialism through democracy. So once, they tried, but that did not help much to reduce that gap. Then they called it national economy. Somehow this did not satisfactorily develop, so [they did] some change to the economic system, so it worked. Now some NGOs, some individuals, are trying to raise the living standard of the poorer section of the people. I think we need more effort, and I think the central government as well as the state governments can do more in order to reduce this gap.

Transcribed by Susanne Ganz