Reading interviews with the Dalai Lama is always a pleasure. Easy to read and insightful, you get exactly what the doctor ordered: an accessible, engaging introduction to his perspective. You can't go wrong with this one.

The dialogue format always seems to serve the Dalai Lama well as it allows him to speak at a comfortable speed about topics that would be otherwise just too massive if he had to sit down and write about them. The theme of the conversation is violence in the modern world, its origin, its meaning and its various forms of manifestation. Mr.Carriere does a great job of keeping the conversation lean but muscular. As the man who put together on film the massive _MAHABHARATA_, Carriere is familiar with Indian and Buddhist material and does the reader a very competent service by introducing a page here a page there of explanation and/or a commentary, giving an older Hindu context for the Buddhist concepts. This is not an "interview" but a real conversation that a couple of mutually respecting friends might have. That's what makes the book so lively. Carriere at one point even chides Dalai Lama for simplifying the West as "mechanistic". Moreover, Carriere speaks not only for himself, but perhaps also for a reader who may not find Buddhist cosmology -- in terms of rebirth and reincarnation, etc -- so readily acceptable. It is when such a(n opposing) point of view is introduced that the Dalai Lama shows how and why Buddhism is so pragmatic: BUddhism is not a "religion", he says. It is a science of the Mind. It has no doctrines, no dogmas to maintain AGAINST common sense and empirical data. Buddhism is a science with a vast amount of data concerning the Mind and techiques of access. But as the research was done for over at least 2500 years, in a particular setting, in a particular material, psychological condition, Buddhism would also naturally reflect a set of behaviors and "beliefs" of those local environments in their totality. Thus, what is not applicable in the modern world, Buddhism is ready to modify or jettison. For example, certain manner of representation to illustrate a spiritual and/or social point (instituion of marriage, sexual conduct, various ceremonial protocol, etc). The Dalai Lama even states that Buddhism would relinquish even the notion (which for him and for millions of practicing Buddhists a reality) of rebirth IF science ever gets around to PROVING it conclusively.

The Dalai Lama makes it very clear on several occasions that humanity must now move toward a spiritual life as opposed to a religious life. (They are not the same.)
The problem of over-population is discussed as the main cause of violence done to the earth, thus to the entire cosmos, causing more greed, more desperation.
Carriere is more openly critical of the Vatican's position over this issue. The Dalai Lama agrees that the virtue of the commandment to "go forth and multiply" must be heeded within the context in which we seek guidance from such a religious tradition. And that context is always Here and Now, thus putting into question the sanity of following blindly such a "commandment" today when there are 5 billion of us; when we cannot be guaranteed the required space necessary for a spiritual upgrade. The Dalai Lama is harshly critical of the mindset that only looks at figures; those "experts" who claim the earth can feed as many as 10 billion. Fed? Then what? What will they all do, to what purpose, at what quality of life, he asks.
The previous reviewer mentioned something that I think needs a qualification. No, the Dalai Lama is neither an "atheist" nor a "theist" and the whole issue is very complicated. Buddhism has its own complex pantheon of deities. Traditionally, Buddhism's response to the question concerning the idea of a creator god is one of silence. Buddhism basically says, you will never know by intellectual inquiry. Moreover, even if such a god existed, it doesn't concern you: It won't help YOU to do YOUR homework.
Also, Buddhism has a tradition of turning away anyone who is too enthusiatic to become a Buddhist on a whim. Don't think it's for you just because you're an atheist. Think about it a little longer, son.
Buddhist pragmatism in a nutshell. Highly recommended.

After looking at this book, I'm ready to be a buddhist! Seriously. And I'm an atheist! But that's fine, because the Dalai Lama does not believe in a creator either, and it is mentioned in various parts of the book. Excellent reading material.

The "return" of the master. Although not as good of a read, imho, as MY LAST SIGH, this is still required reading for Bunuel fans, and still retains all of the great artist's power, humor, and insight. In an era of big bucks and ready-made food, it stands out like a whale among minnows.

This is a wonderful and funny collection of surreal writings from one of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Many of the earlier, surreal writings by Bunuel, written when he was with the Surrealists in France, are imaginative and funny. There is also the complete collection of poetry originally titled An Andulsian Dog, which is surprisingly strong. The criticisms by Bunuel, along with the autobiographical material, offer insight to his aesthetic beliefs and his thinking. There are also snatches of the last screenplay on which he was working before he died in addition to the original screenplay for Andulsian Dog and a Hollywood treatment for an unrealized film GOYA. Overall, this is a big treasure for those who love Bunuel and who have been anxiously awaiting to read his hard to find pieces. It is a great companion to Bunuel's MY LAST SIGN.

It is pleasant to read Carriere, though in a different way: through his words, but not through the movies based on his screenplays. Carriere is a giant in the realm of screenplay writing; he provides spirit to many major films by Bunuel etc, and to significant theatrical works such as Peter Brook's MAHABRHATA. This book is in generally a collection of essays based on his experience in the filmmaking industry and his well-made thoughts. It is especially exciting for movie fans to read about the anecdotes of the past filmmaking giants (the authors) in the book. Yes, this book is very personal. However, it is also very contextual: it has its own historic perspective. In many ways, it is also informative. I highly recommend this book.

An enjoyable read. Having no knowledge of the language in which the original was written, it's impossible to tell how true to the original the translation is, but I found this English verse rendition flowed very well.

The story is essentially an exemplary tale of how to lead a good, ascetic life (the denial of "the Self") and how few can actually achieve that. It is replete with illustrative yarns, as the hoopoe (the leader of the birds), counters the other birds' foibles, and their excuses not to make the journey. Therefore the theme is a familiar one - how to strive for and achieve spiritual fulfilment by use of the allegory of a difficult journey. Yet it is written with such clarity, wit and insight, it's nonetheless a refreshing read.

Even though I am a decendant of Farid Ud Din Attar, I can say without bias that this book is excellent. A must read, filled with many lessons and hidden analects.

I shed tears of sorrow when I read the story of the grand Shaikh, a master of the outward and inward Islamic sciences who, tortured by the pangs of love's uncontrolable fire, recounces his faith. What follows is so beautifull that it can only be captured by reading the book!!!

Surely, we can't talk and think enough
about the state of mankind!
But these are hazardous waters! Where should we begin
and where do we want to go from there? So, Having
Gould and Eco as guides seems like a clever start!

According to the book, the hebrew language has
no exact present tense?? The infinitely brief, the
very essense of the present, is not to be found - it
can be neither fixed, nor measured. It is therefore
completely justifiable, grammaticale speaking,
to leave out the present?

Yet, obviously, it is from the present we look at the
past and towards the future.
Stephen Jay Gould is always a pleasure to listen to -
and the right one to put time into perspective.
For a palaeontologist, like Gould, 7000 years
(timespand of human culture) is really no more than
the twinkling of an eye. So all we know is really in
the present - which hardly exist!

From this position we look out into concepts like
the eternity - which we obviously really can't grasp.
And into ourselfes were e.g. DNA was discovered as recently
as 1953. Mystery upon mystery.
So, we struggle to discover instances of regularity and
to fit them together with the help of stories. We throw
in a little religion "were religions do not
ask questions, they answer them". Still we are far
removed from any real "understanding".

And that is what these conversations are about.
With Umberto Eco and Stephen Jay Gould - it is
of course an ok read. But only an appetizer.

-Simon

Conversations About the End of Time is a a discussion of questions and answers given by four thinkers. Stephen Jay Gould, Umberto Eco, Jean-Claude Carriere and Jean Delumeau all answer questions and are given a chapter in this book to espouse their respective answers.

Just think of a coffee table discussion, of a one on one discussion and you get to read the answers on questions of import. Each answering these questions with their respective insights and down-to-earth style. Each having their respective life experiences to draw from to unravel perplexing questions.

With fascination you read the thought-provoking answers. The answers will suprise some, others may be right inline with what you'd expect, but nerver boring... challenging, educational, lucid and erudite are more what you'd expect and you are not dissapointed.

This book reads fast and the questions are cogent with the general topic. Each respective thinker answers in a style of their own and the reader does not feel irrelevant. This is an interesting book in that questions asked make the reader think as well.

I found the book to be highly interesting and it has a fascination woven throughout the text captivating the reader.

---------- ----------

I'm talking about that Darwinian theory of Natural Selection you keep telling as if it were true. It is "differential reproductive success". So then that means I need at least 2 different things to call some event NS. So then I ask myself what do these 2 different things have to do with each other? So then I say well either they influence each other's reproduction some way, or they could as well be in different environments. So they must influence each other's reproduction some way. So then I ask, what ways can the one influence the reproduction of the other?

+/- increase reproduction at cost of the other +/+ mutual increase of each other's reproduction -/- mutual decrease of each other's reproduction +/0 and so on -/0 0/0

but what you do, is pretend like there are only +/- relationships. You ignore all other type of relationships with NS. Your natural selection theory is false, for being unsystematic in describing the relationships between living beings. You make teachers into liars by it.

The Mahabharata is the great national epic of India. It's about 15 times as long as the Bible and, like the Bible, was written by many hands over a period of centuries. Essentially, it tells of the conflict between two royal families, ending in a cataclysmic battle. Jean-Claude Carriere and Peter Brook have attempted to condense it into a (relatively brief) 6 1/2-hour-long play. With what success, I'm not sure. Maybe it works better on the stage. While reading it, the characters are vivid, but they don't leave lasting impressions. As one would expect, the Mahabharata doesn't have a "tight" structure (like, say, the Iliad). The authors/translators have preserved some of this epic sprawl, and that may be part of the problem---at least for a Western reader like myself, who is doubtless missing many of its subtler allusions. Still, in my opinion, the book makes for an entertaining introduction (or pre-introduction?) to classical Indian culture, and I always bring in the Carriere/Brook translation, as enrichment material, when I teach the Indian section of the History of Mathematics.

Oh yes. I guarantee that, once you've read it, you will *never* forget who the slyest animal is. (It's not homo sapiens.)

Jean-Claude Carriere, one of the best screenwriters of all time, wrote this play for the great theater and film director Peter Brook, who translated it himself. Based on the classic poem from India, the longest ever written (it is about fifteen times longer than the Bible), _The Mahabharata: a Play_ was about nine hours long when Brook's company performed it, and adapts the incredibly vast original narrative to deal mainly with the fight for power between two families in an ancient, mythic time: the Pandava, five children of the gods, go against the Kaurava, the hundred sons of a king whose legitimacy is in question, and the greatest and most savage war is near. Carriere's endeavour seems at times a feat of superhuman proportions, for the play condenses everything without forgetting the essentials, and features an enormous array of characters, ranging from the somber and tragic (the orphaned warrior Karna) to the utterly comic (the lecherous general Kitchaka), and several dialogues and monologues of great beauty. Yudhishtira and Duryodhana, leaders of the rival families, represent all men and women, of this time and every other: not totally good nor evil, they both face many moral and ethical pitfalls and not always can win nor return unscathed from their fights. Even if you don't like theater, reading this play, and thus catching at least a glimpse of one of the greatest literary works of mankind, is a unique experience, at the same time shattering and enlightening. As one of the characters could say, if you read carefully, in the end you will be someone else.

The text of the celebrated stage adaptation.