The Monk and the Philosopher: A Father and Son Discuss the Meaning of Life Paperback – February 15, 2000

Yes, the conversation between the father who is a philosopher (Jean-Francois Revel) and the son (Matthieu Ricard) who is a Buddhist monk is engaging and interesting. But I was more intrigued by how the monks' love and loyalty to Buddhism had created what I consider to be blind spots in his perception. Matthieu Ricard clearly has a deep love for Buddhism and the Tibetian culture and takes every opportunity to give painstaking details of all the atrocities committed by the Chinese government against the Tibetan people. The Sri Lankan Buddhist government has committed similar atrocities against the non-Buddhist minorities in Sri Lanka. But Mathieu Ricard's love of Buddhism does not allow him to see the atrocities committed by a Buddhist government. Ricard states that wars in countries such as Sri Lanka have never been waged in Buddhism's name or its blessing. ( p180). Contrary to his assertion, in countries such as Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Myanmar the genocidal persecution of the minorities was carried out in the name of Buddhism and it was the Buddhist monks who stood at the forefront of these persecutions. So much so, that in 1959, S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike, the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka was assassinated by a Buddhist monk (Talduwe Somarama Thero), because the Prime Minister was perceived as not being harsh enough on the non-Buddhist minorities. I guess we all have our blind spots, even an enlightened monk such as Mathieu Ricard!

I really liked this book at the start. The more I read, the harder it got to understand. The last half is like a philosophy textbook. I struggled to finish reading this book. I am fascinated by the Monk. I would like to meet him and get to know him as a person. The Philosopher is the father of the Monk. I think the Dad is asking questions to his son and trying to understand the son's thinking. The Philosopher is an academic from a university setting and the Monk is siting on a bed bug infested cot in a cave up in the mountains meditating for 14 hours a day. They are radically different in every way possible.

This book presents a dialogue between a French philosopher and public commentator and his son, a bio-scientist who chose to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk. It is enlightening, as befits its subject and the father-son protagonists. Basic ideas of Tibetan Buddhism are expounded, compared with Western monotheism and both speakers more or less agreed on the fundamental need to help people become more moral by mind-training.However, the philosopher and monk alike missed the real problems of ‘evil’: they do not consider adequately true believers who regard killing of non-believers as a moral imperative; and the time and culture dependence of value systems.Also, they ignore the fateful question, as well put in a book on Rene Girard, Can We Survive Our Origins? Novel global issues are mentioned. But the monk stated ‘Perhaps in the tribal context of prehistoric times ther e was some underlying evolutionary reason for the formation of groups that exterminate each other […] but in the context of modern society it’s a totally irrational form of behavior’ (p. 211). This is an amazing statement for a highly qualified molecular biologist. How could he think that the brief history of modern humanity displaced genetic traits rooted in deep history?!The monk continues to stick to the foundational Buddhist belief that ‘The ultimate nature of all living beings is perfect. That perfection is always there, deep within us, even when it’s hidden from sight by ignorance, desire and hatred […] ‘ignorance, the very source of evil and of suffering, is an accidental misunderstanding, a sudden forgetting that makes no difference to the ultimate nature of the mind’ […] However tragic suffering might be, in the final analysis only one single thing is always present, and that’s innate perfection […] violence isn’t part of man’s deep-seated nature’ (pp. 205- 208).The philosopher failed to confront this very doubtful statements and thus the discourse does not examine the basic assumption on which Buddhism is based.The book correctly notes that ‘one aspect of what we could call the crisis of modern democracies is that in our own state of law the citizens feel that they have more and more rights and less and less responsibilities toward the community (p. 282). But, all in all, their handling of politics is inadequate. Thus, ‘The contributions of La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère, or Chamfort to our knowledge of human psychology are among the finest […]. They see how mad everyone is – there are only people blinded by ambition, politicians demented by their lust for power, senile courtesans following them to extract whatever advantages they can, vain hypocrites who think they’re geniuses, or who to obtain some derisory honor or other would stop at nothing’ (p. 224). Fine, but then the philosopher pins his hopes on ‘building a just society’ (p. 224). This is inadequate when the existence of the human species is endangered by the powers suppled to immature humanity be science and technology. This fateful challenge is no confronted as needed, neither by the philosopher, nor the monk.Related is the focus on moral betterment of humanity, with many statements on ‘the need for individuals to work on improving themselves, through values coming from wisdom or from the spiritual path’ (p. 226). This is honorable but not realistic in the foreseeable future. It would have been better to make what is necessary less impossible by recognition the top priority of upgrading the morality of those who have most leverage in shaping the future through collective choice and action, namely political leaders.The discourse states correctly ‘extremely few people are really concerned by others’ needs. The same applies in the political domain. Those whose task it is to watch over the general well-being often see their mission as a career, at the center of which their own person occupies pride of place. Under such conditions, it’s difficult for them to disregard the immediate term – especially their own popularity – and consider what would be best for everyone’s good in the long term’ (p. 226). This crucial insight should be followed by seeking ideas on upgrading political leadership – but the authors fail to cross the Rubicon. This is a pity.However, the main parts of the book presenting and discussing Buddhism are well worth reading and in part inspiring.Professor Yehezkel DrorThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Two brilliant but down-to-earth people discuss the meaning of life -- one is a knowledgeable, highly regarded French novelist, the other, his son, a well-educated scientist who decided to become a Buddhist monk. Their discussion flows easily and touches every imaginable aspect of life and religion. there's nothing obscure, no unnecessary words; it's a pure delight to read it. Both of Ricard's books, The Monk and the Philosopher, as well as The Quantum and the Lotus, are two of my favorite books. They are brilliantly written, clear and easy to read, and full of wisdom and knowledge.Thank you, Roswitha Mcintosh

An excellent book that open readers mind to spirituality. The author takes you on a journey of realization. This takes you to a deeper level of understanding of yourself through common dialogues. A must-read book by everyone.

This book offers a reasoned and affectionate confrontation of two ways of thinking that seek to explain the same phenomenon: human knowledge, its nature and how it is acquired. Arguments are presented in a simple and understandable form, even to those who have the English as a second language with an average level of dominance. It seems unnecessary to have extensive knowledge of philosophy to understand and enjoy its contents. A highly recommended reading to broaden perspectives on the mind and its functioning.

I wanted an introduction to Buddhism, this book is a back and forth between a father and his son and they are both so intelligent. It took me a while to read because I learned about so many things, also about the situation in tibet. It's really all the questions you can imagine asking next to a great, concise and very explained answer. It makes you want to be a better and more altruistic person.