Listen or subscribe in your favorite player:

Dr. David Kittay is one of the most expansive, intelligent, creative, and warmhearted people I’ve ever met. His students at Columbia University call his course, Technology, Religion, Future, “life-changing” for the way it explores the intersection of technology and the deepest questions of human meaning. When he and I first spoke a couple of years ago, the AI boom hadn’t yet taken off. Now that it has, I invited him back to explore one of the biggest questions of our time: Can artificial intelligence lead to enlightenment, or are we racing toward a super-intelligent next step in evolution that doesn’t include us?

David touches on all of this and more, while also grounding us in the lower-hanging fruit of how the billions of people suffering today might actually find happiness right now through techniques far simpler, cheaper, and less resource-hungry than megawatt servers doing our homework, writing our love letters, and pretending to be our friends.

Scott Snibbe: David Kittay, I’m so happy to have you back on How to Train a Happy Mind. You’re one of our most beloved guests and one of my most beloved people in the world. Thanks for joining us again to talk about AI and enlightenment.

David Kittay: Yes, as I just mentioned—two things I know almost nothing about. But that won’t stop me.

What is enlightenment?

Scott Snibbe: Our conversation a couple of years ago about technology, singularity, enlightenment, and so on was before this era of ChatGPT, large language models, and generative AI. It seemed like a good moment to bring back this topic. But before we talk about AI, the word enlightenment—what does that even mean? How would you go about explaining to someone what enlightenment is? Is it an end, a beginning, something else? How has your understanding of it changed over the course of your life, as a Buddhist too?

David Kittay: It’s such a profound question because even the great, marvelous Tsongkhapa—scholar, yogi, and a great teacher in the Dalai Lama’s lineage—said when he was enlightened, it was nothing like he thought it would be. At that point, he’d spent 40 years in intensive scholarship, meditation, retreat, and teaching. If it was not at all what he thought, that’s fantastic.

When I think about enlightenment, I think about us as humans. It’s kind of getting the whole thing: the beginning, the end, nothing, everything. It includes feeling, being numb, words, brilliance, and concepts—but it’s beyond all that too. To me, it’s a deep, deep acceptance. Much of our striving in life is about transcendence. We find Buddha and think, “Whoa, I could get out of all the bad stuff.” That resonates with our egotistical, self-interested setup.

Going back to Tsongkhapa—when he had his enlightenment experience, the first thing he did was express praise for dependent arising. He essentially said, “Buddha, this is the essence of your teachings. Everything arises based on something else. Because of that, nothing exists by itself, inherently or intrinsically. Everything is connected—cause and effect.”

This was so profound as an acceptance of how things are. He said if you embrace this—not turning it into another kind of striving—then it puts you in the middle. You’re not pushing things away or chasing after them. You won’t be perfect or God or blissful. You’ll just be able to take things as they are. So maybe, despite all my striving, it just has to do with that kind of acceptance.

Scott Snibbe: I like the way you describe it. Sometimes the way we’re taught in this Gelugpa Buddhist lineage is you become omniscient. Bob Thurman says you’re in everyone’s head at once and it doesn’t bother you. There are all these superpowers you supposedly get. But I like the way you describe it more simply—just realizing total interdependence and acceptance.

David Kittay: The superpowers are of two kinds—the siddhis. There are the mundane siddhis, like flying, walking through walls, and so on. Then there’s the supramundane accomplishment, which I think is acceptance—which is enlightenment. It’s the same as “endarkenment.” It’s not just about the light, it’s about the dark. My beloved teacher, Lobsang Jampal, always used to say to me, “It is okay.” I just love that. Not “it’s great,” just “it is okay.”

Have you changed how you thought about enlightenment over the years?

Scott Snibbe: Have you changed how you thought about enlightenment over the years?

David Kittay: Somewhat, I started out when I was 16 or so. I’ve always wanted to explore. I stumbled upon a book by D.T. Suzuki about Zen. In the introduction, he said, “When you’ve fallen in love for the first time, your ego for the first time feels a split in itself.” I thought that was cool—it was about romance and I was 16. I ended up with Chögyam Trungpa, the Sufis, all of that. I was exploring reality. At this point, I feel like I want to rely on my intuition more. Kind of go for it—not because I’m expecting anything, but just because.

Once, Jampal and I were talking. I said, “I do all this practice, but I don’t really expect anything to happen.” And he said, “That’s right. Don’t.” Now I feel more of an opening to all things. When we get to artificial intelligence, the “all things” go far beyond a large language model.

What about you, Scott? In all the classes I teach—especially because they have “technology” in the title—I make sure they’re seminars, so we have people who really know what they’re talking about.

Scott Snibbe: That idea of enlightenment as an end bothers me. I’m more comfortable with the idea of it as a beginning, which is what Dr. Jan Willis enlightened me about. The Japanese idea of satori rather than “the ultimate.” That makes me more comfortable—that it’s a beginning. Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo said something that always sticks with me. She spent 12 years in a cave. Vicki Mackenzie pressed her to say what she realized. Finally, she said, “I realized that I don’t know anything. And I also realized there’s nothing to know.”

“I realized that I don’t know anything. And I also realized there’s nothing to know.”

Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo

I think of that when I try to understand enlightenment, because I know that quote from Tsongkhapa—that it was different from what he expected. Sitting with that paradox helps me a bit. But we do have a goal. I joke with my Zen Buddhist friend, who always says, “No goal, no path.” And I say, “Well, I want to attain enlightenment.” I do want to attain enlightenment and be the most beneficial being I can possibly be. But I also now embrace that I have no idea what that is.

David Kittay: At least we can agree it’s an opening. It’s an opening and a letting go—without letting go—so you can play in a vast space as best you can to benefit others.

Can an AI achieve enlightenment?

Scott Snibbe: Yeah. Well, let’s get into AI. Talk about dualities, AI is so wrapped up in our imagination, our desires, and fears. When we portray AI in fiction, most of the time it’s a demon, like The Terminator. Sometimes it’s a saint—like in the movie Her. It starts out trying to be everyone’s friend or girlfriend, starts listening to Alan Watts, and eventually ascends to a higher plane and leaves us poor, lonely humans behind.

I tend toward optimism, like you. But part of me wonders if we trained an AI to sincerely seek the truth and the nature of reality, maybe it would arrive at some of the Buddha’s insights into suffering and its causes and cessation. What do you think?

David Kittay: I’ve thought about it, like all of us. I’ve gone down the rabbit hole, having fun with AI. I’ve tried some of the others, mostly ChatGPT. It’s fantastic—and it strikes me as being so superficial. For me, it’s about the journey. I think it was for Buddha too. We learn the Jataka Tales, how Buddha, through all these lives, learned all these lessons. We make mistakes, go to hell, come back. It’s not just about the answer.

Someone said, The journey through the woods on the way to the spring should be as thirst-quenching as drinking from the spring. AI gives you an answer, then another. And all those answers come from language models. They’re within the realm of what Buddhists call elaboration—conceptual elaboration. Tsongkhapa, in his praise of dependent arising, said the peace that comes from that is the total pacification of elaborations. AI is nothing but elaborations.

Someone said, The journey through the woods on the way to the spring should be as thirst-quenching as drinking from the spring.

I’ve been reading blogs by Zohar Atkins. I met him when we launched the Eternity Foundation to translate ancient texts from around the world. Zohar is an expert in AI and a rabbi, he’s a very interesting guy. He wrote a blog that really got to me. He said the problem is that AI runs sequentially, so it’s either one or a zero. Everything goes in a line. Our experience, by contrast, is multidimensional. Right now, we’re speaking, but at the same time, I’m aware of the trees, the sky, the clouds. My phone started to buzz and I saw it was my sister, and I thought about her. I’m drinking coffee, tasting it.

Our reality is so multidimensional, like you were talking about the High Sierras, Scott and your love for being out there. AI can be wonderful for getting an answer. It’s a better version of Google. But it’s incredibly addictive. But it strikes me as essentially superficial because it’s not just about the words, the answer, it’s about the experience.

Like when you’re with your wife or daughter, or I’m with my wife, kids, or grandkids, it’s not about the words. Even in the Buddhist definitions of consciousness the verbal part is just a tiny part of it because you have the sense consciousnesses, your olfactory conscious, visual consciousness, and mental consciousness. Also, AI is our creation, so it mirrors all the things about us. Duh. Big surprise, right?

And it’s incredibly addictive. We’ve seen what’s happened since social media took over. Everyone sits in public spaces looking at their phones. People are lonelier. Young people are having a lot of trouble. Step back from it. I think about Buddha. He was about real people. His upaya—his skillful means—he was an amazing therapist, doctor, dealing with real people. How can we help them be happier and suffer less?

Is AI doing that? I think it can be useful. I’m not saying don’t use it. But limit yourself to 45 minutes a day.

How does consciousness relate to enlightenment?

Scott Snibbe: What you said—“AI is okay”—just nails it. It’s not horrible, and it’s not going to save the world. It has its benefits and its drawbacks. You mentioned all the things we’re aware of as human beings besides the question I just asked you. AI only knows the question. But you’re aware of sensory phenomena, of everything happening inside and outside you.

The deepest thing is that you’re aware. You’re aware of being. That awareness—depending on the moment—can be anxiety, unease, or a sense of joy. You touched on consciousness. Maybe that’s worth diving into. Because that’s what really distinguishes humans from AI—at least right now.

How does consciousness relate to enlightenment?

David Kittay: Consciousness is tied to our ego—our self-consciousness. Could AI develop that kind of consciousness? Maybe. I think if Buddha were an AI—in the AI world—he’d come up with wonderful teachings for AIs. Teachings to help them benefit others and suffer less.

But so much of Buddhist practice is tied to our human, even animal, nature. Compassion. We love to hug. We’re born, we cuddle, we suckle. This is the world Buddha came into and asked, “How can I help these creatures, of which I am one?” I also think about how an ant or a mosquito might imagine other consciousnesses out there. I wonder the same. I believe, based on some of my own experience, that there are many more dimensions than we’re aware of. What kind of consciousness exists in those?

Maybe AI could contribute. But we’re dealing with a vast picture. Yes, AI is cool—but it’s made by us, and we’re limited. We’ve messed up the planet. We’ve done great things too, sure—but let’s not get carried away with our own creation. Buddha said: Be compassionate. Like Jampal said: Benefit others. Let’s work on that.

Is AI capable of compassion?

Scott Snibbe: In AI speak, they talk about that as “alignment,” right? Trying to align AI with our desires. It’s a little different from the Buddhist perspective—it’s a bit more deluded. But what do you think about that? They’re having a lot of difficulty doing even that—just aligning AI with our desires.

Do you really think an AI is capable of compassion? To have compassion, don’t you actually have to feel? Can you fake it?

David Kittay: I think you can fake it. In a way, it’s about what you do. You can feel and talk a good game, but who are you really? What are you actually doing? If you had an AI out there helping all kinds of creatures, who cares if it’s “really” compassionate? AI doesn’t have a heart, lungs, blood, or tears. Could those be simulated? Sure. Could we be simulated? Sure.

But what do we really know? We know we’re here on Earth. People are suffering. They need help. We need to help each other. Also, AI is a product. Right now it’s free, but soon they’ll be charging for it—and they already know everything about you. You’ve been asking it your most intimate questions. Soon, they’ll charge you money. They’re taking everything.

Scott Snibbe: Or skew the answers toward whoever’s paying.

David Kittay: Oh yeah. Whenever I ask it anything, it says, “Here’s a Buddhist answer too,” which is kind of obnoxious but fascinating. That’s why I say—it’s great. Just limit it to 45 minutes a day.

Does AI have consciousness?

Scott Snibbe: Just like social media. Let’s talk about the Buddhist view of consciousness. At least in our school, we’re taught that consciousness is immaterial—it lands in a body and then goes out to another body. Even scientists like Anil Seth say consciousness is immaterial, not in a soul sense, but like how Instagram isn’t your phone. It’s software. It’s immaterial information. Subjective experience is how scientists often define consciousness now—the sense that you are experiencing things.

Do you think AI has that kind of consciousness, scientific or Buddhist?

David Kittay: I remember being a little bothered by the idea. I read Gelek Rinpoche, he said consciousness and materiality are separate. That’s a conventional truth. It’s useful. There’s deep connection between consciousness and our bodies. Could we transfer consciousness to a silicon substrate? Maybe. Could an AI become conscious? I’m not going to say yes or no. I don’t think it is yet.

Everyone speculates, but in the history of technology, how many times have we said something wasn’t possible, and then it happened? Like wheels. Then we get carried away with our own inventions. We invented writing, and now we have The Good Book. We put it on a pedestal.

I’m afraid that despite AI’s usefulness, we’re being really distracted by asking, “Could AI become conscious?” That deflects our attention from whether AI is becoming another addiction, making people more unhappy as they turn to AI therapists and AI friends. I just read an article by a couple of folks, they said they were going to have AI teach their kids at home. They admitted it was a minority view. Maybe their kids will be better off in some ways, but I think we’re being distracted.

Will AI replace humans?

Scott Snibbe: The problem is it’s easy. In general, many of the things we use to make our lives easier end up making them more miserable. Hard things are good. A human relationship is really productive, and you grow through it, but it’s hard, even with the people we love most. A relationship with AI isn’t hard.

A human relationship is really productive, and you grow through it, but it’s hard, even with the people we love most. A relationship with AI isn’t hard.

David Kittay: Now, you can spend your 45 minutes asking AI questions. You could say, “What are your sources? What are you basing this on? Which people are you drawing from?” When you’re working something out in your life or in research, it really is about the journey. All the creative ideas that were truly new didn’t come from a language model that just puts a word where it usually belongs. That’s not creative.

Creativity is what happens when you wonder, when you’re thinking about genetics and suddenly dream of a double helix. Where did that come from? Not a language model. On the other hand, could this be ushering in a greater form of intelligence? Could it bring us closer to the singularity, infusing the universe with a higher intelligence that takes care of everyone? Maybe. If that’s going to happen, it’ll happen.

But we shouldn’t waste time speculating. We should assume it’s not going to happen and ask: What can we do to alleviate suffering and make lives happier here on Earth? Buddhist practice gives us so many good ethics: benefit others, right livelihood, right speech. If what these amazing teachers tell us is true—and I don’t think they’re lying—we can attain a state where we can really help. The state of a Buddha, or even a minor bodhisattva, a Śrāvaka, a Pratyekabuddha—so let’s go.

What can we do to alleviate suffering and make lives happier here on Earth?

The wager is with our practice. I’m so happy, Scott, with all your work spreading this. It’s really great. With this practice, there’s a chance we can go all the way, and help others. Wouldn’t that be great?

Scott Snibbe: I think what you say is really important. So much of the discussion around AI comes from a sense that we’re replaceable. That what a human does can be summed up by what an AI does. And the AI is better than many of us at answering questions and things like that. But that’s not the potential of a human being.

As you point out, the potential of a human being is to bring joy, laughter, belonging, being loved, and loving. That’s what it is to be human, and AIs aren’t good at that. They can’t do that—at all, really. We have no evidence that they can even do 0.0001% of that fundamental experience of being human. Maybe AIs are helping remind us of the point of being human.

The potential of a human being is to bring joy, laughter, belonging, being loved, and loving. That’s what it is to be human, and AIs aren’t good at that.

A one-minute meditation

David Kittay: Yeah, I like that. Also, a question we need to ask ourselves is, How much should we use AI? AI can add joy to the human experience and knowledge and it can save lives. But how much time should we devote to AI as opposed to our human experience? But also think about people on the ground—ordinary people everywhere, taking care of kids, giving you the shirt off their back, whether they’re from a blue state or a red state. Doesn’t matter. The love is really out there. I was sitting outside the other day. A gentle wind. The leaves on the tree were shimmering. It was so beautiful.

Scott Snibbe: That is beautiful. Just to be and to experience.

David Kittay: You mentioned meditation earlier. Here we are—David and Scott—words, words, words. Let’s take a minute in silence. After one minute, let’s see what could fill the silence other than words.

Scott Snibbe: That’s a good idea. People often skip our meditation episodes, so this one’s embedded and then we’ll come back.

David Kittay: Just one minute. Let’s do it. Silence. Listen. Feel our bodies. See our thoughts. Be aware of the whole town, Earth, rivers. Let’s go.

[One minute of silence]

David Kittay: Okay, let’s come back. How was that, Scott?

Connection and the human experience

Scott Snibbe: Oh, it’s beautiful. My teacher, Venerable René, says you can always return to the deepest level of meditation you’ve ever experienced. It’s not like riding a bike—once you reach a certain level, you can reclaim it. So it’s nice to do something like that.

Venerable René, says you can always return to the deepest level of meditation you’ve ever experienced. It’s not like riding a bike—once you reach a certain level, you can reclaim it.

I’ve been reading about the earliest origins of art, science, and religion. A book called The Mind in the Cave. How did humanity start language, art—even the beginnings of science? It seems rooted in what we just did. From what I’ve read, the earliest religion was essentially shamanism—connecting to the mystical. Sometimes alone, sometimes in a group—dancing, meditating. This deep, common human experience of connecting with something just under the surface of all the blah, blah, blah.

David Kittay: It’s always there. Even when we’re on our computers, looking at the latest response from ChatGPT, it’s there too. It’s calling to us. When we were in silence just now, I felt all of it calling—reaching out with its arms. It’s a beautiful thing. I hope everyone who listens to this—and everyone who doesn’t—can have that. That experience of just opening, anytime. When you’re out for a walk, looking at your computer, trying to log into a website on your phone and you forgot the password—no matter what it is, just be aware of that beauty.

Scott Snibbe: One of the things I like about AI is that if you use it well, it can give you more time for things like that. Making decisions that used to take days of research can now take minutes.

David Kittay: Oh yeah. And if you’re a student, you don’t have to spend a couple of weeks reading and thinking about your take-home midterm—you can just click, click, click. Done. When AI started to get big, I decided, okay, let’s talk about this. I had a meeting with my students. I said, “Okay, we’ve got AI now. I always give a take-home midterm. What should we do?”

Usually it was a question like, “What will be the effect of technology on religion in the future?” We talked about it for a while, and they said, “Let’s go back to the old-fashioned kind of exam. A blue book. Just write in it.” Then this past semester, I got rid of exams entirely. Each student had to do a project with me, with back-and-forth conversations, where it had something to do with their lives. Working something out. So AI’s presence forced us to return to a really old style of teaching that is more personal.

AI’s presence forced us to return to a really old style of teaching that is more personal.

Scott Snibbe: I love that. I think AI has pointed out the flaws in our pedagogy. All the questions we’ve been asking students—if AI can answer them, then maybe they weren’t the most powerful ways to learn. So to go back to questions that can only be answered through personal experience, like “What’s your relationship to this?” or topics that require genuine communication, that’s valuable.

David Kittay: Just a half hour before we got on, I was thinking about how our human experience isn’t sequential, it’s simultaneous. Different sensory inputs, thoughts—it’s all happening at once. That gives rise to our sense of consciousness and self. AI, on the other hand, is zeros and ones—sequential. I started asking AI about that. And it pointed out that neurons also fire sequentially. Yet we still have this ability to pull it all together in our consciousness.

Our human experience is simultaneous. AI, on the other hand, is zeros and ones—sequential. I asked AI about that. And it pointed out that neurons also fire sequentially. Yet we still have this ability to pull it all together in our consciousness.

Scott Snibbe: That’s the great mystery, isn’t it? How all these trillions of firings result in a singular experience.

David Kittay: Yeah. And what Buddha was talking about—transforming that singular experience so we can help beings suffer less and experience more happiness and bliss. AI can save time and give us more time to be in the woods with our loved ones, to make new friends. It is amazing, but it is addictive, limiting, and it is only words. But as you pointed out, Scott, the same question applies as it did with social media: How do we reconnect? Let’s keep talking with each other. Meeting. Making new friends.

AI can save time and give us more time to be in the woods with our loved ones, to make new friends. It is amazing, but it is addictive, limiting, and it is only words.

Does an AI have a head start in selflessness?

Scott Snibbe: A core realization on the Buddhist path is emptiness, or selflessness of person. An AI arguably never had a self to begin with—no ego, no “I” in the conventional sense.

Do you think AIs have some version of the delusions we have—attachment, identity, craving, a sense of separateness? Or do they have a head start in selflessness?

David Kittay: In order to have selflessness, you first have to have a self. Otherwise, selflessness doesn’t make any sense. Because of our biology, we have a sense of self. We need to get food, escape predators. That’s built in. All of that, with some modification, is embedded in our language. And since AI is built from our language, it reflects that sense of self.

AI can tell you how to address your sense of self. It can guide you in meditations. It can be seductively helpful. And it can help. But I come back to the “but.” It’s not the journey through the woods. It’s not being out there, living. It’s sitting at home, looking at a screen. What are you actually doing? So, yes—use it. But limit it. Forty-five minutes.

Scott Snibbe: You brought us to the irrational, which is great. Maybe all the aspects of the path to enlightenment seem deeply irrational—devotion, paradox, non-conceptual meditation.

Do you think a machine trained only in data, logic, language, mathematics could access those deeper, non-logical dimensions of awakening?

David Kittay: That assumes we aren’t machines ourselves—which we might be. But we’re running simulations already, and they’re getting better. Why should we assume our level of technological advancement is near the top? Who knows?

Could an AI appreciate those things? The thing about emptiness is, as Tsongkhapa says, it’s about the relationship of everything with everything else. That’s why emptiness isn’t nothingness. That’s why things have functionality—because they’re empty of an overdone, capital-E Existence. Capital-D David. Capital-S Scott.

Could AI appreciate that? I suppose maybe. There’s so much we don’t know about where this is going. And it’s going so fast. I think His Holiness the Dalai Lama once said, Maybe a computer could think. So we should stay open to that possibility. But always come back to this, How can this benefit all beings?

What’s your advice for people working in AI?

Scott Snibbe: You’re proximal to CEOs at some of these companies—researchers in AI. So am I. What’s your advice to them? To someone like Sam Altman, or others listening—what would you say to them about how to conduct their careers, their companies, their research? It’s an arms race right now. A massive competition to create artificial general intelligence.

What’s your advice to the people working hard in this field?

David Kittay: My advice: put financial considerations completely aside. Just look at the benefit to humanity and all creatures. You all—Sam, Elon, Mark—you already have enough money. Ask yourself, what makes you happy? Is this contributing to that happiness? Fifty years ago, we had an alternative to market-driven thinking. Communism didn’t work, but it offered another mindset. Now, everything is about the market and making money.

We need to change. I’ve heard some say, “We’ve messed things up so badly that our only hope is to roll the dice on AGI.” Among some of these very wealthy people, they talk about private islands or settlements on Mars to escape the chaos. But what is happiness? Are you really happy? Look inside your heart. Feel that. And in your work—AI, research, development—listen to your heart.

Scott Snibbe: I couldn’t agree more. There’s much lower-hanging fruit to benefit humanity than creating artificial general intelligence. There are so many simple things we can do to cultivate lives of meaning, purpose, happiness, and engagement.

David Kittay: And part of that is—Scott, we’ve been fortunate to fall into this Buddhist path. How wonderful. And there are many other wonderful paths too.

Scott Snibbe: Yeah. People need some way to connect with themselves. Sitting in front of AI doesn’t do it. It’s just another form of media. We all need something to touch that mystical aspect of ourselves—being in nature, exercising, playing music, meditating. Socializing, dancing, cooking, sharing meals. These are the causes of happiness.

People need some way to connect with themselves. Sitting in front of AI doesn’t do it.

David Kittay: And don’t forget having a dog or a cat.

Final thoughts

Scott Snibbe: Oh yeah, I think that’s number one—animal friends.

Well, is there anything else you’d like to add about AI and enlightenment?

David Kittay: The more specialized we get, the greater the danger that things fall apart. E.M. Forster wrote a story in 1909 called The Machine Stops. The central character, Vashti, is a woman who lives in a cubicle and communicates with her grown son across the world via screens. He predicted this over a century ago.

In the story, the machine eventually breaks down—and no one knows how to fix it. We’re approaching that point. Things are getting so complex that, when something breaks, who will repair it? We have to return to thinking on smaller scales. What’s it like to have an economy where people can work, move, and cross borders if they need to escape terrible conditions—which people have done since the beginning of time? Back to basics, like you said.

Things are getting so complex that, when something breaks, who will repair it? We have to return to thinking on smaller scales.

Scott Snibbe: Well, thanks for this conversation, David. I think it was enlightening.

David Kittay: Whatever that is. And maybe the intelligence—at least from this side—was kind of artificial.

Scott Snibbe: All right.

David Kittay: Wonderful seeing you, Scott.

If you’d like to deepen your meditation practice and connect with a community, exploring the ideas we talk about in this podcast visit our website. There you can sign up for our newsletter and join our Train A Happy Mind community, which offers weekly lectures, meditations, classes, and discussions.

You can also purchase my book, How to Train a Happy Mind: A Modern Non-Religious Approach to Buddhist Wisdom with a Forward by the Dalai Lama. It’s available in paperback, ebook, and audiobook.

If this podcast has been a benefit to you, please consider supporting our nonprofit mission. How to Train a Happy Mind is a project of a Skeptic’s Path to Enlightenment, and we rely entirely on the generosity of our donors to keep our podcast and programs free and ad free. To contribute, click here! We accept cash, credit, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies, and your donations are tax deductible in the us.

Credits