as I understand it, prevent us from perceiving reality. In your book you talk about the subtle relation between these mental afflictions and the Western notion of destructive emotions. I wonder if these Buddhist ideas have caused any Western scientists to rethink their views about emotions or other states of mind.Mental afflictionsfor example, hatreddon't "prevent" us from perceiving reality, but rather distort that perception. Cognitive psychology tells us much the same thing: When we are in the grip of a strong negative emotion like hatred, it skews memory (we remember things we hate about the other far more readily than what we might like), selective attention (what becomes most salient are any cues for what we dislike), etc. The Buddhist view holds that such states are afflictive because they distort our perception of reality and they create an inner disequilibrium.On the other hand, the Western consensual definition of what makes an emotion "destructive" is that (no matter the emotion) it leads us to do something that harms ourselves or others. The Buddhist view can be seen as dealing with more subtle levels of destructiveness. Whether this more subtle definition will work its way into a Western scientific framework remains to be seen.In Destructive Emotions, you discuss how the Buddhist notion of an "empty self" can inform science-based views of the mind. I wonder if you could elaborate on these ideas a little.The notion of an "empty self" posits that there is no "CEO of the mind," but rather something like committees constantly vying for power. In this view, the "self" is not a stable, enduring entity in control, but rather a mirage of the mindnot actually real, but merely seemingly so. While that notion seems contrary to our own everyday experience, it actually describes the deconstruction of self that cognitive neuroscience finds as it dissects the mind (most famously, Marvin Minsky's "society of mind"). So the Buddhist model of the self may turn out to fit the data far better than the notions that have dominated Western thinking for the last century.I was struck by a comment in your book on how Western science tends to take a negative view of human naturefor example, by explaining altruism as an evolutionary strategy to improve one's own genetic fitness (and thus a selfish act)whereas Buddhism emphasizes the importance of compassion in human motivations. What are your thoughts on how (or whether) science might incorporate a more positive/Buddhist view of human nature?A more positive view has already been introduced into psychology, though not from Buddhism. Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has spearheaded a large movement in psychology to study more vigorously positive states and experiences, like "flow" during optimal performance, as well as motivations like compassion. The movement has come in reaction to the earlier out-of-proportion focus on negative states and dysfunction that typified psychology in the last century.It seems that the idea of emotional intelligence was quickly accepted by the business community, but I have the impression that their motivations were to increase the bottom line or to improve their