The truth about The Dalai-Lama.

The guy is an anti-democracy rebel, that wants to control Tibet under some kind of religious rule. It is contradictory for the West to support him rather than the right of the Chinese Government to rule Tibet as they see fit. His protests may be peaceful, but his followers represent a threat to Chinese authority. Therefore agitations within Tibet caused by the Dalai Lama's preachings are likely to be the source of violence. Which the Chinese Government will seek to stop by violence.

Governments in the West only treat him as a foreign dignitary when they need something from China (other than a sovereign Tibet). For instance, he was given a hero's welcome in Mongolia recently, now during the N. Korea nuclear crisis.

Only the fall of Chinese communism might result in an independent Tibet and that is not likely to happen soon.

So in a fact, the Dalai Lama acts a symbolic wheelchair which the West can push around when they want to bother their business partners in China.

Are you saying that because it's the truth or because he has different beliefs than you?

Aren't the Chinese imperialists in Tibet? So what legitimate claim do they have on Tibet. Tibet was traditionally ruled under a theocracy so, in fact, isn't the Dalai Lama just trying to re-establish the former form of rule?
Certainly it's not contradictory for the US to oppose communism.

Polanski, you are absolutely right. I get the feeling that this was posted more due to the fact that the Dalai Lama is buddhist than because it has anything to do with the truth. I get so tired of fundies coming on here and posting derogatory claims about other belief systems I could freakin SCREAM!!!

[edit on 8-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

IMO, we who have lived in this time have been relatively lucky for the examples we have been given. The Dali Lama is one of them. His compassion and love for all living things is a tribute to humanity and is like guiding light for a great many people world wide. Buddhists, and non-Buddhists alike.

There is only one love.

To come to this conclusion IMO, only shows you do not know much at all about the
man. Nor Bhudism philosophy. For one, it is not a religion.

The chineese conquered Tibet in the 1950s. At that time, they claimed they were liberating Tibet but as far as I can tell the Tibetians didn't want to be liberated.

The Chineese killed many Tibetans that were defending their home country and I still don't understand why they are so threatened by the Tibetans.

Why not let the Tibetans have Tibet back.

Waiting2awake, I completely agree. I can't even fathom what the world,which is already in horrible shape, would be like if not for such figures as the Dalai Lama,Mother Teresa, hell, even the Pope.

Someone should tell him that the Dali Lahma doesn't even live in Tibet. He should also read what the dali lahma has written. Then maybe he would see that the dali lahma is not a threat to anyone and can't be used as one. He himself would forbid himslef being used as a govt. tool.

You know who else are anti-democratic rebels. any hardline facist ultra conservative religions that want to control the state and everybodies lives through some antiquated religious dogma and doctrine. I could think of plenty examples from christians, to Islamists, to various african tribal cultures. But funny how you focus on Chinas problems with this issue and not on Americas similar battle that is happening right now-get your priorities strait.

The Dalai Lama isnt all sweetness and light. He may be non-violent but he represents a very repressive culture. Im not condoing Chinese rule over Tibet which is infinitely more brutal, but it should be noted that life in Tibet under the Lamas is one of virtual serfdom and slavery. It's far from the Utopia many people believe, unless you happen to be a monk.

But it's Tibet's choice, not ours or the Chinese. Let them have their country back, lets just hold back on the loving platitudes for a man who represents a theocracy more backward than Iran.

Originally posted by subz


But it's Tibet's choice, not ours or the Chinese. Let them have their country back, lets just hold back on the loving platitudes for a man who represents a theocracy more backward than Iran.

To say that Buddhist tenets are as oppressive as the tenets of Islam is rather repulsive to me. There is no comparison.

[edit on 8-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
To say that Buddhist tenets are as oppressive as the tenets of Islam is rather repulsive to me. There is no comparison.

I do believe I compared Tibet, under the Lamas, to Iran under the Mullahs. I made no comparison between Islam and Buddism. Im not that stupid

To an atheist any religion is oppressive by it's very nature. Both Buddism and Islam have religious rules that govern your every day behaviour so to me they are both oppressive.

If that repulses you, so be it.

Originally posted by subz
To an atheist any religion is oppressive by it's very nature. Both Buddism and Islam have religious rules that govern your every day behaviour so to me they are both oppressive.

If that repulses you, so be it.

Well,I'm not an athiest,so I wouldn't know.

Ummm, firstly, it needs to be understood that Buddhism, despite the claims of many, is not a religion. It's a philosophy. A religion generally has a set of rules and a deity that is worshiped. As far as I know, Buddhism has neither. Now there may be a set of practices that Buddhist practice, but,at least to my knowledge, there is not a doctrine set in stone that Buddhists adhere to.



[edit on 8-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

There are cultural and national behaviors and practices in Tibet that are expected by the populace. Same in every country. Tibet has it's problems. Mainly poordom because strictly religous or philosophical peoples either follow practices that counter wealth gain, or just merely don't desire it, such as in Tibetan bhudism.

I don't know much about the political structure or general atmosphere of Tibet, but I'm willing to bet citizenship is not like serfdom. I would like some links or references please subz. Not that I don't believe you, just want to learn. If the Tebetans are oprressed now, I would also wager the cause to be on the Chinese.

The basic jist of bhudism is to reach enlightenment. The philosphy lays out some guides and practices to help in the path to that enlightenment. Reincarnation is a strong belief in that you continue to live on earth until you reach that enlightenment. If I remember correctly, I don't even think Bhuda himself made it there. Maybe he was the only one. Bhuda is not a god by the way.

References, darn it I was speaking from the many documentaries and papers I've read on the subject. But references werent that hard to find.

Tibet: The Gap Between Fact And Fabrication

The peasants, whom the Chinese white paper insists on calling “serfs”, had legal identity documents stating their rights, and also had access to courts of law. Peasants had the right to sue their masters and carry their case to higher authorities. Throughout Tibetan history, the maltreatment and suppression of peasants by estate-holders was forbidden by law as well as by social convention. From the time of the seventh century, Tibetan emperor Songtsen Gampo and many Tibetan rulers issued codes based on the Buddhist principle of “Ten Virtues of the Dharma”. The essence of this was that the rulers should act as parents to their subjects. In 1909, the Thirteenth Dalai Lama issued a regulation conferring on all peasants the right to appeal directly to him in case of maltreatment by estate holders. The Tibetan Buddhist belief in compassionate acts as a check on uncharitable deeds, not only against fellow human beings, but also against animals and the environment.

To me the above clearly speaks of peasants and estate owners whom the peasants live off of. That is clearly serfdom as the peasants are not land owners and have "masters".

Dont get me wrong, Im not condeming life in Tibet under the Lamas. Im just seeking to clarify that Tibet under the Lama's is definately not the Utopia most people imagine. It is a theocracy with customs and laws rooted in what I would class as superstition and is no different from any theocracy in that way.

If we in the West can criticise the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia for being theocracies then the same should apply to any Buddist theocracy in Tibet.

Here is some more interesting reading on the subject...

Was this a myth? Tibet's Buddhist monastic nobility controlled all land on behalf of the ``gods''. They monopolised the country's wealth by exacting tribute and labour services from peasants and herders. This system was similar to how the medieval Catholic Church exploited peasants in feudal Europe.


www.greenleft.org.au...

Originally posted by nextguyinline
To come to this conclusion IMO, only shows you do not know much at all about the
man. Nor Bhudism philosophy. For one, it is not a religion.

Better tell that to the Cambodians then, their national motto is :

Nation, Religion, King

Guess what that religion is? In a 96% Buddhist country, I don't guess they are calling Christianity the state religion.

And while we're nitpicking, it's Buddhist philosophy, not Buddhism philosophy.

And perhaps you should read or watch a few interviews with the man himself before you say we others don't know much about him. When a man publicly espouses peace and tells veiwers the meaning of life is to do right by your fellow man, I'm willing to take him at face value and assume he's a decent bloke.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Better tell that to the Cambodians then, their national motto is :

Nation, Religion, King

Guess what that religion is? In a 96% Buddhist country, I don't guess they are calling Christianity the state religion.

So what if they are not calling Christianity their state religion? That is their choice,yeah?

I'm confused Howlrunner. I don't agree with threads premise. I admire the man greatly. I've read and heard LOTS of what he has said.