The truth about The Dalai-Lama.

Originally posted by nextguyinline
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.

I don't think Howl agrees either, I am just not sure what she is implying.

I think the Dalai Lama is overrated.

I saw an interview with him and he made the stupidest comment on Iraq.

He said that the US soldiers should shoot the enemy in the leg.

WTF. If thats enlightenment i'll have no part of it.

It is a compromise between perfectness and need.

I recently saw the Dalai Lama and his talk was on peace. He is, however, a very pragmatic man. He said several times during his talk to try it(what he said) and if it worked OK and if it didn't that was OK too. I found him to be a very honest and open person. He was not selling a bill of goods nor did he take up a collection, although, a fee was charged for the talk. This talk was in Buffalo NY and over 30,000 people were there. It looked like Americans were looking for something to give meaning to their lives. In general Buddhism is much like what the Lama said. You are not required to profess any specific beliefs and you work towards an experience. If your experience is not what you expected or not helpful to your life, so be it. You don't go to hell or lose paradise and all those virgins. You just continue on the life cycle. You can't push the river.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by polanksi]

Originally posted by soundaddicted
I think the Dalai Lama is overrated.

I saw an interview with him and he made the stupidest comment on Iraq.

He said that the US soldiers should shoot the enemy in the leg.

WTF. If thats enlightenment i'll have no part of it.

Why do you find that a stupid comment? You should think about it a little more, what he is saying is that the soldiers should shoot to disable and not to kill.

You would think he would say they shouldn't shoot at all, all good and well but when people are shooting at you that doesn't really work very well so instead he is saying they should make it one of there goals to attempt to keep the amount of deaths as low as possible.

As for the original poster:

Originally posted by Prokurator
The guy is an anti-democracy rebel, that wants to control Tibet under some kind of religious rule.

I would suggest perhaps you do a little more research starting with reading the Dali Lama’s life story in particular what happened to his family as a result of the Chinese occupation of his country. This might just change your views.

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.

There are few men of peace and principle in this world to demean this VERY intelligent man is with statements such as this I find offensive in the extreme.

For anybody that doesn't understand Buddhism than maybe you should read up on it. I practice buddhism and I don't find it very restrictive. There are so many websites that discuss buddhism, try googling it. Thats the problem with society if we don't understand something we automatically start bashing it. If people want to be atheists then go ahead and do it same thing for Christians, Jews, Muslims and Islams.

I find it very disturbing that a democratic nation would condone the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The Chinese have justified the occupation by claiming they are freeing the peasants from the oppression of a God-king system with communism. The West is historically a monarchy of God-Kings. The insult is meant to extend to us, I'm sure.

Another good example of how the old political semantics are meaningless in today's global economy.


As an icon of compassion, it's symbolic that the dalai lama is the scapegoat for the political and economic subterfuge currently at work in the world.

[edit on 9-11-2006 by clearwater]

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.

Like some people have already said, then you do not know anything about Buddhism.

First of all, it is a way of life, not a religion... There is no " God, Gods, or Goddess" in Buddhism, contrary to what some, like you seem to think.

The Buddha is not a God...it is a representation of what every Buddhist should try to achieve and become. It is not a way of life for everybody, i know it because I was under the refuge of a lama, and I learned many things, but I never chose to take the vows.

Buddhist monks don't look for "believers", those who want to know about the path, can ask for refuge and learn about it. It is the choice of every individual to take the vows, which deals mostly with not taking any life including the life of insects, not to disrespect your teacher, etc.

Life under the Dalai Lama is as different from life under the Mullahs as the differences between day and night...

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.
...................

There are three main traditions of Buddhism today, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Theravada, and there are many branches from those three traditions. Anyone can become a Buddha, as soon as you realize the truth of reality, or as soon as you are awakened from ignorance. The main teaching of Shiddarta Gautama was that desire is the main cause of suffering in the world. When a person desires something they do not have, they suffer. Ending desire is known as the state of Nirvana.

Although those are some of the main principles taught by Siddharta Gautama, all the branches of Buddhism do not teach the same, just as all the branches of Christianity do not teach the exact same thing.


[edit on 9-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

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.
...................

There are three main traditions of Buddhism today, Mahayana, Vajrayana and Theravada, and there are many branches from those three traditions...all the branches of Buddhism do not teach the same, just as all the branches of Christianity do not teach the exact same thing.

And...?

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Originally posted by nextguyinline
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.

I don't think Howl agrees either, I am just not sure what she is implying.

Right. First off, the next person who calls me a she is going to get a very un-Buddhist cuff behind the head...

I've read a few things he has said and heard a few things he has said and that's why I said what I said.

I have also read a few things and heard a few things from people who have been to northern India and visited the exiled Tibetans there. Which is also why I said what I said.

A great deal of what they said was particularly unflattering. However, as I always consider the source, I took their, shall we say, rantings under extreme advisement. The problem is that I haven't been there to confirm or deny what they said and I haven't seen footage of the place to confirm or deny what they said, so I must admit to the existence of alternative information. Even if I don't give it a lot of credence.

However, just to clear things up, I regard the original post as a lame rant by the extremely uninformed. I just din't want to come out swinging with my contempt on full display.

Is there any reason in particular why a similar group of people that want to make their own country and be left alone CAN'T be left alone? Gee this must be globalism that we are talking about here. I don't think we can call it imperialism nor does their appear to be any benefit in this for Tibet at all.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
.........
And...?

It is a bit more complicated than what you appear to know...
Cambodia was under the rule of Communists for a very long time, and Buddhism was banned until 1991. The Communist tried and almost succeded in completly destroying the way of life.

By 1979 pretty much every Buddhist monk had been exiled or murdered in Cambodia by the Communists, and Buddhist temples and Buddhist libraries were destroyed. There is still political instability in Cambodia, and there is a lack of Buddhist scholars/monks which is making it very difficult to reestablish Buddhism in that country.

As already stated, not all Buddhists see the way of life in the same manner, but even through the original teaching of Siddharta Gautama, it is known that Buddhism is not a religion, it is a path, a way of life.



[edit on 10-11-2006 by Muaddib]

This thread is a disgusting fabrication that not only debases a great man but also a people, their culture and their values.
If there ever was a struggle today that has more credibility towards freedom and independence it is Tibet and its people who need to be heard. Unfortunately this world of ours is deaf and unless you have crazy people blowing themselves up in every street corner nobody pays attention. Same with the Burmese too.

The Chinese govt agent who has started this thread with disgusting lies fails to tell you that the "anti-democracy" agent now resides in a democracy and abides by all the laws of that democracy. Also that the chinese govt has brutally and systematically destroyed the Tibetan culture in every way possible even going to the extent of redistributing the Tibetans from their land forcefully. Despite persecution for more than 5 decades these people still abide by the principles of decency, civility and peace against a brutal communist regime that does not tolerate dissent. Is it not clear to see the hypocrisy of this chinese agent?
Not satisfied with ousting the dalai lama and killing off most of the Tibetan during their initial invasion they now pursue the dalai lama and his organization in different nations attacking and threatening Tibetans world wide either through their network of agents and operatives. No one is spared, form kids who are still in indefinite custody in china to tracking down and executing the reincarnates of Tibetan monks that the Tibetans hold so dear to them.
The Tibetans are in essence a people without a land, a nation of refugees spread through the world having left their mothers, brothers, fathers behind at the hands of an aggressive communist party.

Originally posted by subz
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.

This here is a prime example of BS!

The so called "feudal" system you speak of has served the Tibetan people through centuries and now the Tibetans who have fled and still live under the authority of the dalai lama choose to do so, not because they are forced to! The repression you speak of is a narrow minded idea that the peasant who wants to work in the fields for the dalai lama is being forced to do so. It is their culture and that is how they live. There is no "monk police" that enforces anything, they are free to serve in the community in what ever capacity they choose. Yes, there is a hierarchy in the tibetian culture but that is a hierarchy that is once again not enforced on the people. It is meant for the religious and those who wish to live outside the system are free to do so as do many tibetians! The system is not about control its about tradition and culture that is very differnt from what we in the west understand. As for the cool kid, the tibetian monk, I bet you have no idea what their do. Its isnt just singing all day and lounging around. Its is a communal kind of living and they both work, farm and perform their religious duties as they are required to do. Also its not the tibetians choice ! ( what ever that means! ) Its not like they can move in when they want to or buy it from china is it ? They have fled for their lives and they are asking the world to help them save their culture and their homeland form people who have attacked and seized their country and tried to kill their spiritual head when he was just a child!

As for calling it a theocracy you would have to consider it a bonafide religion, which it is not like say Christianity or islam. Comparing it to Iran, a war mongering nation having an army of suicide bombers that their leaders threaten to unleash on the world lest we upset their sensitivities is even more ridiculous and I am sure will convince any reasonable person that you are utterly ignorant of what you speak of!

Reading a couple of paragraphs from the internet doesnt mean you know jack about their culture! Know that you dont know anything about them and then maybe you will be open to understanding more about them before you start judging a man we all know is better than you! (yes, thats right I said better, he is better than you. He has a Nobel prize, do you ? I'll admit to it. )

Well consider myself told...NOT

Buddism is a religion. Just because some of YOU think a religion needs a deity does not make it so.

Religion

Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought.

As such any country governed by religious leaders is a theocracy.

Theocracy
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

Oh look at that, I was two for two in correct usage of the terms religion and theocracy as they apply to Buddism and Tibet respectively.

Since I hear some of the posters here constantly howling about how Iran is such a bad place to live because it's a theocratic state, I should now conclude that it's not the theocracy you have a problem with but Islam itself. Well welcome to the realm of religious bigotry. Cant say that Im surprised but atleast you cant hide behind a veil of political allegiance to democracy and rule of law any more.

Good day

[edit on 10/11/06 by subz]

Subz, sorry bud, but it is not a religion, it is a way of life. I guess you are also religious because you follow certain rules and moral values, or do you lack any of these?...

There are no "divine" beings in Buddhism.... no Gods, or Goddess....or any deities..... i dare you to find in any of the original teachings of Siddharta Gautama any mention of divine beings.... Anyone can become a Buddha, which is only self realization, but apparently the meaning escapes you.

The Cambodian motto was adopted during the Khmer monarchy, when the "religion" of that nation was "Brahmanism"...the nation later on slowly became Buddhist, and they kept that motto, my guess it is also a reminder for them of the struggle they have been having with the Communists who always want to suppress anything that even remotely gives any hope to the people, and teaches them values which are beyond the comprehemsion of most Communists.


[edit on 10-11-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Right. First off, the next person who calls me a she is going to get a very un-Buddhist cuff behind the head...

Not to make this a big issue,but why do male posters choose female avatars?

I think we can deduct from the fact that Prokurator hasn't bothered to respond,he/she,whetever the case may be, was just blowing off at the mouth.

[edit on 10-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Depending on your persuasion speaker, I suggest looking at a picture of a female. Then looking at a picture of a male. Which is easier to look at?