Does the Dalai Lama really have anything Important to Say?

108 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Jas, I was hoping we could discuss - not Chinese crimes in Tibet for a change - but rather exactly what the thread topic says. My impression is that the Dalai Lama is a dime-a-dozen motivational speaker with trite views on social issues and at best unhelpful views on questions of peace, the environment, etc. (as detailed above). The things he is quoted saying in the Gazette report are not "outrageous". They are just plain not worth the price of admission. Some of the stuff he says is unhelpful to people looking for solutions to real problems in life, but those weren't quoted in this article.

jas

You're allowed your opinion on the Dalai Lama, of course, but I don't think that really is what this thread is about. You're looking to insult and bash, and I'm responding to that motivation. Anyway, I think real people looking for solutions to real problems in life aren't really going to go to a stadium concert to get them, are they? And if they do, is that really any of your business? Give other people some credit for intelligence, Unionist.

Also, oftentimes the real truths in life are the simplest, most obvious ones. If they're not worth, iyo, the price of admission, why do you feel the need to repost them on Babble?

 

thetoryboytoy

The dumb agnostic and atheist separatists are all about harrassing and denying other people's their language rights and their religious rights. These atheist separatists dressed up as federalists on this board  are threathened by religions as per their cheap and ongoing pot shots at religions and religious leaders all the time  on the board. Only the "religion" of separatism is exempt from their vitriol. Separatism is the only acceptable religion as per the separatsist.

Thankfully the religious classes are full at McGill and students want to know more. They want their fill of religion rather than the sterile and soullessness they get from barren atheist separatists in Quebec.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2061536&p=2

 

Unionist

Still waiting for one single important insight by the Dalai Lama - hopefully without babblers needing to comment on each others' motivations, for a change.

 

jas

What kind of insight are you looking for, Unionist? If you already don't like him, and dismiss everything he's already said publicly, why perpetuate such a futile endeavour? Except, of course, to bash.  

thetoryboytoy

jas wrote:

What kind of insight are you looking for, Unionist? If you already don't like him, and dismiss everything he's already said publicly, why perpetuate such a futile endeavour? Except, of course, to bash.  

 

He only likes separatists. His Quebec ultra nationalist ideology blinds him to other people's valuable language, culture and religion. Gilles DuCeppe tells him what to think.

jas

thetoryboytoy wrote:

Believe me, I don't think he's into Gilles Duceppe.

By the way, TTBT, I've never understood that term "boy toy". Does that mean you're a toy for boys, or a boy who's a toy? And if you're a boy who's a toy, are you a toy for boys, girls, Tory boys, Tory girls... Tories in general? Enquiring minds want to know.

Unionist

jas wrote:

What kind of insight are you looking for, Unionist?

See, jas, that's just the thing about insight. It's something people don't see in advance. It's a contribution - something new - powerful - meaningful - something which ties up loose ends, illuminates dark areas, makes us think in new ways.

Got any of those for me? I'm serious. I'm still thinking about what NRK said, and I don't dismiss anyone or anything lightly. I'm talking about the Dalai Lama, yet you continue to talk about me. Can't we both discuss the same subject?

 

jas

Probably not. I'm not seeking insight from the Dalai Lama.

But neither, I am 99.99% sure, are you. I just fail to see why you hold him to such lofty standards. Or why his existence, or his exaltation -- something he has not sought for himself -- grates on you so much. Are you jealous or something? I think he's probably a pretty cool guy. And I can think of much more harmful and/or useless endeavours than the veneration of the Dalai Lama. In short: who cares? You, apparently.

So, yeah, I do prefer to focus the spotlight on your problem with him, because I think it speaks to an attitude that informs a number of other positions you, and others here, take.

 

Unionist

Good luck with your quest, jas, but there is no way I'm going to accept your invitation (number 1,519) to have a squabble here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The amazing thing is that even some anti-China types who appreciate the DL's fight for "freedom" have trouble with his inanity:

[url=Non-wisdom">http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=ea5c685b-b8... from the Dalai Lama

[/url]

Quote:
I'm sure the Dalai Lama is a wise, insightful and altogether wonderful human being. He must be. Everyone says so. [...]

The audience loved it, as they always do. But I couldn't help but notice that, theatrics aside, these words read like the transcript of three out of five episodes of Oprah. [...]

"War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not." Granted, the current president of the United States needed to hear this a few years ago but I think it's safe to say that most people know that wars can go bad and should be avoided if possible. In fact, I seem to recall making precisely this case in a Grade 6 public speaking contest. [...]

If this is ancient wisdom, Deepak Chopra is the reincarnation of Aristotle. [...]

"Audience Charmed by Dalai Lama," reads the headline of a typical event in Indiana last week. "Shortly into his 90-minute talk, the seated Dalai Lama stopped speaking, leaned forward and started untying his shoes," the bedazzled reporter wrote. "I'm used to sitting cross-legged," His Holiness observed -- a comment which the reporter dutifully passed along, perhaps sensing a deeper metaphor for the nature of existence. [...]

But words have meaning, and that meaning does not come from the person who speaks them. Trite is trite, platitudes are dull however they're polished, and the Dalai Lama's words contain as much insight as the average inspirational poster.

He must have been out of the room when the koolaid was passed around.

jas

I won't derail the "discussion" much further with perceived inter-poster issues but, ftr,  I am not inviting a "squabble" when I make a counterargument to yours. I am inviting you to answer some reasonable questions, which you usually find some reason not to answer, and then attempt to characterize my questions as some kind of personal inquisition against you specifically.

So, you can continue to ignore the points I make but I am not going to stop calling you out on yours.

remind remind's picture

unionist wrote:
that's just the thing about insight. It's something people don't see in advance. It's a contribution - something new - powerful - meaningful - something which ties up loose ends, illuminates dark areas, makes us think in new ways.

I think that is fairly close to  the discription of an epiphany, going to go look.....

Main Entry: in·sight

Pronunciation: \ˈin-ˌsīt\
Function: noun
Date: 13th century

1 : the power or act of seeing into a situation : penetration
2 : the act or result of apprehending the inner nature of things or of seeing intuitively, Discernment

Main Entry: epiph·a·ny
Pronunciation: \i-ˈpi-fə-nē\
Function: noun

2 : an appearance or manifestation especially of a divine being
3 a (1) : a usually sudden manifestation or perception of the essential nature or meaning of something (2) : an intuitive grasp of reality through something (as an event) usually simple and striking (3) : an illuminating discovery, realization, or disclosure b : a revealing scene or moment

No, actually you are correct,  as what you are looking for is for him to give you an epiphany, through his insight or discernment. But epiphanies come on many levels, judging others to be at your level of discernment, unionst, is not quite suitable.

Perhaps those many others going to see him en masse, have yet to have the awareness you do, and what they are hearing from him is an epiphany to them?

Insight is after all a sliding scale.

.

 

Unionist

[url=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/27/1022243311156.html][=blue... of the Dalai Lama[/color][/url]

Quote:
With the Dalai Lama one seems to be getting the essence of religious insight without the froth and bubble of dogma and doctrine or the hard and fast rules of moral behaviour.

The trouble is that when religion is leeched in this fashion of too much content, all that is left is platitudes - or worse, banalities.

Take the Dalai Lama's answer to a question put to him at the National Press Club in Canberra on Friday about his views on euthanasia.

Like abortion, he said through an interpreter (thus choosing his words carefully), "these are very complex issues on which it is very difficult to make generalised statements because the individuality of each context would be so different that it is something that needs to be judged - the merits of its decision - based upon context by context".

You would get more enlightenment than this listening to Lisa tackle a moral dilemma in an episode of The Simpsons.

Well said.

Quote:
When children talk about the need for more caring and sharing in the world, adults smile knowingly - which is to say that we, unlike they, appreciate life's complexities. Ironically, when the Dalai Lama says the same thing, we call it wisdom and applaud.

Very well said.

Quote:
The Dalai Lama's popularity in the West says much about its need for heroes, its search for meaning, its longing for those things (holiness, integrity) that seem to be missing from many of its institutions. And yet Western culture stands for just about everything a Buddhist is supposed to renounce.

Indeed.

 

ennir

I think the Dalai Lama has been a tremendous ambassador for the Tibetan people and once you know a few of them it is very easy to be grateful for the support he has generated for them. 

As to what he has said that is important, I recall him saying that, "kindness is my religion", I would be glad for a world in which more of us practiced that.

 

Unionist

Yes, he's a "complete pacifist" and his religion is "kindness".

I thought I remembered the Dalai Lama refusing to condemn the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its intervention in Korea, but the article is behind subscription walls. Here, however, it is reprinted by the Independent Media Centre of India, from September 11, 2003:

[url=http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/09/7833.shtml]Dalai Lama: Iraq war may be justified[/url]

Quote:
The Dalai Lama said Wednesday that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan may have been justified to win a larger peace, but that is it too soon to judge whether the Iraq war was warranted. "I think history will tell," he said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, just after he met with President Bush. [...]

The exile Tibetan leader, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989, said the Vietnam War increased suffering and was a "failure." But, he said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."

To this day, he will not call for foreign troops to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, or for that matter - Korea.

 

jas

Unionist wrote:

The trouble is that when religion is leeched in this fashion of too much content, all that is left is platitudes - or worse, banalities.

 

Oh, now I understand. It bugs you that he doesn't come out and take a definitive stand that you can definitively hack away at, like you might of the Pope.

Quote:

Take the Dalai Lama's answer to a question put to him at the National Press Club in Canberra on Friday about his views on euthanasia.

Like abortion, he said through an interpreter (thus choosing his words carefully), "these are very complex issues on which it is very difficult to make generalised statements because the individuality of each context would be so different that it is something that needs to be judged - the merits of its decision - based upon context by context".

You would get more enlightenment than this listening to Lisa tackle a moral dilemma in an episode of The Simpsons.

 

Omfg. What the hell are you wanting him to say about euthanasia?? What's your stand on euthanasia?? How is it not dependent on context? WTF?

And did he say "Like abortion..."?? because those two words are not actually inside the quotes. Was the author "interpreting"? Did he opportunistically add those two words to the rest of the statement? Why are they not included in the quotes?

declareIndependance declareIndependance's picture

you know, i might almost feel compelled to wade into the discussions here on babble if it weren't for the smug intelluctual superiority of some posters.

no wonder so many people hate the left, and no wonder still that the progressive movement is still bogged down in the political wilderness; too many lefties fight and argue amongst themselves.

and is all this nonsense about the dalai lama for serious?

Sunday Hat

The Dali Lama was on the CIA payroll from 1964-1974 and was working with the CIA to build a guerilla army to re-take control of Tibet (source, source).

So I take his claims of commitment to non-violence with a grain of salt.

Unionist

jas wrote:

Unionist wrote:

The trouble is that when religion is leeched in this fashion of too much content, all that is left is platitudes - or worse, banalities.

 

Oh, now I understand. It bugs you that he doesn't come out and take a definitive stand that you can definitively hack away at, like you might of the Pope.

I didn't say what you quoted me saying - please refrain from doing that. That was from some article. Go complain to the author of the article. I don't think as highly of religion as that author obviously does.

jas wrote:
And did he say "Like abortion..."?? because those two words are not actually inside the quotes. Was the author "interpreting"? Did he opportunistically add those two words to the rest of the statement? Why are they not included in the quotes?

I can't answer that, jas, but I do know that the Dalai Lama is on record as opposing women's right to choose:

Quote:
The Dalai Lama reminds that according to Buddhist precepts abortion is an act of killing, although he has taken a nuanced position, as he explained to the New York Times:

 

Quote:
Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

So even though he plays coy with questions of life and death for the people of the world, and for fundamental human rights, when push comes to shove, he appears to come down on the wrong side. Not surprising, given his background as the scion of a ruling class which has lost its Paradise.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#Abortion]Dalai Lama's views on abortion, from Wikipedia[/url]

 
 

ennir

declareIndependance wrote:

you know, i might almost feel compelled to wade into the discussions here on babble if it weren't for the smug intelluctual superiority of some posters.

no wonder so many people hate the left, and no wonder still that the progressive movement is still bogged down in the political wilderness; too many lefties fight and argue amongst themselves.

and is all this nonsense about the dalai lama for serious?

I agree.

I realize that when I post here that when I return to see how the discussion has progressed it is most often with the feeling that whatever I have said will be attacked, often in a snide way.  I have posted less and less.  This discussion takes the cake for me, of all the people to attack the Dalai Lama is the least deserving of it.  What precisely are the expectations of a leader of a people who have been and are being displaced.

I wonder what Canadian history would have been if the First people's of this land had an India to run to.

I wonder if those of you who are so critical of him know any Tibetan people?

 

Unionist

ennir wrote:
This discussion takes the cake for me, of all the people to attack the Dalai Lama is the least deserving of it.  What precisely are the expectations of a leader of a people who have been and are being displaced.

This thread is about whether he has anything of importance to say. So far, we have seen that he mouthes meaningless platitudes, pretends to be a pacifist (but doesnt' suggest that his good friend the U.S. get out of Korea or Iraq or Afghanistan), pretends to care about the environment (but doesn't suggest cutting back on oilsands development when he talks about that subject), is openly anti-choice, and is an extremely wealthy Buddhist monk (yeah) who charms well-off audiences with his wit.

My expectations of him? None of the above.

Quote:
I wonder if those of you who are so critical of him know any Tibetan people?

Would you mind explaining the connection between that and the question of whether he has anything important to say? I actually know one Tibetan person (maybe more, I don't always ask everyone's origins) - he is extremely critical of China and has no use for the Dalai Lama. Which proves, exactly, what??

N.R.KISSED

Here is an interesting article

"What would Buddha do? Why won't the Dalai Lama pick a fight"

http://www.counterpunch.org/zupp10112003.html

 

Unionist

Good one, thanks NRK. Especially noted the contrast between the Dala Lama and Dr. King:

Quote:

And the fact is, the Dalai Lama won't pick a fight. The good fight. For some reason, he won't respectfully ask the president of the United States how he can invade a nation without the official consent of the United Nations. [...]

And, as Norman Solomon suggests, not speaking out in fact amounts to taking a political position. He adds: "Let the great spiritual teachers basking in acclaim today learn how to emulate Martin Luther King Jr., who in 1967 explicitly condemned 'racism,' 'militarism,' and 'economic exploitation' while also having the moral fortitude to denounce the Vietnam War."

ElizaQ ElizaQ's picture

 A few things that touch on some of things talked about in this discussion as related by my Dali Lama encounter story.   Remind great points about different peoples levels of insight.

 I saw the Dali Lama one of the time he was in Vancouver. If I remember correctly he was there for three days and did three different public events.  One I think was a general talk, the other was with Desmond Tutu and the one I went to was a Buddhist teaching. I chose to go to the teaching one because I figured it would be interesting to hear 'theology' about Buddhism from one of the big guys. It ended up that my whole family came with me so I got to see their reactions as well.

What I can say that for anyone that showed up thinking they were going to get Dali Lama light and nice little packaged platitudes, easy to process soundbites or quick shots of wisdom would have been disappointed. He barely even spoke in english like I think he does in other sorts of events. 

 I did see see evidence of adulation and a general expectation of his mysteriousness.    I don't know what happens at other of his events but this one started with a bit of ritual.  I think maybe because it was considered and event more religious in nature.  There were some of the guys with those big hats and robes and they did some prayers, incense burning and bell ringing around the dais before he came out.  When he came out everyone just kinda got really still and just watched. "Oh look there he is!"  So he gets up on the dais and does some ritual nodding to the big hat guys, says a prayer and then gets himself settled. One of the hat guys handed him a bag and he pulled out a prayer scarf, did what I think must have been a blessing and put it around his neck.  He then pulled out a prayer wheel did the same thing and set it down. Out came something else at it was set in place. Meanwhile the audience is pretty much just sitting and watching with fascination.  It did have an air of sacredness to it.  Then he reached into the bag and I swear it was almost as if everyone leaned forward to try to see what was next.  So he pulls out a one of those bright green plastic golf visors and sticks it on his head.  It was totally hysterical and the reaction or the audience was sorta like 'what the hell?'.  I started laughing out loud much to the chagrin of my mother who was tried to shush me, but I wouldn't. It was just hilarious.  The Dali Lama just smiled a little and said, 'It's the lights, they're bright,' or something like that.

Anyways with the sacred jarred back into mundane reality, he welcomed everyone in english, said a few words and explained what he was going to talk about.  I can't remember exactly what he said but he explained that he was going to talk about Buddhism and that it was teaching for Buddhism. He also explained that he wasn't there to convert people to Buddhism. He said he actually preferred people to not convert to Buddhism and talked a bit about how he believed that if people wanted deeper understanding of the spiritual that it was better to delve deeper into whatever traditions one was born or lived in.  He said this much more eloquantly then I've just related here and perhaps that's not exactly what he said but that's what I took from it.  I also took from it that he was indirectly speaking about taking on the religion at a superficial level. He also explained that he wasn't being paid to do this teaching as it was not kosher. (yep mixing relgiovores here)

After that it was straight into a very looooooong and I mean long teaching, all in Tibetan. He'd talk for what would be several paragraphs written and then it was interpreted.  It was interesting and since I did know something about Buddhism, could follow along with some of the basics or at least I recognized some of the basics. Beyond that it was intense and pretty complex. I'm generally interested in different religions so I found it quite interesting from an academic perspective. My sister however was soon bored out of her mind, left for the bathroom and was gone for a really long time.  My  Dad fell asleep which bugged my Mom because he makes these snorting loud snorting sounds so she had to keep nudging him to wake up.  By the end of it though I was zoning out as well because it took a lot of effort to follow as he talked about more complex theology.  It was a lot to take in all in one sitting. 

I did notice a difference when he did speak in english. It came off as much more simple and basic. 

At the end of it, of course people were happy to have seen him but  some of the crowd talk that I heard there was disappointment.  This wasn't what they were expecting. The group in front of me talked about how while it was interesting they really didn't understand much, but hey it was the Dali Lama so it was cool. That was pretty much my sister and Dad's reaction as well.

Once it was over they started running off CD's of the talk and sold them for ten bucks. Since I did zone out for some of it I did buy one because I figured I could listen to it again and go over the parts that I missed and try to understand it better. I still have them in a box somewhere but never have stuck them in the player. 

 

What I can say is that beyond the golf cap thing and the general impression that I got from him, which was good, he is quite funny,  I can't recall a whole lot from what he actually said. It did however make me quite aware that what we tend to hear from him or the popular Lama thoughts on Buddhism and Buddhist wisdom he conveys in the media are very distilled versions of his belief system.  I might even use the description of dumbed down or very simplified to be more polite.   It might just be a language thing as was suggested earlier in the disscussion  but I think it's more then that.

 

Frmrsldr

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Really? I'd think that someone who opposes the mission in Afghanistan or the deveopment of the oil sands would be a little more supportive.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Dalai+Lama+sounds+Afghan+oilsands/2055...

 

Quote:

CALGARY - Military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq has been a failure, according to the Dalai Lama.

At a press conference today, the Tibetan spiritual leader said military action is sometimes necessary, citing the Second World War and Korea.

"In Iran and Afghanistan, it's too early to say. So far, I think a failure, using military force. Hard liners (are) becoming even more harder," he said.

Civilian casualties, he said, are creating sympathy for the other side, without specifically citing the Taliban.

Asked about the development of Alberta's oilsands, he said in a choice between "destruction of environment or losing money, then we have to choose losing money."

 

I think his answers about war and violence are a load of crap. A true pacifist believes that war and violence are universally morally wrong, except (sadly, given the nature of the world) in cases of self defense: an unprovoked attack upon a group or individual or an unprovoked military attack (not a criminal civilian terrorist attack like 9/11 and the aggressive war response/retaliation) or invasion.

Erik Redburn

Oh yes, so will leftist pacifists here be outraged the next time the Chinese or Russians invade a neighbouring country? 

Frmrsldr

China had no justification to invade Tibet. Every official pronouncement by the Chinese government on Tibet is an unjust post de facto rationalization. Just like after the U.S.A.'s attack/invasion of Afghanistan was later explained/rationalized as democratizing, nation building, fighting for human rights, equality (for women), education for children and overall improvement of Afghan life, etc.

Erik Redburn

ElizaQ wrote:

 

What I can say is that beyond the golf cap thing and the general impression that I got from him, which was good, he is quite funny,  I can't recall a whole lot from what he actually said. It did however make me quite aware that what we tend to hear from him or the popular Lama thoughts on Buddhism and Buddhist wisdom he conveys in the media are very distilled versions of his belief system.  I might even use the description of dumbed down or very simplified to be more polite.   It might just be a language thing as was suggested earlier in the disscussion  but I think it's more then that.

 

Interesting reflections.  Was invited by a friend to come see him once but never made it out.    I think his recent "celebrity image", that puts some off, is mostly a media creation.  I also don't doubt he also uses it to keep attention on what's happening back home.  I get the impression he's sincere about that, not just looking to regain some mantle he must surely know is impossible by now.  As a Buddhist leader he'd also look at the philosphical questions of attaining greater world peace/harmony through more inner peace/harmony.  Not exactly particular to schools of Buddhism, but more of a central focus wouldn't you say?

Erik Redburn

Glad we can agree on this then.  Nothing personal, I wouldn't even make an issue of this again if I hadn't had to repeatedly struggle over this before.  Maybe you were lucky enough to miss all the dog-piles here.

 

Erik Redburn

Anyhow, this isn't about the supposed perfection of the Dalai Lama as "pacifist", it's about China's occupation and their explotation of the country and marginilization of its indigenous population and cultures.   This argument has been going on here for years already, but I'm still waiting for a reply to my questions regarding the opening bait. 

Of all the forms of Buddhism I'm familiar with, the official Tibetan brand (Lamaism, not Bon) is just about the least appealing to me, and I'm not at all surprised that their political/spiritual leader has to pick and choose what he criticises in public.  Like Castro and assorted other ex-pats looking to liberate their homeland they are often forced make deals with less than ideal allies, and sometimes sing for their supper. 

His latest statements however indicate he'd mostly just be content with some modest reforms.    I think I can find them again if anyone really wants to take this issue beyond the usual. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

I remember 30 years ago I taped an interview and would replay it over and over again whenever I was smoking up.  Then one day I listened to it straight and realized what meaningless bullshit it was. 

Erik Redburn

All religious talk can sound like trite bullshit, if the speaker isn't particularly articulate or knowledgeable.  And almost impossible not to if you don't accept its basic tenets or ask similar questions yourself.  Personally I find most Eastern religions (not the knockoff cults) far more interesting and revealing (potentially) than Western ones, although aboriginal religions interest me more now.  I wouldn't even try viewing day to day issues in terms of religion, and I wish politicians wouldn't either.

Infosaturated

Even if the Dalai Lama were on the extreme right and China was a benevolent caretaker creating lives of luxury for all inhabitants it still wouldn't have anything to do with who should be in power in Tibet.  Whomever the people want is the deciding factor.  The Western assumption that we know what is best for others is a colonization mindset.

Erik Redburn

It is, but who's occupying Tibet by force, the US or China?  I have a pretty strong hunch that most native Tibetan would still prefer indigenous rule, although most probably a more modern and democratic form with trade links to everyone in the region.  That popular will would naturally express itself to the outside, where they are now, appealing mostly to China's wealthier Western trading partners/competitors.

Infosaturated

Erik Redburn wrote:

 Personally I find most Eastern religions (not the knockoff cults) far more interesting and revealing (potentially) than Western ones, although aboriginal religions interest me more now.

Then the following may interest you although I don't have an academic source or a current web source.

The Pygmies 18 Sins

 

Eating eggs which are like seeds of life

Slander

Blasphemy

Adultery

Failure to help a wounded or stray pygmy from elsewhere

Husband beating

Sorcery

Disrespect towards parents and elders

Setting traps for animals, it is wasteful and unmanly

Theft

Cruelty towards children

Wife Beating

Murder

Cutting the tall trees

Wanton slaughter of animals

Cowardly behaviour during the hunt

Wasting food

Fouling water

 

Erik Redburn

Thanks, source would be great if you could find it, even just an author.

ennir

Unionist wrote:

ennir wrote:
This discussion takes the cake for me, of all the people to attack the Dalai Lama is the least deserving of it.  What precisely are the expectations of a leader of a people who have been and are being displaced.

This thread is about whether he has anything of importance to say. So far, we have seen that he mouthes meaningless platitudes, pretends to be a pacifist (but doesnt' suggest that his good friend the U.S. get out of Korea or Iraq or Afghanistan), pretends to care about the environment (but doesn't suggest cutting back on oilsands development when he talks about that subject), is openly anti-choice, and is an extremely wealthy Buddhist monk (yeah) who charms well-off audiences with his wit.

My expectations of him? None of the above.

Quote:
I wonder if those of you who are so critical of him know any Tibetan people?

Would you mind explaining the connection between that and the question of whether he has anything important to say? I actually know one Tibetan person (maybe more, I don't always ask everyone's origins) - he is extremely critical of China and has no use for the Dalai Lama. Which proves, exactly, what??

This thread is nothing but an opportunity for attacking him.  Fine, so you don't get him, I tend to think there are a lot of idiots out there mouthing platitudes but the Dalai Lama is not one  of them, he practices what he says, his  words are not platitudes.

The fact that you don't see or hear him only indicates how incapable you are of deeper feeling.  Sad.

I am gone from this place of babble, and if I had to name one person who has made this place thoroughy unappetizing for me, it would be you Unionist. 

Bye, bye.

Unionist

ennir wrote:

The fact that you don't see or hear him only indicates how incapable you are of deeper feeling.  Sad.

He's anti-choice. I heard that part.

Quote:
I am gone from this place of babble, and if I had to name one person who has made this place thoroughy unappetizing for me, it would be you Unionist. 

Bye, bye.

I always appreciated your contributions, especially on alternative medicine, whether we agreed or not. I think it's wrong to extend disagreement on issues to animosity between people. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. Be well.

Unionist

Erik Redburn wrote:

Thanks, source would be great if you could find it, even just an author.

It's [url=here[/url]">http://www.pygmyfund.org/sins.html]here[/url], although the "pygmy" designation, and the notion of a Belgian ethnologist collecting money (the "Pygmy Fund") to save an African people from "extinction" in a former Belgian colony, may be somewhat out of date... Anyway, all I know is what I see on Wikipedia about him and it, so I won't comment beyond that.

 

corymorystory

declareIndependance wrote:

you know, i might almost feel compelled to wade into the discussions here on babble if it weren't for the smug intelluctual superiority of some posters.

no wonder so many people hate the left, and no wonder still that the progressive movement is still bogged down in the political wilderness; too many lefties fight and argue amongst themselves.

and is all this nonsense about the dalai lama for serious?

 

Let the dumbfuck lefties fight themselves. I especially hope the ultra nationalist Quebec lefties destroy the english Canada lefties. All the while Stephen Harper and the Conservatives sweep up in the elections. Harper gets by with a little help from  his Dalai Lama bashing left wing friends hahahahhahaha.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCbVw03zEyU

It was the dumbfuck Quebec ultra nationalists who harrassed Sir Paul McCartney when he performed on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec. "Smoke the Pipes of Peace" is what Sir Paul told them the Quebec Ultra Nationalists.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/07/17/qc-mccartney400th0717...

Indeed.

Infosaturated

Unionist wrote:

Erik Redburn wrote:

Thanks, source would be great if you could find it, even just an author.

It's [url=here[/url]">http://www.pygmyfund.org/sins.html]here[/url], although the "pygmy" designation, and the notion of a Belgian ethnologist collecting money (the "Pygmy Fund") to save an African people from "extinction" in a former Belgian colony, may be somewhat out of date... Anyway, all I know is what I see on Wikipedia about him and it, so I won't comment beyond that.

Thanks for that Unionist.  I added the link and information to my word file. I came across the list before I learned about the importance of being able to cite a source.  I was mainly self-educated until a few years ago. I learned about these on a web-site that unfortunately doesn't seem to exist anymore.  It was called "Deep Forest" and was a multimedia new age or worldbeat music/graphic experience. I guess it was a "flash" site.  Anyway, it was very cool.  There were 18 graphic symbols that represented the 18 sins.  I can't remember exactly but I think the site said that the sins were from 3000 to 1600 BCE.  One of the symbols was man bending down and defecating in the water.  Another was of a female archer.  I liked the way wife-beating and husband-beating were considered separate sins and yet a female hunter was depicted.

Ze

ennir wrote:

declareIndependance wrote:

you know, i might almost feel compelled to wade into the discussions here on babble if it weren't for the smug intelluctual superiority of some posters.

no wonder so many people hate the left, and no wonder still that the progressive movement is still bogged down in the political wilderness; too many lefties fight and argue amongst themselves.

and is all this nonsense about the dalai lama for serious?

I agree.

I realize that when I post here that when I return to see how the discussion has progressed it is most often with the feeling that whatever I have said will be attacked, often in a snide way.  I have posted less and less.  This discussion takes the cake for me, of all the people to attack the Dalai Lama is the least deserving of it.  What precisely are the expectations of a leader of a people who have been and are being displaced.

Yeah, that's much how I feel as well. 

The Dalai Lama's words, really, are irrelevant. He embodies a struggle. He's the most vocal defender of the Tibetan plateau's ecosystems, currently under attack by Chinese and Western corporations. He's not perfect, but there's no one on the planet who is. 

Unionist

Ze wrote:

The Dalai Lama's words, really, are irrelevant.

Pretty much, yeah.

 

Infosaturated

declareIndependance wrote:

you know, i might almost feel compelled to wade into the discussions here on babble if it weren't for the smug intelluctual superiority of some posters.

no wonder so many people hate the left, and no wonder still that the progressive movement is still bogged down in the political wilderness; too many lefties fight and argue amongst themselves.

and is all this nonsense about the dalai lama for serious?

I wish you were one of the more frequent posters.  I feel like I could learn from you.

kropotkin1951

Quote:
The Dalai Lama reminds that according to Buddhist precepts abortion is an act of killing, although he has taken a nuanced position, as he explained to the New York Times:

 

Quote:

Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

I was willing to give him some leeway and agree that translating deep ideas can lead them to sound like platitudes but this genocidal attack on people with developmental disabilities is the tipping point for me.  No one who is spiritually enlightened should see disabled people as less human and deserving of life than the temporarily able bodied.  I suggest he meditate on the humanness of the "other."
_________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think we need to seperate the symbolism from the person. I support Aung San Suu Kyi, but that doesn't mean I am going to buy everything she says.

 

Infosaturated

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Quote:
The Dalai Lama reminds that according to Buddhist precepts abortion is an act of killing, although he has taken a nuanced position, as he explained to the New York Times:

 

Quote:

Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.

I was willing to give him some leeway and agree that translating deep ideas can lead them to sound like platitudes but this genocidal attack on people with developmental disabilities is the tipping point for me.  No one who is spiritually enlightened should see disabled people as less human and deserving of life than the temporarily able bodied.  I suggest he meditate on the humanness of the "other."
_________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

He didn't say all fetus's that show developmental problems should be aborted nor did he suggest that existing people with disabilities should be killed. That would be genocide. He said it should be approved or disapproved based on individual circumstances one of which can be disabilities based on the parents ability to cope. Clearly he was asked what the Buddhist position was on abortion and he was trying to balance the idea that abortion is murder against the needs of the parents. Amniocentesis is performed specifically to identify abnormalities in fetal development allowing the woman to determine whether or not she should continue the pregnancy. I had a friend who had a hand and a foot smaller than the other and something relatively minor wrong with her spine. She told me that if she were pregnant and her fetus had the same condition she does she would choose to abort. That really surprised me because I rarely even noticed her disability. Should I think of her as "genocidal"?

kropotkin1951

Nope merely eugenics. But the real difference between her and the Dalai is she is dealing with her self and her body he is pontificating on when it is all right for others to do something  I know black people that are overtly prejudiced against other POC but that doesn't change my views on racism. Some parents for cultural reasons think they couldn't cope with having girls instead of boys but IMO that doesn't justify aborting foetuses who could become girls.  To me it the same pile different shit especially when someone uses such a broad and loaded term such as the "R" word.

The use of the term is offensive enough but using it as an excuse to abort is eugenics. How does he square supposed respect for human life with those views. All he had to say was that a woman has to make those decisions herself with whatever counsel she deems necessary.  Pointing out a certain group of HUMAN BEINGS for aborting because of who they will become is not spiritual it is obnoxious.

jas

Um, English is not his first language.

And actually, I think, as an international figure, his words on most subjects are mostly diplomatic. In that sense, Unionist could be right. Perhaps, like many other (non-Christian, I'm thinking) religious leaders, he's just not willing to share some of his more personal or controversial viewpoints.

Thank you, Eliza Q, Ennir, Erik Redburn and a few others for your observations.

 

Unionist

jas wrote:

Um, English is not his first language.

Neither are the rights of women, of the disabled, and of the invaded populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea. They apparently don't translate well in his lexicon. Oh, you might want to look up his nice words about Israel while you're at it [left as an exercise for the reader].

Quote:
And actually, I think, as an international figure, his words on most subjects are mostly diplomatic.

"Diplomatic" doesn't explain taking the side of imperialism and misogyny. You can diplomatically tell the U.S. that it should consider pulling out of Iraq. Even Pope John Paul managed to say the right thing on that subject. Mind you, he has his own independent source of income.

Pages