• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why

TuftedPuffin said:
How else can you explain Gandhi's extraordinary personality other than realizing the union of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma and becoming enlightened due to the truth of Hinduism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?

Dalai Lamas are a dime a dozen, especially when your rules for who's a Lama are based on what they write in books and say in interviews. The Lama act is common (even if it isn't an act, that personality is common). What makes the Dalai Lama better than, say, Gandhi? Or Tolstoy? Or Jesus?
Click to expand...

I have to think about Gandhi's personality. If he would say that it is due to realize the union of shiva, vishnu and brahma, I would have to accept it, but it contradicts buddhist truths.


First, I have seen the Dalai Lama in person once, not only in books and interviews. But even if I hadn't I just can't believe he would lie.


I think that Gandhi and Tolstoy (the reports about Jesus are not reliable) never said that they FELT no hatred. What is extraordinary about the dalai lama is not that he does not act upon hatred, but that he does not FEEL hatred in the beginning, which is quite different from Gandhi and Tolstoy. And since it's exactly what is supposed to happen due to realizing emptyness, it's hard for me to think about it as a coincidence.

"Dalai Lama: Anger—I think, sometimes. But hatred, almost none. We’re trained not to. But reducing anger does not mean we give in. We carry on our struggle for our rights, for justice, but without anger. I think the real meaning of nonviolence, the demarcation between nonviolence and violence, is not action alone but mainly motivation."

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/05/dalai_lama.html

Of course, you can always say they are suppresing, but that really does not look like that. The Dalai Lama is a public figure, widely interviewed for 40 years or so. Suppression has its outward signs.
 
Elohim said:
JetLeg,

I have never been a big fan of being overly dependent upon faith alone. When it comes to most things in my life, I much prefer a healthy combination of critical thinking and confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Such confidence, or faith if you will, is not blind, but a type of confidence that is rooted in understanding. There are obvious dangers with accepting anything on blind faith, especially when we take into consideration how easily we can be manipulated by charismatic individuals.

As the Buddha himself advised, one should (i) spend a great deal of time living with a potential teacher in order to observe their conduct, one should (ii) spend a great deal of time dealing with a potential teacher in order to observe their honesty, one should (iii) spend a great deal of time observing a potential teacher's endurance in regard to dealing with difficult situations, and one should (iv) spend a great deal of time discussing various matters with a potential teacher in order to observe the quality of their discerment (AN 4.192).

Jason
Click to expand...

But there are books and interviews instead...
 
JetLeg,

Here's a tough question for you: What evidence would you accept that would convince you that you were wrong in your understandings?
 
Zep said:
JetLeg,

Here's a tough question for you: What evidence would you accept that would convince you that you were wrong in your understandings?
Click to expand...

If the dalai lama would commit murder. Or, if he would become dogmatic.
Or, if the scientific tests of buddhist monks would show they are not happier than average. Or, if the behaviour of the monks and lamas will change, and they will not seem so wonderful to me. Or, if another ancient scripture will be found, where it will be said that meditation on emptyness is not a source of happiness.


Though, actually with regards to the dalai lama, I am not sure - if you come to the conclusion that someone is infallible, if he says something stupid, or acts in an evil way, it is just logical to assume that the misunderstanding is in you, isn't it?
 
JetLeg said:
If the dalai lama would commit murder. Or, if he would become dogmatic.
Or, if the scientific tests of buddhist monks would show they are not happier than average. Or, if the behaviour of the monks and lamas will change, and they will not seem so wonderful to me. Or, if another ancient scripture will be found, where it will be said that meditation on emptyness is not a source of happiness.


Though, actually with regards to the dalai lama, I am not sure - if you come to the conclusion that someone is infallible, if he says something stupid, or acts in an evil way, it is just logical to assume that the misunderstanding is in you, isn't it?
Click to expand...
I'm asking you to consider what YOU would accept that would force you to change your mind. Not me.

What would that be, and why would it change your mind?
 
I just said -

If the dalai lama would commit murder, or become hateful of the chinese. Or, if he would become dogmatic. Or, if he says that shunyata is not true. Or, if the scientific tests of buddhist monks would show they are not happier than average. Or, if the behaviour of the monks and lamas will change, and they will not seem so wonderful to me. Or, if another ancient scripture will be found, where it will be said that meditation on emptyness is not a source of happiness.

I think you can see from the posts above why exactly it would change my mind.


This does not count :

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30371
 
Last edited:
joobz said:
So how are you to decide who is the right or wrong leader if you aren't suppposed to think about it and let someone else decide for you? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which leader you will follow? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which person you will let decide which leader you will follow?
Click to expand...

I am supposed to think who is the right leader, I guess. Yeah, people did make mistakes because the thought that they found the right leader, but they actually did not.



But ok, I thought who is the right leader, and then I came to a conclusion.
The criteria of him : critical thinking, open mindness, compassion, a good heart.

So, if I follow him blindly I will get this without all the effort in the first place, just because he is like that...
 
JetLeg said:
The criteria of him : critical thinking, open mindness, compassion, a good heart.

So, if I follow him blindly I will get this without all the effort in the first place, just because he is like that...
Click to expand...

Nah. Blind obedience won't yield you critical thinking. Blind obedience doesn't yield an open mind, but a closed one. An inability to think your own thoughts and feel your own feelings will undercut any compassion.
Blind attachment to a guru as any addictive attachment isn't followed by a good heart. And any leader who encourages blind attachment to his person, is not of good heart.

The Dalai Lama himself would tell you to go away.

I don't think you're ever going to throw yourself on your knees before him though. This is just to yank our chains.
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
I am supposed to think who is the right leader, I guess. Yeah, people did make mistakes because the thought that they found the right leader, but they actually did not.



But ok, I thought who is the right leader, and then I came to a conclusion.
The criteria of him : critical thinking, open mindness, compassion, a good heart.

So, if I follow him blindly I will get this without all the effort in the first place, just because he is like that...
Click to expand...
But to make that kind of an informed decision takes practice in critical analysis and a background knowledge to draw from. In other words, to make your choice you would need years of learning and thinking. After all that effort in developing such skills, why stop using them? Does a person training for a marathon stop walking after he/she runs the race?

Also, once a person has been deemed worthy to follow, how do you ensure that they remain in sound mind throughout their rule? Perhaps they develop a tumor or mental disease that makes them behave irratically. How can you be sure that they remain the same leader with the same level of critical thinking, open mindedness, compassion, and good-hearted?
 
JetLeg said:
I know that he is omniscient because in tibetan buddhism, a buddha is said to be omniscient (he cannot say that he is a buddha if he is a one, you judge one by his qualities ). I proved that he is a buddha, so he must be omniscient. So everything he says must be right.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe he is onmiscient, why are his teachings so banal? Where are the cures for diseases, or solving the problems of energy sources? From what I've heard, his teachings are just a general 'be nice to one another'. I want my omniscient leaders to be clever, damnit!
 
Mashuna said:
If you truly believe he is onmiscient, why are his teachings so banal? Where are the cures for diseases, or solving the problems of energy sources? From what I've heard, his teachings are just a general 'be nice to one another'. I want my omniscient leaders to be clever, damnit!
Click to expand...

I can think of a bigger problem with his teachings. He says that all religions teach love and compassion. This is definitely not true, for example because radical islam definetly doesn't.

Also, he was a friend of the pope, and considered him to be a spiritual person.I think that for catholics love and compassion is the banner they wave in, but not how they act.

And though he has knowledge of buddhism, he has no idea of the ideas that are influential in the western world. Humanism, socialism, capitalism, feminism, communism, et cetera - he never wrote a detailed analysis of them, like I would expect from western writers.


He is also considers george bush a friend of him, which I don't like. And the buddhist idea of showing equal love to everyone is very unnatural to me.

But I know already that he is omniscient, enlightened and infallible, so I have to explain these some other way. It makes sense, doesn't it?

I think that the reason he does not go into western philosophy is because buddhist ethics is a type of virtue ethics. What is really important is to have a good heart. If you are a socialist, capitalist, to keep your motivation good is the most important thing. Reason can err, but if your motivation is always good, you are always the winner.

With regards to bush, and the pope - probably he sees their errors, but because he is so compassionate, he forgives them. With regards to showing equal love to everyone, I don't know, but it has to fit somehow.
 
You cannot transcend the system. You will always be a part of it.
 
JetLeg said:
I have to think about Gandhi's personality. If he would say that it is due to realize the union of shiva, vishnu and brahma, I would have to accept it, but it contradicts buddhist truths.


First, I have seen the Dalai Lama in person once, not only in books and interviews. But even if I hadn't I just can't believe he would lie.


I think that Gandhi and Tolstoy (the reports about Jesus are not reliable) never said that they FELT no hatred. What is extraordinary about the dalai lama is not that he does not act upon hatred, but that he does not FEEL hatred in the beginning, which is quite different from Gandhi and Tolstoy. And since it's exactly what is supposed to happen due to realizing emptyness, it's hard for me to think about it as a coincidence.

"Dalai Lama: Anger—I think, sometimes. But hatred, almost none. We’re trained not to. But reducing anger does not mean we give in. We carry on our struggle for our rights, for justice, but without anger. I think the real meaning of nonviolence, the demarcation between nonviolence and violence, is not action alone but mainly motivation."

http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2004/05/dalai_lama.html

Of course, you can always say they are suppresing, but that really does not look like that. The Dalai Lama is a public figure, widely interviewed for 40 years or so. Suppression has its outward signs.
Click to expand...

So he feels almost no hatred, and anger sometimes. Gandhi doesn't seem to have talked about himself very much, so a cursory search didn't turn up a parallel quote, but one almost definitely exists. Elimination of anger and hatred is a common trait among the self-styled holy people, and a common predicted result of religious doctrines. I would imagine Sufi Muslims make the same claim. In short, you really have no evidence that the Dalai Lama is unique.

Also, what proof do you have that it's a good thing not to hate, or that it coincides with wisdom? Couldn't it just as easily coincide with an inability to fully comprehend the harshness of the real world?
 
Last edited:
JetLeg said:
I just said -

If the dalai lama would commit murder, or become hateful of the chinese. Or, if he would become dogmatic. Or, if he says that shunyata is not true. Or, if the scientific tests of buddhist monks would show they are not happier than average. Or, if the behaviour of the monks and lamas will change, and they will not seem so wonderful to me. Or, if another ancient scripture will be found, where it will be said that meditation on emptyness is not a source of happiness.

I think you can see from the posts above why exactly it would change my mind.

This does not count :

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30371
Click to expand...

Already has been. The bible, the epic of Gilgamesh, the Avesta, take your pick.
 
JetLeg said:
I can think of a bigger problem with his teachings. He says that all religions teach love and compassion. This is definitely not true, for example because radical islam definetly doesn't.

Also, he was a friend of the pope, and considered him to be a spiritual person.I think that for catholics love and compassion is the banner they wave in, but not how they act.

And though he has knowledge of buddhism, he has no idea of the ideas that are influential in the western world. Humanism, socialism, capitalism, feminism, communism, et cetera - he never wrote a detailed analysis of them, like I would expect from western writers.


He is also considers george bush a friend of him, which I don't like. And the buddhist idea of showing equal love to everyone is very unnatural to me.

But I know already that he is omniscient, enlightened and infallible, so I have to explain these some other way. It makes sense, doesn't it?

I think that the reason he does not go into western philosophy is because buddhist ethics is a type of virtue ethics. What is really important is to have a good heart. If you are a socialist, capitalist, to keep your motivation good is the most important thing. Reason can err, but if your motivation is always good, you are always the winner.

With regards to bush, and the pope - probably he sees their errors, but because he is so compassionate, he forgives them. With regards to showing equal love to everyone, I don't know, but it has to fit somehow.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question. If he's omniscient, he knows how to cure AIDS. Why hasn't he told anyone?
 
TuftedPuffin said:
You didn't answer the question. If he's omniscient, he knows how to cure AIDS. Why hasn't he told anyone?
Click to expand...

There are two options.

One, he has some reasons which we don't know about. I cannot think of any good ones, but he is the omniscient one, not me.


Second, he is not omniscient. It means that he is not enlightened, and does not know the answers to everything, and therefore I am wrong in my point of view.
 
TuftedPuffin said:
So he feels almost no hatred, and anger sometimes. Gandhi doesn't seem to have talked about himself very much, so a cursory search didn't turn up a parallel quote, but one almost definitely exists. Elimination of anger and hatred is a common trait among the self-styled holy people, and a common predicted result of religious doctrines. I would imagine Sufi Muslims make the same claim. In short, you really have no evidence that the Dalai Lama is unique.

Also, what proof do you have that it's a good thing not to hate, or that it coincides with wisdom? Couldn't it just as easily coincide with an inability to fully comprehend the harshness of the real world?
Click to expand...

According to his autobiography, he did struggle quite a lot with his emotions. The most famous example is the request of young naked girls to lie by his side, so he can overcome his temptations.

I also imagine that the sufi muslims make the same claim. However, the Dalai Lama is a political leader, the eyes and cameras of the world are turned towards him. Where can you find me a single piece of him being angry documented?


Not hating could result from not comprehending the harshness of the real world. However, every Tibetan refugee that escapes from china is granted an interview with HH the Dalai lama. He is aware of the sufferings they are through. Escaping from china, from the potala palace over the himalayas and living in Dharamsala, in a climate that is quite harsh to tibetans is not that easy. He suffered enough. To imagine that he just did not comprehend it somehow, and therefore does not hate is strange.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom