• 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

JetLeg said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm tempted to take a wild guess as to which option you prefer. :rolleyes:
 
Mashuna said:
I'm tempted to take a wild guess as to which option you prefer. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, even from a strictly logical point of view - if you come to the conclusion that someone is omniscient, it does not mean that you understand his motives, right? If someone is omniscient, then probably his psychology changes a bit... So that's not so easy to speculate on his motives.

Besides, speculating about someone else's motives is just speculation...
 
JetLeg said:
Well, even from a strictly logical point of view - if you come to the conclusion that someone is omniscient, it does not mean that you understand his motives, right? If someone is omniscient, then probably his psychology changes a bit... So that's not so easy to speculate on his motives.

Besides, speculating about someone else's motives is just speculation...
Click to expand...

Well, your claim is that he is omniscient because he is perfectly enlightened, so this gives you an indication that his motives must be good, otherwise he would not have acheived this state. You then have to accept the fact that if he is omniscient, he has the knowledge to prevent an incredible amount of suffering. Then, you have to posit some unknown reason that he allows all these deaths, and instead just wanders about meeting tibeteans fleeing from China.

Or you could just be wrong about the beliefs that you claim to have (I apologise if I'm overly cynical, but I really find it hard to believe your stated point of view is genuine).
 
JetLeg said:
Do you agree though, that the philosophic process can end somewhere, where it comes to the conclusion that a certain man \ being is enlightened & unfallible, and then stop the philosophic process?
Click to expand...


No, I do not.


Do you think they are good reasons?
Click to expand...


No, I do not.


JetLeg said:
How else can you explain the Dalai Lama's extraordinary personality other than realizing emptyness of inherent existance, and becoming enlightened due to the truth of tibetan buddhism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?
Click to expand...


Yes, I do.
 
JetLeg said:
No, I meant buddhist scriptures of course.
Click to expand...

Why? Why should Buddhist scriptures be more accurate? Unless you can prove Buddhism is true, and if you can, (specifically Tibetan Buddhism), then you've already proven your point about the Dalai Lama, as that's how Tibetan Buddhism defines him. If you can't, then your argument falls through.

So really, you just need to prove Tibetan Buddhism.
 
JetLeg said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can find a single piece of him being lecherous and desirous right there. Anyway, I'm not saying he goes in for obviously angry acts when the cameras are nearby, just that neither do most who claim total niceness. He's no different from any of those others.

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.
Click to expand...

He is still removed from it, still sheltered. And, he intentionally ignores emotions such as desire, since that is his religious position. As such, he probably doesn't feel the full impact of what's going on. And in any case, you still haven't shown why such an attitude is necessarily a good one. Desire, fury, these can be powerful forces for change, and someone who forgoes them (and the chance to cure AIDS and prove string theory), has a particularly odd moral compass.
 
JetLeg said:
Can you explain?
Click to expand...


Sure. Your entire thesis rests on the false premises that any individual can achieve true enlightenment and that such enlightenment brings with it infallability. Since you have no proof whatsoever that either of these things are true, there is no reason to believe that they are. If an individual is not infallable, there is no reason to follow his teachings uncritically.
 
Apathia said:
The Dalai Lama "omniscient?"

Well, this trolling thread at least gives opportunity to present factual information. The DL makes no such claim, and I wouldn't say he was lying to be humble.
http://www.dalailama.com/page.54.htm
Click to expand...


First, it is hard to appreciate the motives an omniscient being, if he is one. Perhaps he might lie to be humble.

Second, he does not deny it explicitly (from your link)-

"Question: About you being the incarnation of the bodhisattva of infinite compassion, Avalokiteshvara. How do you personally feel about this? Is it something you have an unequivocal view of one way or another?

Answer: It is difficult for me to say definitely. Unless I am engaged in a meditative effort, such as following my life back, breath by breath, I couldn’t say exactly. We believe that there are four types of rebirth. One is the common type wherein, a being is helpless to determine his or her rebirth, but only reincarnates in dependence on the nature of past actions. The opposite is that of an entirely enlightened Buddha, who simply manifests a physical form to help others. In this case, it is clear that the person is Buddha. A third is one who, due to past spiritual attainment, can choose, or at least influence, the place and situation of rebirth. The fourth is called a blessed manifestation. In this the person is blessed beyond his normal capacity to perform helpful functions, such as teaching religion. For this last type of birth, the person’s wishes in previous lives to help others must have been very strong. They obtain such empowerment. Though some seem more likely than others, I cannot definitely say which I am. "

Notice the last sentence.

And third, my reasoning is based not upon his claims about being omniscient, but about his claims of not feeling hatred towards the chinese (not suppressing, but simply the fact that it does not arise), which is explained by buddhist scripture as the result of being omniscient. And buddhist scripture is proven for example, by that monks that meditate about emptyness, are found to be happy, (scripture explains that this meditation Should cause hapiness, because emptyness and anatta is a true doctrine ).
 
JetLeg said:
Honestly, please do.
Click to expand...

An example of him being desirous? It was in the part that you posted:

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.
Click to expand...

There you go, I've highlighted the part that shows he was suppressing temptation.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna said:
An example of him being desirous? It was in the part that you posted:



There you go, I've highlighted the part that shows he was suppressing temptation.
Click to expand...


I did not express myself well, this was about Gandhi. It showed that he, (unlike the DL) did not have any negative feelings - he had to struggle with them.
 
Last edited:
Mashuna,

I believe that was said in reference to Gandhi, not the Dalai Lama.

Jason
 
In which case, I shall have to resist the temptation to go back and edit my post to make me look less stupid. :o

Although my temptation to amend the post shows that I am not omniscient, as corroborated by my inability to read posts properly.
 
Mashuna said:
In which case, I shall have to resist the temptation to go back and edit my post to make me look less stupid. :o

Although my temptation to amend the post shows that I am not omniscient, as corroborated by my inability to read posts properly.
Click to expand...

Besides, the key idea in buddhism that when you realize anatta \ emptyness your negative feelings go away in themselves, because they are based upon a misunderstanding of reality. The idea of struggling with one's feelings is not the buddhist idea. Buddhists say that anatta is true and therefore when one realizes it, there is no struggle involved... That's why the DL looks and acts so relaxed, unlike other dignitaries (mother teresa). Because his understanding of his negative emotions is based on the understanding of shunyata, which is true, not because he managed through struggle to achieve something.
 
JetLeg said:
Besides, the key idea in buddhism that when you realize anatta \ emptyness your negative feelings go away in themselves, because they are based upon a misunderstanding of reality. The idea of struggling with one's feelings is not the buddhist idea. Buddhists say that anatta is true and therefore when one realizes it, there is no struggle involved... That's why the DL looks and acts so relaxed, unlike other dignitaries (mother teresa). Because his understanding of his negative emotions is based on the understanding of shunyata, which is true, not because he managed through struggle to achieve something.
Click to expand...

You know that repeating that something is true doesn't actually make it so. You've used the same argument in earlier posts:

And third, my reasoning is based not upon his claims about being omniscient, but about his claims of not feeling hatred towards the chinese (not suppressing, but simply the fact that it does not arise), which is explained by buddhist scripture as the result of being omniscient. And buddhist scripture is proven for example, by that monks that meditate about emptyness, are found to be happy, (scripture explains that this meditation Should cause hapiness, because emptyness and anatta is a true doctrine ).
Click to expand...

I'm not much of a one for formal logic, unlike some folk here. But you've got a logical disconnect in your postings about proving the truth of scripture and the omniscience of the DL here.
 
Mashuna,

Mashuna said:
In which case, I shall have to resist the temptation to go back and edit my post to make me look less stupid. :o
Click to expand...

I have to confess that I am guilty of doing that myself from time to time, just to keep up appearances of course. :D

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom