six surprising facts about the Dalai Lama
March 15, 2008 by will shetterly
1. He is not a pacifist. Though the CIA-supported rebels in Tibet began fighting in the mid-1950s, he did not tell them to stop until 1974, after the CIA cut off their funding. As recently as 2005, he said, “The Iraq war—it’s too early to say, right or wrong.” (Dalai Lama brings his brand of Buddhism)
2. He is not egalitarian. He said, “It is a good thing to be rich… Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And, “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune.” (Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth)
3. He lied about Tibet under the Dalai Lamas. Though 95 percent of the people were slaves owned by monasteries and nobles, he claimed, “the pervasive influence of Buddhism amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.” (Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth)
4. He lies about China’s actions in Tibet. Though the official census before military conflict with China began was barely more than 1.2 million (to be exact, 1,274,000), he claims “more than 1.2 million Tibetans are dead as a result of the Chinese occupation.” (An Interview with His Holiness the Dalai Lama)
5. He is not a vegetarian; he loves to eat veal and pheasant. (Dalai Lama digs into veal, pheasant)
6. He shoots his air rifle at hawks. He said, “I often feed small birds, but when they come together, hawks spot them and catch them — a very bad thing. So in order to protect these small birds, I keep the air rifle.” (New York Times Interview with the Dalai Lama)
later: Added the quote about the rifle and edited #6.
You’re not a pacifist either, because you haven’t stopped the U.S. from fighting in Iraq. And you’re a liar, too, because you took the air rifle quote out of context, failing to report that the Dalai Lama was using the air rifle to defend smaller birds from hawks, who are predators that kill small birds. Why an air rifle? Not fatal.
Here’s another quote from the article that you skipped:
Q: I understand that you were very angry during the 1990 gulf war, as angry as you’ve ever been.
A: Angry? No. But one thing, when people started blaming Saddam Hussein, then my heart went out to him.
Q: To Saddam Hussein?
A: Yes. Because this blaming everything on him — it’s unfair. He may be a bad man, but without his army, he cannot act as aggressively as he does. And his army, without weapons, cannot do anything. And these weapons were not produced in Iraq itself. Who supplied them? Western nations! So one day something happened and they blamed everything on him — without acknowledging their own contributions. That’s wrong. The gulf crisis also clearly demonstrated the serious implications of the arms trade. War — without an army, killing as few people as possible — is acceptable. But the suffering of large numbers of people due to a military mission, that is sad.
Q: Did you say that killing sometimes is acceptable?
A: Comparatively. In human society, some people do get killed, for a variety of reasons. However, when you have an established army, and countries with those armies go to war, the casualties are immense. It’s not one or two casualties, it’s thousands. And with nuclear weapons, it’s millions, really millions. For that reason, the arms trade is really irresponsible. Irresponsible! Global demilitarization is essential.
Er, just to be clear, I don’t really think you’re a liar. I’m just pointing out that calling the Dalai Lama a liar for the reason you have is just as bogus as me calling you a liar because you were careless in conveying the meaning of the quote.
And what makes you think that a monk, who has taken a vow of nonviolence, would have the power to stop the rich slave-owners you speak of from perpetuating a war like the one you speak of? Could the Dalai Lama in fact have stopped the resistance? I’m under the impression, perhaps mistaken that he tried, well before 1974, and failed.
Ted, I was out protesting the Iraq War before it started and when it started—Like millions of others, I knew it was wrong long before 2005, and I did what I could to let the world know.
I haven’t been able to find out whether his air rifle shoots pellets–a bb gun is an air rifle. But in the interest of fairness, I’ll add the quote to the post.
I agree with what he says there, but the Dalai Lama’s compassion is a tricky thing. I almost put in a seventh point about how he opposed sending Pinochet to face justice.
I don’t know whether he could’ve succeeded in stopping the Tibetan resistance before the CIA cut the purse strings, but if he tried, the fighters don’t mention it. They only say they were heartbroken when he finally told them it was over.
And, no, I don’t think you were calling me a liar. I hesitated before calling him a liar. Could he have been so protected that he didn’t know how bad people were treated in his land? Perhaps, for a long time.
But then I saw him repeating in 2007 the claim that the Chinese were responsible for the deaths of as many people as lived in Tibet in 1953, and I don’t see how that can be anything but a lie. At a certain point, you have an obligation to check your facts, and if you don’t, you can’t complain when people call your unsubstantiated claim a lie.
I really don’t get the support the Dalai Lama gets in the US. The man is a theocrat who obtained his position in a process only one step removed from a farcical aquatic ceremony where a watery tart hurls scimitars at people. His rule might be better than the Chinese, but that’s a long way from saying he’d be good.
I also don’t see how driving a hawk away from a smaller bird is good — that’s the natural order. All the hawk’s doing is what’s in its nature to do, and the Lama hurts it, even if non-lethally.
Sean, Ted’s a friend, so I was happy to add the explanation about the hawks, but, yes, if the point is to be as nonviolent as possible while accepting the natural world, driving away hawks seems odd. Emma and I are vegetarians who have owls in a tree in our backyard; we would never drive them away. We have many rabbits around here, and adore them, but when we once saw a coyote catch and eat one, we were a little sad and very impressed: people say nature is cruel, but the coyote was quick. I would rather die that way than in a hospital.
Your description of the ceremony made me laugh. I don’t know the details, but I did come across an odd fact: because the Dalai Lama is supposed to be approved by the ruler of China, the current Dalai Lama was formally approved by Mao’s representative. Apparently the Tibetan nobility wasn’t very happy about having a communist approve their ruler.
2. He is not egalitarian. He said, “It is a good thing to be rich… Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And, “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune… It is better to develop a positive attitude.”
Those statements were almost certainly made in the context of a Buddhist teaching on karmic cause and effect — any Buddhist Lama could have said the exact same thing.
The idea is that by behaving ethically, we will plant good karma and get later a pleasant result (either in this life or in a future life). And if we behave in ways that hurt people, we’ll create future suffering. Being rich is generally considered pleasanter than being poor, particularly if we define “being rich” as having enough to eat, a nice place to live, etc. And since you can’t get a karmic result (being rich) without having created the cause in the past (being generous), being rich is proof that you’ve been generous sometimes in the past.
The reason it’s not good to be bitter and rebel against those with fortune is because being bitter just plants more bad mental karma, which will have an unpleasant result, and rebelling (which I take here to be violent) can only bring a bad future result as well. So it certainly is better to have a positive attitude, because that will create much better karma than a lifetime of anger and resentment would.
Buddhism says that the root cause of all our problems is ignorance, which causes us to have mental afflictions (unpleasant thoughts) and to create bad karma. Buddhism does not say that other people are the cause of our problems. They may be the ‘how’ (”that man hit me!”) but never the ‘why’ (”because I had the past karma of hurting someone else”). So it’s futile to be bitter all your life and focus on rebelling against the rich if you never work on your own mind, and on creating better karma. Better to keep a positive attitude and work on practicing generosity, kindness, etc. And then, once you master these yourself, you can teach others to do the same :-)
Andrea, it’s a beautiful theory and it has a lot of truth to it, but if I wanted to be a rich ruler, that’s exactly what I would teach. Or maybe I would go with the Pope’s spin: karma and heaven are about the same when you’re telling people to do what the rich want.
I’m a great fan of being nice, but off hand, I can’t think of any examples of the rich giving up power because everyone was nice. They gave up power peacefully sometimes when people united against them in nonviolent action, but that’s very different, and it demands that you “rebel against those who have property and fortune.”
And, okay, I really prefer Jesus here: wealth is bad for the rich. If you love people who are rich, help them share their wealth. You can be a kind rebel.
Do you have a citation for your claim that the Dalai Lama used the figure 1.2 million in 2007? It’s not mentioned in either of the interviews you cite.
Buddhism is the practice of directly opposing the natural order. The natural order is suffering. Buddhism is about ending suffering. So yes, defending smaller birds against hawks is against the natural order, and deprives the hawk of food. And it’s entirely in keeping with Dharma practice.
People think Buddhism is some namby-pamby feel-good religion. It’s not. It’s extremely radical. The things Buddhists do are seriously weird. The attitudes Buddhists have are seriously weird. We do not accept your defeatist view of how the world works. So yes, we’re in favor of being rich. But we’re egalitarians too - we want everybody to be rich.
Ted, from the second interview listed above: “So, one Chinese military person, we received a Chinese paper, in it, it stated between March 1959 and September 1960, the number of people who were killed through military action, in surrounding area, 87,000. So, the open clash with Chinese forces started early 1956. And it remained until 1962, 1963. In some places, more dense populations. So we roughly estimate, a half million Tibetans killed. And more than half million death through starvation. And that took place during 1958, 1959. So, all together, we believe, more than one million Tibetans perished.”
Either the figures for the 1953 census are wrong or the Dalai Lama is.
Your notion that “rich” can become a non-relative concept is, well, sweet, but that’s also something I would tell people if I wanted the poor to let me exploit them.
I think I can never be a religious Buddhist because I don’t believe the natural order is suffering. It’s only part of the natural order. If you truly believe “Buddhism is about ending suffering,” wouldn’t you work to end privilege? Or do you see no connection between the privileges of the rich and the suffering of the poor?
I think you do. But your rhetoric does not.
Interesting. That’s not what you said at the top of the article. His numbers add up to “more than one million,” not “1.2 million.” So why did you use “1.2 million?”
Anyway, there’s a pretty good two-sided discussion of this on wikipedia. It’s generally agreed that a million is too high, but also that half a million is too low, and that really there’s no way to be sure. And that the Chinese census that counted 1.2 million Tibetans may not have been counting the same population that His Holiness is referring to when he talks about the number who died.
And he may also be exaggerating for effect.
Buddhists don’t believe in powerlessness. We don’t believe that we are powerless, or that you are powerless. So we don’t have this attitude of white man’s burden. If you don’t like suffering, you need to do something about it. I can help you to understand what to do, and I can help you to do it. But I can’t do it for you.
And so yes, we do work to end privilege, in the sense of one person’s happiness depending on another person’s unhappiness. Because in fact that doesn’t work - what’s really going on is that the person who is happy is happy because of causes they created earlier, and by oppressing the other person, that person is creating future suffering for himself. But at the same time, we understand freeing the person who is being oppressed is not simply a matter of trying to convince the oppressor to stop, nor forcing the oppressor to stop; neither of those mechanisms actually work.
I get the impression that you think this is naive. We get that a lot. We think your idea of fighting to take what you want is naive. When has it ever worked? If something never works, but you keep doing it, isn’t that the definition of insanity?
Will, this argument is hopeless. Maybe someday in person we could discuss it reasonably, but we’re getting into core elements of Buddhist philosophy (karma ripening over multiple lifetimes, subjective reality, etc.) that are totally impossible to explain online.
You seem determined to despise the Dalai Lama. I am determined to esteem him. We’re reading the same quotes as fodder for our own opinions. If that’s not good evidence for subjective reality, I don’t know what is :-)
Ted, Parenti has the 1.2 million quote. It’s older, and it gets tossed around by people who accept the Dalai Lama’s claims.
The idea that the Dalai Lama would exaggerate the number of deaths for effect is appalling.
You have a curious interpretation of “white man’s burden.” Traditionally, it meant what you proposed earlier, that the rich would raise the poor they were exploiting. I want something different, for the rich to share.
I don’t believe in fighting to get what I want. I believe in working for it, and in rejecting privilege. You can’t change a system that you accept. It will only change you.
And nothing ever works until it does. Never trying to make a better world is my definition of insanity.
Andrea, you’re right that this is too big for a comment thread, and it may seem that we’re further apart than we actually are. Like Parenti, I admire things the Dalai Lama has said and done. Everything I know about him says he’s a better human being than Thomas Jefferson. I wish he would live more like the Buddha, but then, I wish we all would.
What you believe in won’t work, because you don’t have privilege to reject. And your beliefs are yours, not the person who you see as having that privilege. So it doesn’t matter how hard you believe it - it’s not going to change anything.
For you to have the power to change anything, you have to find a knob that *you* can turn. You’re doing a good job at identifying knobs for other people to turn, but that doesn’t change anything, because they’re not you, and their priorities are not yours, as witness your objection to what His Holiness does with his leisure and fortune.
A lot of people believe that war is the cause of peace. They continue to believe this despite the fact that war is obviously not the cause of peace, using the same logic you just used: if we just keep at it, eventually it will work. In the world of investment, they call this throwing good money after bad. In the world of Dharma, we call this ignorance, and we try to fight it.
And that is what His Holiness has been doing with his life.
Ted, the Dalai Lama’s been operating for much of his life under the theory of “keep at it, eventually it will work.” Maybe if he keeps at it, it will work, or maybe it’s what you call ignorance and try to fight. If he’s truly trying to change the world peacefully so we’ll all share as equals, I wish him great success.
I don’t know what’s going on with the Dalai Lama, really. We can’t know what’s going on with another person, even if we know them well. We can speculate, but often they make a left turn that surprises us. This is why I keep hassling you about this judging thing - it may be that everything you’ve said about the Dalai Lama is exactly correct; I certainly can’t say it’s not, because I can’t read his mind. I don’t really know his intentions. And, my point is, neither do you.
What I do know from my own personal experience is that I’ve tried activism, and it’s become clear to me that it’s a dead end. There is no steady state that activism reaches - it’s more like the ebb and flow of tides. So being an activist is great if you find the work pleasing, and it helps people, and doesn’t cause any harm, but it’s something you do because doing it is good, not something you do because it’s going to save the world. That’s my take on it, anyway.
So if the world can be saved, activism isn’t how it will be saved. Again, my personal experience, and I don’t expect you to accept it. And so I have struck out on a different path - a path that says “if I can truly transform myself, I can save the world.” As opposed to the path of saying “if I can truly transform the world, I can save it.”
On a purely rational level, neither of these statements makes any sense. Why should me changing what I do change the world? And just as strange, why would I think that I can transform the world by outer activity - activism? They both seem nonsensical.
The Buddhist concept of karma is, very simply, that the outer world you experience is actually a flowering of an inner world that you created in the past. If you see strife, ugliness and pain in the world, it’s because in the past there was strife, ugliness and pain in your own mind. And if, in the future, you want to see a world that is free of strife, full of happiness, and free of suffering, the only way that can ever happen is through your own personal practice of generosity, non-harm, and wisdom.
This is the path that I am following now, and it is the one that the Buddha taught, and that His Holiness espouses, whether he is actually following it or not. I can’t say that it’s a true path, or that it can work, but having followed it for over a decade now, I can say that I am not discouraged.
I certainly could have temporarily fed a lot of homeless people instead of spending money on things like building a retreat center, flying to teachings, supporting friends who could have supported themselves if they’d gotten jobs instead of devoting their lives to studying and practicing Dharma.
If you think that this idea of the outer world being a flowering of your own inner world is nonsense, then all of this money and time spent pursuing that idea would have to seem like a waste. I can’t say that it’s not - I can’t prove to you that this path works, and I can’t say for sure that it works even for me. But it’s how I’ve decided to invest the incredible leisure and fortune that have come to me. And I really hope it works, because the suffering of the world is unbearable.
When you say that the nature of life isn’t suffering, you are talking about a potential future, not about the present, because surely what is going on in the world today is nearly unmitigated suffering, of which you and I are privileged to partake in only a very small way.
If there is a future in which there is no suffering, I think it behooves those of us who want to bring about that future to trust each other to do our best to make it happen, and not snipe at each other because we do not agree upon how to bring it about.
I also have enormous doubts about activism in the internet age, because the rich control the media, and if no one knows about a protest, or thinks it doesn’t matter because of the context it’s presented in, it’s meaningless.
But I don’t think this is an either/or issue: you work to heal yourself and heal the world together.
The problem with the form of karma that you describe is it’s a fine philosophy for solipsists. It makes me want to punch them in the face until they suggest that they do not deserve to be punched in the face because of the things they created in the past.
*g*
But I like the part that says change involves generosity. And I love the middle way. And I agree: less sniping, more working!
The fact that you don’t *actually* punch them in the face suggests that their practice *is* working, though. :’)
If you don’t believe me, come over some time and punch me in the face. If you do punch me in the face, maybe you’re right. If you don’t, maybe I’m right.
But really, the fact is that we experience metaphorical face-punches quite often. The question is, do we punch back, or not? Our culture tends to present the idea that if we don’t punch back, we’re cowards, or suckers, or some other negative thing. All Buddhism says is that when you don’t punch back, you’re actually doing the smart thing. Coincidentally, Jesus said the same thing: turn the other cheek.
Don’t make me hit you in the face!
Okay, that was just fun to type. ‘Cause, yes, whether it’s your karma, my karma, or our karmas teaming up, we’re both safe there.
And that is one of the things I love about Buddha and Jesus.
“…and I love the middle way.”
“the way that can be named…”
For all to follow a middle path is to erase all conflict, which is the very thing that continues the cycle of illusion in which the Tibetan Buddhists believe we live in. This illusion, or Samsara is the cycle of Birth, Pain/suffering, death, and eventual rebirth. The middle path when walked by one man is constantly pushed to either side of the path by external stimulus. The masses produce the median, not the individual, as the individual constantly fluctuates as it struggles to hold on to the middle path( the way, the truth the light, peace et al).
The Tibetan holy figure may be a bit hypocritical seeming @ times, but nothing compares to the confusing statements supposedly made by Jesus concerning passage to heaven.
I’m confused by your rhetoric. The rich “exploit” the poor, and your answer is to allow the poor to “exploit” the rich? Like you said about the Lama’s views, if you think by handing others money you can achieve some utopian effect through your ACTIONS of wealth redistribution then , my isn’t that sweet. Also confusing; are you trying for the Jesus over Buddhism through this, and if so what did Jesus do to better our society that Buddah did not. If it is the peace of the lord you seek then why the anger over others’ wealth?
I guess it is all one thing. I have to agree there. I wish you well
++
~~
And please excuse my poor grammar, it’s been a long day.
The sayings of Jesus are fairly consistent; it’s the followers who take many approaches, rather like Therevadans, Mahayanans, Zen, Tibetans–
As for wealth, it comes from the work of many people, and therefore it should be shared fairly with the people. Expecting the rich to live like the rest of us is only a punishment if the way the rich expect us to live is a punishment.
You mention “handing people money” as if you don’t believe in inheritance. I think everyone should inherit equally.
All of the major religions have wonderful teachings. Some people within them live simply and fairly, and others are hypocrites. Unfortunately, the hypocrites often have a great deal of power, so they’re the ones people notice.
And I hear you on the long day!
The sayings of Jesus are not consistent when he speaks about access to heaven. For example, Jesus, when asked how to get into heaven, states in a very Socratic manner that to love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. This is the idea conveyed by Jesus inLuke 10: 25-28. Later, when faced with the same question, Jesus say basically to sell everything and “follow me”. Maybe I’m wrong, but this means to become his disciple, right? This is found in Luke18:18-22. This sounds like the Christian way, sure, but there’s a problem. In Luke14:26-33 Jesus says that unless you hate your mother and father(the ones Jesus told you to honor previously) even your own life, you cannot be a disciple of his. SO, how do you simultaneously love and hate yourself, and everyone else around you? Sounds confusing, and …….inconsistent unless of course you are teaching a form of zen, Tibetan buddhism, or hindu principles.
Again, I have to agree with you about the difference in true followers and hippocrites. You seem well educated about religious and spiritual bases, so I can’t challenge you ad hominem(not that I would anyway) but the wealth dialogue seems a bit Marxian. Not that it is necessarily a problem. Wealth is earned, and while some inherit wealth, many work to attain levels of success, wether it be money, fame, skill, knowledge. There are also many who exploit the work of others to further the lazy lifestyles they lead. Many of these people doing the exploiting happen to be lower income people who are more focused on breeding and car payments then the challenge of a more even peaceful “sustainability” type system. Being rich doesn’t mean you have the responsibility to even the playing field, even though anyone with a social conscience should realize that some frivolity should be cut in the interest of the many.
Boy I’m long winded. I think the main lesson taught by the great teachers is; Life is a juxtaposition and without flaw there is no perfection. I thank you for your stimulating conversation. You seem intelligent and even tempered in your discussions, which denotes an air of logic and rationale that is rare when speaking on these “tender” topics
With both Jesus and Buddha, different texts present different interpretations—I did some research recently on whether Buddha was a vegetarian, and the answer seems to be, “Depends on the text.” With Jesus, I think the definitive statement on heaven or the rule of God is that it’s within you.
The statement about parents, I think, has to be interpreted metaphorically: your parents represent the past, and to become enlightened, you must break from the past. There is a zen to Jesus; when he says to call no man father or master, he’s very close to the zen saying that if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. It’s meant as a shocking metaphor.
As for wealth, I look at the ways the great teachers lived. Some, like Jesus and Buddha, renounced wealth entirely. Some, like Muhammad, lived very simply. Moses could go in either category: he gave up being a prince to do the right thing. None of the great teachers chose to live in palaces or hoard wealth.
I hear you about “tender” topics. Agreeing to disagree can be quite the challenge online!
Disagreement and debate are necessary for the formulation of plans, programs and ideology that work for all, rather than accepting the first thing that pops into the head because it’s what “one thinks” things should be. I think relying on dogma or prejudice(about anything, not just race of, course) is foolish. Attachment can be a downfall.
I read your bio. Very interesting, as I hit this page first while doing research. It just now occurred to me that I may be missing a bit about you, thus coloring my idea of what you were about, so to speak. It is a pleasure to speak with you. Wait, type with you? I guess I have to watch that movie I keep eyeballing when I go to the video store(I love bad movies)
A small quibble on #6. That he shoots at hawks doesn’t seem to be worth disputing. It is far from clear that he enjoys it. From the quote it seems more that he sees it as a necessity.
B-lez, I warn you, it’s a *very* bad movie, and not in a fun-bad way. I should try to find out if Joe-Bob Briggs ever reviewed it.
Jockm, I tend to think we like our choices. I agree #6 could be rephrased—it’s only there because it surprised me.
Sorry Will, I can’t walk that far with you. I think we do a lot of things we think are necessary. I know it is “my thing” to write a longish piece that has facts and thought experiments and such. I just think you are wrong on what you just said.
Jockm, don’t you like doing what’s needed more than not doing what’s needed? Not enjoy: take satisfaction from knowing that you’ve done what was necessary, even if you didn’t enjoy it?
And the entire point of philosophy is choosing what’s necessary. I think shooting hawks is not necessary.
But “like” and “enjoy” are tricky words, so I’ll edit the comment now.
To pick two frivolous examples: I personally dislike tying on and buying pants. I equally dislike the process of getting my hair cut. I like the end result of being panted (if that is a word) and shorn. Additionally I do not relish the thought of being pantless and shaggy.
Doing something necessary because we prefer one outcome over another does not mean we have to “take delight or pleasure in” either.
Is it ‘Cars That Eat People’ bad?
Jockm, your definition of “like” seems to be stronger than mine. To express that, I would’ve said he loved to—
B-lez, I (suspect fortunately) haven’t seen that, but it’s a great title!
you asshole! In one of HHDL interview he said he shoots the rifle in the air and not “AT THE HAWKs”
You know why he shoots in the air?? Just to shoo away the hawks from killing the number of small birds.
d_wangdu, I don’t usually feel a need to respond to people whose idea of discussion begins with an insult, but the New York Times article didn’t give much detail—that’s why I wrote “aimed at” rather than “shot.” I don’t know if his air rifle shoots BBs or only air. But I know that if all he wanted to do was scare away hawks, he could pop balloons or do any number of things—he doesn’t need a rifle.
But since that’s the only item on the list that concerns you, fine.
What are you trying to tell us by writing “Six suprising facts about His Holiness the Dalia Lama”???
Tell us about yours?
1. That you are psycho.
2. A failed father.
3. Divorced and alone.
4. A failed writer.
5. A failed politician
6. A confused individual.
I think your topic reflect, what kind of individual you are.
Please help this guy… he is just sick.
Tenzin, are you here as a representative of Tibetan Buddhism, or were you hired to make the Dalai Lama’s followers look bad? If the latter, you’re doing a very good job. Wise people offer information, not insults.
The six things which are jotted down are a very one-sided statement: Let me clarify few things here.
1. When there was a CIA help to Tibetans, Dalai Lama was very young and he at the time was not enjoying much power at the time. But he has repeatedly told Tibetan and world community even during the time until now that he is against any form of violence. Tibetan society as a democratic society, he can’t kill those Tibetan who was trying to defend their country and more importantly their suffering people at the time. Millions of Tibetan was killed during that time and the whole country was going to hell. Dalai Lama has many times also quoted Buddha statement that he is not against violence when it is used as weapon to saved more living being and when used a last resort. I don’t blame you because you may not have studied seriously about Tibetan Buddhist or about Dalai Lama.
2. Regarding rifle, he has very clearly told us that he was using it as a weapon to get the hawk away and not to kill them. I don’t blame you on this too because of the reasons mentioned above and also because the people like you can see rifle as a weapon to kill.
3. As far as non-vegetarian is concern, you should study of country of Tibet which Dalai Lama belongs to. The country was a very isolated, highest altitude and it is place where it is very difficult to grow vegetables. Worse of all, because of it’s severe cold climate, a person needs meat to maintain one’s body temperature to survive. But still when Dalai Lama moved to India, he has almost became vegetarian. My understanding is he eats very little meat. Again here, you fell short in your research and became ignorant.
4. Now, on the topic of rich. Dalai Lama was quoting Buddhism where one believes in next life. So, if you are rich in this life, it is because of your good action and virtues in your last life. Buddhist is always against jealously and hatred even if it is on rich people. So, you tell me why should one be bitter and rebel against rich people. The point should be one it is wrong if one achieve success materialistically by immoral behaviors and actions. As far as old Tibetan society is concern, as I has stated earlier, H.H. the Dalai Lama was more like a moral leader and was not enjoying any real power. Also every other nations in the world, we did have problem in our history but the bottom line is we were all happy. No Tibetan has died under starvation before the Chinese invasion. There was not a single demonstration against the Tibetan government until China invaded Tibet.
5. Finally, on the census of Tibet, as a pretty underdeveloped and isolated country no one really knows the real population of Tibet. But there were lots of reason to state that Tibet is a country of six million Tibet. I have no idea how you can question or challenge that without knowing anything about Tibet including some of the basic thing which I have mentioned earlier in this writing.
6. Last but not the least, a let me tell you that after getting money from your sources, let me remind you a quote “Maybe you can food some people some time but you can not fool all people all the Time”. Tibetan community is much more educated now a day and fortunately we have many good people unlike you who are supporting us. So, you should be much better prepared if you want to fool the world.
Toy, if you follow the links in my post, you’ll see my sources. You really should do your research; even Dalai Lama supporters like Patrick French have admitted that the claims of millions being killed is nonsense.
Tenzin, it is ironic of you to suggest that a person’s statements are an indication of their character right before making a an absolutely rude, asinine statement. I strongly disagree with Will on this topic, but your response was absolutely uncalled for.
And Will, Toy here states he is Tibetan, and I think it would be hypocritical to not give his views at least as much weight as the Tibetans you’ve quoted in support of your argument, despite them contradicting some of your statements.
Raven, I do appreciate Toy’s politer tone, but when he claims that millions were killed in a country of 1.24 million according to the official census in ‘50 or ‘51 (well before China began restricting the power of the upper class in the late ’50s), it’s kind of hard to give him a lot of credence.
His claim about vegetarianism is equally silly: my suspicion is that Tibetan serfs, like serfs elsewhere, ate very little meat. Whether that’s true or not, I do know that being an ovo-lacto vegetarian in Tibet would be easy—it’s only being vegan that might have been hard in Tibet’s climate. And none of that applies to the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since he fled with his treasures in 1959. India’s famous for its vegetarian food.
The CIA-funded rebels were very closely allied to the Dalai Lama; his older brother was, if I remember correctly, their treasurer. (You can check Parenti, because I may misremember the exact relationship–I’m writing in haste now.)
Well, I could refute Toy point-by-point, but the links in the original post already do that.
I can only say that I note some of those ideas are contentious and continue to be argued, especially the official census numbers. Suspicions are not facts. And I don’t know what his brother being treasurer has to do with disputing the idea that violence to protect lives is not considered un-Buddhist or how young the Dalai Lama was at the time all this occurred.
I mean that when Tibet’s upper class rebelled to preserve feudalism, the Dalai Lama and his family were being paid by the CIA–they were helping to promote violence in the name of theocracy at a time when the CIA was busy overthrowing democracies and installing tyrants in Guatemala and Iran. I haven’t found any evidence that the Dalai Lama did anything to limit the violence in Tibet until after the CIA stopped funding the rebels in the early ’70s.
Hmm. I think my next research project will be to discover when the Dalai Lama began supporting democracy. Because another of Toy’s curious claims is here: “Tibetan society as a democratic society.” There was no democracy under the Dalai Lama. There was simply the brutal rule of the rich, and photographs of the time show that.
Comments from this post’s original location:
#
1 Ted Lemon
You’re not a pacifist either, because you haven’t stopped the U.S. from fighting in Iraq. And you’re a liar, too, because you took the air rifle quote out of context, failing to report that the Dalai Lama was using the air rifle to defend smaller birds from hawks, who are predators that kill small birds. Why an air rifle? Not fatal.
Here’s another quote from the article that you skipped:
Q: I understand that you were very angry during the 1990 gulf war, as angry as you’ve ever been.
A: Angry? No. But one thing, when people started blaming Saddam Hussein, then my heart went out to him.
Q: To Saddam Hussein?
A: Yes. Because this blaming everything on him — it’s unfair. He may be a bad man, but without his army, he cannot act as aggressively as he does. And his army, without weapons, cannot do anything. And these weapons were not produced in Iraq itself. Who supplied them? Western nations! So one day something happened and they blamed everything on him — without acknowledging their own contributions. That’s wrong. The gulf crisis also clearly demonstrated the serious implications of the arms trade. War — without an army, killing as few people as possible — is acceptable. But the suffering of large numbers of people due to a military mission, that is sad.
Q: Did you say that killing sometimes is acceptable?
A: Comparatively. In human society, some people do get killed, for a variety of reasons. However, when you have an established army, and countries with those armies go to war, the casualties are immense. It’s not one or two casualties, it’s thousands. And with nuclear weapons, it’s millions, really millions. For that reason, the arms trade is really irresponsible. Irresponsible! Global demilitarization is essential.
#
March 16, 2008 at 12:54 am2 Ted Lemon
Er, just to be clear, I don’t really think you’re a liar. I’m just pointing out that calling the Dalai Lama a liar for the reason you have is just as bogus as me calling you a liar because you were careless in conveying the meaning of the quote.
And what makes you think that a monk, who has taken a vow of nonviolence, would have the power to stop the rich slave-owners you speak of from perpetuating a war like the one you speak of? Could the Dalai Lama in fact have stopped the resistance? I’m under the impression, perhaps mistaken that he tried, well before 1974, and failed.
#
March 16, 2008 at 1:19 am3 will shetterly
Ted, I was out protesting the Iraq War before it started and when it started—Like millions of others, I knew it was wrong long before 2005, and I did what I could to let the world know.
I haven’t been able to find out whether his air rifle shoots pellets–a bb gun is an air rifle. But in the interest of fairness, I’ll add the quote to the post.
I agree with what he says there, but the Dalai Lama’s compassion is a tricky thing. I almost put in a seventh point about how he opposed sending Pinochet to face justice.
I don’t know whether he could’ve succeeded in stopping the Tibetan resistance before the CIA cut the purse strings, but if he tried, the fighters don’t mention it. They only say they were heartbroken when he finally told them it was over.
And, no, I don’t think you were calling me a liar. I hesitated before calling him a liar. Could he have been so protected that he didn’t know how bad people were treated in his land? Perhaps, for a long time.
But then I saw him repeating in 2007 the claim that the Chinese were responsible for the deaths of as many people as lived in Tibet in 1953, and I don’t see how that can be anything but a lie. At a certain point, you have an obligation to check your facts, and if you don’t, you can’t complain when people call your unsubstantiated claim a lie.
#
March 16, 2008 at 3:19 am4 Sean O’Hara
I really don’t get the support the Dalai Lama gets in the US. The man is a theocrat who obtained his position in a process only one step removed from a farcical aquatic ceremony where a watery tart hurls scimitars at people. His rule might be better than the Chinese, but that’s a long way from saying he’d be good.
I also don’t see how driving a hawk away from a smaller bird is good — that’s the natural order. All the hawk’s doing is what’s in its nature to do, and the Lama hurts it, even if non-lethally.
#
March 16, 2008 at 3:31 am5 will shetterly
Sean, Ted’s a friend, so I was happy to add the explanation about the hawks, but, yes, if the point is to be as nonviolent as possible while accepting the natural world, driving away hawks seems odd. Emma and I are vegetarians who have owls in a tree in our backyard; we would never drive them away. We have many rabbits around here, and adore them, but when we once saw a coyote catch and eat one, we were a little sad and very impressed: people say nature is cruel, but the coyote was quick. I would rather die that way than in a hospital.
Your description of the ceremony made me laugh. I don’t know the details, but I did come across an odd fact: because the Dalai Lama is supposed to be approved by the ruler of China, the current Dalai Lama was formally approved by Mao’s representative. Apparently the Tibetan nobility wasn’t very happy about having a communist approve their ruler.
#
March 16, 2008 at 5:43 am6 Andrea
2. He is not egalitarian. He said, “It is a good thing to be rich… Those are the fruits for deserving actions, the proof that they have been generous in the past.” And, “There is no good reason to become bitter and rebel against those who have property and fortune… It is better to develop a positive attitude.”
Those statements were almost certainly made in the context of a Buddhist teaching on karmic cause and effect — any Buddhist Lama could have said the exact same thing.
The idea is that by behaving ethically, we will plant good karma and get later a pleasant result (either in this life or in a future life). And if we behave in ways that hurt people, we’ll create future suffering. Being rich is generally considered pleasanter than being poor, particularly if we define “being rich” as having enough to eat, a nice place to live, etc. And since you can’t get a karmic result (being rich) without having created the cause in the past (being generous), being rich is proof that you’ve been generous sometimes in the past.
The reason it’s not good to be bitter and rebel against those with fortune is because being bitter just plants more bad mental karma, which will have an unpleasant result, and rebelling (which I take here to be violent) can only bring a bad future result as well. So it certainly is better to have a positive attitude, because that will create much better karma than a lifetime of anger and resentment would.
Buddhism says that the root cause of all our problems is ignorance, which causes us to have mental afflictions (unpleasant thoughts) and to create bad karma. Buddhism does not say that other people are the cause of our problems. They may be the ‘how’ (”that man hit me!” ;) but never the ‘why’ (”because I had the past karma of hurting someone else”). So it’s futile to be bitter all your life and focus on rebelling against the rich if you never work on your own mind, and on creating better karma. Better to keep a positive attitude and work on practicing generosity, kindness, etc. And then, once you master these yourself, you can teach others to do the same :-)
#
March 16, 2008 at 6:16 am7 will shetterly
Andrea, it’s a beautiful theory and it has a lot of truth to it, but if I wanted to be a rich ruler, that’s exactly what I would teach. Or maybe I would go with the Pope’s spin: karma and heaven are about the same when you’re telling people to do what the rich want.
I’m a great fan of being nice, but off hand, I can’t think of any examples of the rich giving up power because everyone was nice. They gave up power peacefully sometimes when people united against them in nonviolent action, but that’s very different, and it demands that you “rebel against those who have property and fortune.”
And, okay, I really prefer Jesus here: wealth is bad for the rich. If you love people who are rich, help them share their wealth. You can be a kind rebel.
#
March 16, 2008 at 6:20 am8 Ted Lemon
Do you have a citation for your claim that the Dalai Lama used the figure 1.2 million in 2007? It’s not mentioned in either of the interviews you cite.
Buddhism is the practice of directly opposing the natural order. The natural order is suffering. Buddhism is about ending suffering. So yes, defending smaller birds against hawks is against the natural order, and deprives the hawk of food. And it’s entirely in keeping with Dharma practice.
People think Buddhism is some namby-pamby feel-good religion. It’s not. It’s extremely radical. The things Buddhists do are seriously weird. The attitudes Buddhists have are seriously weird. We do not accept your defeatist view of how the world works. So yes, we’re in favor of being rich. But we’re egalitarians too - we want everybody to be rich.
#
March 16, 2008 at 6:45 am9 will shetterly
Ted, from the second interview listed above: “So, one Chinese military person, we received a Chinese paper, in it, it stated between March 1959 and September 1960, the number of people who were killed through military action, in surrounding area, 87,000. So, the open clash with Chinese forces started early 1956. And it remained until 1962, 1963. In some places, more dense populations. So we roughly estimate, a half million Tibetans killed. And more than half million death through starvation. And that took place during 1958, 1959. So, all together, we believe, more than one million Tibetans perished.”
Either the figures for the 1953 census are wrong or the Dalai Lama is.
Your notion that “rich” can become a non-relative concept is, well, sweet, but that’s also something I would tell people if I wanted the poor to let me exploit them.
I think I can never be a religious Buddhist because I don’t believe the natural order is suffering. It’s only part of the natural order. If you truly believe “Buddhism is about ending suffering,” wouldn’t you work to end privilege? Or do you see no connection between the privileges of the rich and the suffering of the poor?
I think you do. But your rhetoric does not.
#
March 16, 2008 at 7:19 am10 Ted Lemon
Interesting. That’s not what you said at the top of the article. His numbers add up to “more than one million,” not “1.2 million.” So why did you use “1.2 million?”
Anyway, there’s a pretty good two-sided discussion of this on wikipedia. It’s generally agreed that a million is too high, but also that half a million is too low, and that really there’s no way to be sure. And that the Chinese census that counted 1.2 million Tibetans may not have been counting the same population that His Holiness is referring to when he talks about the number who died.
And he may also be exaggerating for effect.
Buddhists don’t believe in powerlessness. We don’t believe that we are powerless, or that you are powerless. So we don’t have this attitude of white man’s burden. If you don’t like suffering, you need to do something about it. I can help you to understand what to do, and I can help you to do it. But I can’t do it for you.
And so yes, we do work to end privilege, in the sense of one person’s happiness depending on another person’s unhappiness. Because in fact that doesn’t work - what’s really going on is that the person who is happy is happy because of causes they created earlier, and by oppressing the other person, that person is creating future suffering for himself. But at the same time, we understand freeing the person who is being oppressed is not simply a matter of trying to convince the oppressor to stop, nor forcing the oppressor to stop; neither of those mechanisms actually work.
I get the impression that you think this is naive. We get that a lot. We think your idea of fighting to take what you want is naive. When has it ever worked? If something never works, but you keep doing it, isn’t that the definition of insanity?
#
March 16, 2008 at 7:35 am11 Andrea
Will, this argument is hopeless. Maybe someday in person we could discuss it reasonably, but we’re getting into core elements of Buddhist philosophy (karma ripening over multiple lifetimes, subjective reality, etc.) that are totally impossible to explain online.
You seem determined to despise the Dalai Lama. I am determined to esteem him. We’re reading the same quotes as fodder for our own opinions. If that’s not good evidence for subjective reality, I don’t know what is :-)
#
March 16, 2008 at 7:56 am12 will shetterly
Ted, Parenti has the 1.2 million quote. It’s older, and it gets tossed around by people who accept the Dalai Lama’s claims.
The idea that the Dalai Lama would exaggerate the number of deaths for effect is appalling.
You have a curious interpretation of “white man’s burden.” Traditionally, it meant what you proposed earlier, that the rich would raise the poor they were exploiting. I want something different, for the rich to share.
I don’t believe in fighting to get what I want. I believe in working for it, and in rejecting privilege. You can’t change a system that you accept. It will only change you.
And nothing ever works until it does. Never trying to make a better world is my definition of insanity.
Andrea, you’re right that this is too big for a comment thread, and it may seem that we’re further apart than we actually are. Like Parenti, I admire things the Dalai Lama has said and done. Everything I know about him says he’s a better human being than Thomas Jefferson. I wish he would live more like the Buddha, but then, I wish we all would.
#
March 17, 2008 at 6:58 am13 Ted Lemon
What you believe in won’t work, because you don’t have privilege to reject. And your beliefs are yours, not the person who you see as having that privilege. So it doesn’t matter how hard you believe it - it’s not going to change anything.
For you to have the power to change anything, you have to find a knob that *you* can turn. You’re doing a good job at identifying knobs for other people to turn, but that doesn’t change anything, because they’re not you, and their priorities are not yours, as witness your objection to what His Holiness does with his leisure and fortune.
A lot of people believe that war is the cause of peace. They continue to believe this despite the fact that war is obviously not the cause of peace, using the same logic you just used: if we just keep at it, eventually it will work. In the world of investment, they call this throwing good money after bad. In the world of Dharma, we call this ignorance, and we try to fight it.
And that is what His Holiness has been doing with his life.
#
March 17, 2008 at 8:48 am14 will shetterly
Ted, the Dalai Lama’s been operating for much of his life under the theory of “keep at it, eventually it will work.” Maybe if he keeps at it, it will work, or maybe it’s what you call ignorance and try to fight. If he’s truly trying to change the world peacefully so we’ll all share as equals, I wish him great success.
#
March 17, 2008 at 8:33 pm15 Ted Lemon
I don’t know what’s going on with the Dalai Lama, really. We can’t know what’s going on with another person, even if we know them well. We can speculate, but often they make a left turn that surprises us. This is why I keep hassling you about this judging thing - it may be that everything you’ve said about the Dalai Lama is exactly correct; I certainly can’t say it’s not, because I can’t read his mind. I don’t really know his intentions. And, my point is, neither do you.
What I do know from my own personal experience is that I’ve tried activism, and it’s become clear to me that it’s a dead end. There is no steady state that activism reaches - it’s more like the ebb and flow of tides. So being an activist is great if you find the work pleasing, and it helps people, and doesn’t cause any harm, but it’s something you do because doing it is good, not something you do because it’s going to save the world. That’s my take on it, anyway.
So if the world can be saved, activism isn’t how it will be saved. Again, my personal experience, and I don’t expect you to accept it. And so I have struck out on a different path - a path that says “if I can truly transform myself, I can save the world.” As opposed to the path of saying “if I can truly transform the world, I can save it.”
On a purely rational level, neither of these statements makes any sense. Why should me changing what I do change the world? And just as strange, why would I think that I can transform the world by outer activity - activism? They both seem nonsensical.
The Buddhist concept of karma is, very simply, that the outer world you experience is actually a flowering of an inner world that you created in the past. If you see strife, ugliness and pain in the world, it’s because in the past there was strife, ugliness and pain in your own mind. And if, in the future, you want to see a world that is free of strife, full of happiness, and free of suffering, the only way that can ever happen is through your own personal practice of generosity, non-harm, and wisdom.
This is the path that I am following now, and it is the one that the Buddha taught, and that His Holiness espouses, whether he is actually following it or not. I can’t say that it’s a true path, or that it can work, but having followed it for over a decade now, I can say that I am not discouraged.
I certainly could have temporarily fed a lot of homeless people instead of spending money on things like building a retreat center, flying to teachings, supporting friends who could have supported themselves if they’d gotten jobs instead of devoting their lives to studying and practicing Dharma.
If you think that this idea of the outer world being a flowering of your own inner world is nonsense, then all of this money and time spent pursuing that idea would have to seem like a waste. I can’t say that it’s not - I can’t prove to you that this path works, and I can’t say for sure that it works even for me. But it’s how I’ve decided to invest the incredible leisure and fortune that have come to me. And I really hope it works, because the suffering of the world is unbearable.
When you say that the nature of life isn’t suffering, you are talking about a potential future, not about the present, because surely what is going on in the world today is nearly unmitigated suffering, of which you and I are privileged to partake in only a very small way.
If there is a future in which there is no suffering, I think it behooves those of us who want to bring about that future to trust each other to do our best to make it happen, and not snipe at each other because we do not agree upon how to bring it about.
#
March 17, 2008 at 8:59 pm16 will shetterly
I also have enormous doubts about activism in the internet age, because the rich control the media, and if no one knows about a protest, or thinks it doesn’t matter because of the context it’s presented in, it’s meaningless.
But I don’t think this is an either/or issue: you work to heal yourself and heal the world together.
The problem with the form of karma that you describe is it’s a fine philosophy for solipsists. It makes me want to punch them in the face until they suggest that they do not deserve to be punched in the face because of the things they created in the past.
*g*
But I like the part that says change involves generosity. And I love the middle way. And I agree: less sniping, more working!
#
March 17, 2008 at 11:20 pm17 Ted Lemon
The fact that you don’t *actually* punch them in the face suggests that their practice *is* working, though. :’ ;)
If you don’t believe me, come over some time and punch me in the face. If you do punch me in the face, maybe you’re right. If you don’t, maybe I’m right.
But really, the fact is that we experience metaphorical face-punches quite often. The question is, do we punch back, or not? Our culture tends to present the idea that if we don’t punch back, we’re cowards, or suckers, or some other negative thing. All Buddhism says is that when you don’t punch back, you’re actually doing the smart thing. Coincidentally, Jesus said the same thing: turn the other cheek.
#
March 17, 2008 at 11:34 pm18 will shetterly
Don’t make me hit you in the face!
Okay, that was just fun to type. ‘Cause, yes, whether it’s your karma, my karma, or our karmas teaming up, we’re both safe there.
And that is one of the things I love about Buddha and Jesus.
#
April 15, 2008 at 8:14 am19 B-lez
“…and I love the middle way.”
“the way that can be named…”
For all to follow a middle path is to erase all conflict, which is the very thing that continues the cycle of illusion in which the Tibetan Buddhists believe we live in. This illusion, or Samsara is the cycle of Birth, Pain/suffering, death, and eventual rebirth. The middle path when walked by one man is constantly pushed to either side of the path by external stimulus. The masses produce the median, not the individual, as the individual constantly fluctuates as it struggles to hold on to the middle path( the way, the truth the light, peace et al).
The Tibetan holy figure may be a bit hypocritical seeming @ times, but nothing compares to the confusing statements supposedly made by Jesus concerning passage to heaven.
I’m confused by your rhetoric. The rich “exploit” the poor, and your answer is to allow the poor to “exploit” the rich? Like you said about the Lama’s views, if you think by handing others money you can achieve some utopian effect through your ACTIONS of wealth redistribution then , my isn’t that sweet. Also confusing; are you trying for the Jesus over Buddhism through this, and if so what did Jesus do to better our society that Buddah did not. If it is the peace of the lord you seek then why the anger over others’ wealth?
I guess it is all one thing. I have to agree there. I wish you well
++
~~
#
April 15, 2008 at 8:16 am20 B-lez
And please excuse my poor grammar, it’s been a long day.
#
April 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm21 will shetterly
The sayings of Jesus are fairly consistent; it’s the followers who take many approaches, rather like Therevadans, Mahayanans, Zen, Tibetans–
As for wealth, it comes from the work of many people, and therefore it should be shared fairly with the people. Expecting the rich to live like the rest of us is only a punishment if the way the rich expect us to live is a punishment.
You mention “handing people money” as if you don’t believe in inheritance. I think everyone should inherit equally.
All of the major religions have wonderful teachings. Some people within them live simply and fairly, and others are hypocrites. Unfortunately, the hypocrites often have a great deal of power, so they’re the ones people notice.
And I hear you on the long day!
#
April 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm22 B-lez
The sayings of Jesus are not consistent when he speaks about access to heaven. For example, Jesus, when asked how to get into heaven, states in a very Socratic manner that to love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. This is the idea conveyed by Jesus inLuke 10: 25-28. Later, when faced with the same question, Jesus say basically to sell everything and “follow me”. Maybe I’m wrong, but this means to become his disciple, right? This is found in Luke18:18-22. This sounds like the Christian way, sure, but there’s a problem. In Luke14:26-33 Jesus says that unless you hate your mother and father(the ones Jesus told you to honor previously) even your own life, you cannot be a disciple of his. SO, how do you simultaneously love and hate yourself, and everyone else around you? Sounds confusing, and …….inconsistent unless of course you are teaching a form of zen, Tibetan buddhism, or hindu principles.
Again, I have to agree with you about the difference in true followers and hippocrites. You seem well educated about religious and spiritual bases, so I can’t challenge you ad hominem(not that I would anyway) but the wealth dialogue seems a bit Marxian. Not that it is necessarily a problem. Wealth is earned, and while some inherit wealth, many work to attain levels of success, wether it be money, fame, skill, knowledge. There are also many who exploit the work of others to further the lazy lifestyles they lead. Many of these people doing the exploiting happen to be lower income people who are more focused on breeding and car payments then the challenge of a more even peaceful “sustainability” type system. Being rich doesn’t mean you have the responsibility to even the playing field, even though anyone with a social conscience should realize that some frivolity should be cut in the interest of the many.
Boy I’m long winded. I think the main lesson taught by the great teachers is; Life is a juxtaposition and without flaw there is no perfection. I thank you for your stimulating conversation. You seem intelligent and even tempered in your discussions, which denotes an air of logic and rationale that is rare when speaking on these “tender” topics
#
April 15, 2008 at 9:22 pm23 will shetterly
With both Jesus and Buddha, different texts present different interpretations—I did some research recently on whether Buddha was a vegetarian, and the answer seems to be, “Depends on the text.” With Jesus, I think the definitive statement on heaven or the rule of God is that it’s within you.
The statement about parents, I think, has to be interpreted metaphorically: your parents represent the past, and to become enlightened, you must break from the past. There is a zen to Jesus; when he says to call no man father or master, he’s very close to the zen saying that if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him. It’s meant as a shocking metaphor.
As for wealth, I look at the ways the great teachers lived. Some, like Jesus and Buddha, renounced wealth entirely. Some, like Muhammad, lived very simply. Moses could go in either category: he gave up being a prince to do the right thing. None of the great teachers chose to live in palaces or hoard wealth.
I hear you about “tender” topics. Agreeing to disagree can be quite the challenge online!
#
April 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm24 B-lez
Disagreement and debate are necessary for the formulation of plans, programs and ideology that work for all, rather than accepting the first thing that pops into the head because it’s what “one thinks” things should be. I think relying on dogma or prejudice(about anything, not just race of, course) is foolish. Attachment can be a downfall.
I read your bio. Very interesting, as I hit this page first while doing research. It just now occurred to me that I may be missing a bit about you, thus coloring my idea of what you were about, so to speak. It is a pleasure to speak with you. Wait, type with you? I guess I have to watch that movie I keep eyeballing when I go to the video store(I love bad movies)
#
April 16, 2008 at 6:11 am25 Jockm
A small quibble on #6. That he shoots at hawks doesn’t seem to be worth disputing. It is far from clear that he enjoys it. From the quote it seems more that he sees it as a necessity.
#
April 16, 2008 at 6:40 am26 will shetterly
B-lez, I warn you, it’s a *very* bad movie, and not in a fun-bad way. I should try to find out if Joe-Bob Briggs ever reviewed it.
Jockm, I tend to think we like our choices. I agree #6 could be rephrased—it’s only there because it surprised me.
#
April 16, 2008 at 2:38 pm27 Jockm
Sorry Will, I can’t walk that far with you. I think we do a lot of things we think are necessary. I know it is “my thing” to write a longish piece that has facts and thought experiments and such. I just think you are wrong on what you just said.
#
April 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm28 will shetterly
Jockm, don’t you like doing what’s needed more than not doing what’s needed? Not enjoy: take satisfaction from knowing that you’ve done what was necessary, even if you didn’t enjoy it?
And the entire point of philosophy is choosing what’s necessary. I think shooting hawks is not necessary.
But “like” and “enjoy” are tricky words, so I’ll edit the comment now.
#
April 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm29 Jockm
To pick two frivolous examples: I personally dislike tying on and buying pants. I equally dislike the process of getting my hair cut. I like the end result of being panted (if that is a word) and shorn. Additionally I do not relish the thought of being pantless and shaggy.
Doing something necessary because we prefer one outcome over another does not mean we have to “take delight or pleasure in” either.
#
April 21, 2008 at 9:55 pm30 B-lez
Is it ‘Cars That Eat People’ bad?
#
April 22, 2008 at 3:43 pm31 will shetterly
Jockm, your definition of “like” seems to be stronger than mine. To express that, I would’ve said he loved to—
B-lez, I (suspect fortunately) haven’t seen that, but it’s a great title!
#
May 6, 2008 at 6:17 am32 d_wangdu@yahoo.com
you asshole! In one of HHDL interview he said he shoots the rifle in the air and not “AT THE HAWKs”
You know why he shoots in the air?? Just to shoo away the hawks from killing the number of small birds.
#
May 6, 2008 at 7:15 am33 will shetterly
d_wangdu, I don’t usually feel a need to respond to people whose idea of discussion begins with an insult, but the New York Times article didn’t give much detail—that’s why I wrote “aimed at” rather than “shot.” I don’t know if his air rifle shoots BBs or only air. But I know that if all he wanted to do was scare away hawks, he could pop balloons or do any number of things—he doesn’t need a rifle.
But since that’s the only item on the list that concerns you, fine.
#
May 6, 2008 at 8:02 am34 Tenzin
What are you trying to tell us by writing “Six suprising facts about His Holiness the Dalia Lama”???
Tell us about yours?
1. That you are psycho.
2. A failed father.
3. Divorced and alone.
4. A failed writer.
5. A failed politician
6. A confused individual.
I think your topic reflect, what kind of individual you are.
Please help this guy… he is just sick.
#
May 6, 2008 at 8:24 am35 will shetterly
Tenzin, are you here as a representative of Tibetan Buddhism, or were you hired to make the Dalai Lama’s followers look bad? If the latter, you’re doing a very good job. Wise people offer information, not insults.
#
May 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm36 Toy
The six things which are jotted down are a very one-sided statement: Let me clarify few things here.
1. When there was a CIA help to Tibetans, Dalai Lama was very young and he at the time was not enjoying much power at the time. But he has repeatedly told Tibetan and world community even during the time until now that he is against any form of violence. Tibetan society as a democratic society, he can’t kill those Tibetan who was trying to defend their country and more importantly their suffering people at the time. Millions of Tibetan was killed during that time and the whole country was going to hell. Dalai Lama has many times also quoted Buddha statement that he is not against violence when it is used as weapon to saved more living being and when used a last resort. I don’t blame you because you may not have studied seriously about Tibetan Buddhist or about Dalai Lama.
2. Regarding rifle, he has very clearly told us that he was using it as a weapon to get the hawk away and not to kill them. I don’t blame you on this too because of the reasons mentioned above and also because the people like you can see rifle as a weapon to kill.
3. As far as non-vegetarian is concern, you should study of country of Tibet which Dalai Lama belongs to. The country was a very isolated, highest altitude and it is place where it is very difficult to grow vegetables. Worse of all, because of it’s severe cold climate, a person needs meat to maintain one’s body temperature to survive. But still when Dalai Lama moved to India, he has almost became vegetarian. My understanding is he eats very little meat. Again here, you fell short in your research and became ignorant.
4. Now, on the topic of rich. Dalai Lama was quoting Buddhism where one believes in next life. So, if you are rich in this life, it is because of your good action and virtues in your last life. Buddhist is always against jealously and hatred even if it is on rich people. So, you tell me why should one be bitter and rebel against rich people. The point should be one it is wrong if one achieve success materialistically by immoral behaviors and actions. As far as old Tibetan society is concern, as I has stated earlier, H.H. the Dalai Lama was more like a moral leader and was not enjoying any real power. Also every other nations in the world, we did have problem in our history but the bottom line is we were all happy. No Tibetan has died under starvation before the Chinese invasion. There was not a single demonstration against the Tibetan government until China invaded Tibet.
5. Finally, on the census of Tibet, as a pretty underdeveloped and isolated country no one really knows the real population of Tibet. But there were lots of reason to state that Tibet is a country of six million Tibet. I have no idea how you can question or challenge that without knowing anything about Tibet including some of the basic thing which I have mentioned earlier in this writing.
6. Last but not the least, a let me tell you that after getting money from your sources, let me remind you a quote “Maybe you can food some people some time but you can not fool all people all the Time”. Tibetan community is much more educated now a day and fortunately we have many good people unlike you who are supporting us. So, you should be much better prepared if you want to fool the world.
#
May 6, 2008 at 4:11 pm37 will shetterly
Toy, if you follow the links in my post, you’ll see my sources. You really should do your research; even Dalai Lama supporters like Patrick French have admitted that the claims of millions being killed is nonsense.
#
May 6, 2008 at 7:51 pm38 Raven Daegmorgan
Tenzin, it is ironic of you to suggest that a person’s statements are an indication of their character right before making a an absolutely rude, asinine statement. I strongly disagree with Will on this topic, but your response was absolutely uncalled for.
And Will, Toy here states he is Tibetan, and I think it would be hypocritical to not give his views at least as much weight as the Tibetans you’ve quoted in support of your argument, despite them contradicting some of your statements.
#
May 6, 2008 at 8:02 pm39 will shetterly
Raven, I do appreciate Toy’s politer tone, but when he claims that millions were killed in a country of 1.24 million according to the official census in ‘50 or ‘51 (well before China began restricting the power of the upper class in the late ’50s), it’s kind of hard to give him a lot of credence.
His claim about vegetarianism is equally silly: my suspicion is that Tibetan serfs, like serfs elsewhere, ate very little meat. Whether that’s true or not, I do know that being an ovo-lacto vegetarian in Tibet would be easy—it’s only being vegan that might have been hard in Tibet’s climate. And none of that applies to the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since he fled with his treasures in 1959. India’s famous for its vegetarian food.
The CIA-funded rebels were very closely allied to the Dalai Lama; his older brother was, if I remember correctly, their treasurer. (You can check Parenti, because I may misremember the exact relationship–I’m writing in haste now.)
Well, I could refute Toy point-by-point, but the links in the original post already do that.
#
May 6, 2008 at 8:06 pm40 Raven Daegmorgan
I can only say that I note some of those ideas are contentious and continue to be argued, especially the official census numbers. Suspicions are not facts. And I don’t know what his brother being treasurer has to do with disputing the idea that violence to protect lives is not considered un-Buddhist or how young the Dalai Lama was at the time all this occurred.
#
May 6, 2008 at 8:16 pm41 will shetterly
I mean that when Tibet’s upper class rebelled to preserve feudalism, the Dalai Lama and his family were being paid by the CIA–they were helping to promote violence in the name of theocracy at a time when the CIA was busy overthrowing democracies and installing tyrants in Guatemala and Iran. I haven’t found any evidence that the Dalai Lama did anything to limit the violence in Tibet until after the CIA stopped funding the rebels in the early ’70s.
Hmm. I think my next research project will be to discover when the Dalai Lama began supporting democracy. Because another of Toy’s curious claims is here: “Tibetan society as a democratic society.” There was no democracy under the Dalai Lama. There was simply the brutal rule of the rich, and photographs of the time show that.