Chock,
I tried a reply three times, and always found what I should have known from the beginning: words are wasted here, it cannot be caught in words.

Let me just say this, then: I did not mean to attack you, if you felt like that. But beyond that statement, you either understand the logic behind the Dalai Lama's decision against violence, resistance, conflict, or you don't. If you don't, it is your work to get there, or not to try at all. Both decisions will influence you existence for they cause consequences of any subtle or massive kind, and you cannot avoid to bear these consequences, no matter if you or me or anyone understand the mechanism, or can forsee them, or not. It is not about guilt, or sin, it is about respmnsibility and consequences, just this.

If that view still is not acceptable to you, then see it pragmatic. You may see the Dalai Lama's decision as cowardish, or wrong, or whatever - but the overwheliming majority of tibetans obviously disagrees with you, and nevertheless supports him and stands behind him. And we can sefely assume that they are the real experts to judge their fate.

This assumes that there actually is logic behind it, and sure enough there is, but not the sort that will do anyone who is far more likely to hear the sound of one hand cocking a Chicom 56 than the sound of one hand clapping, any good - something that doesn't trouble the Dalai Lama, as he is too busy being several thousand miles away from it, listening to the sound of one hand clapping itself around a glass of champagne. And so, first you presume to determine how I formed my opinion, and now you determine it must be because I don't understand something, whereas the truth is that I understand only too well where that, and every other religion is coming from. So you've gone from patronising to condescending.

All that cosmic mystical religious rubbish doesn't cut any ice with me, there is nothing to understand, it's a fairy story, but for the people in Tibet it really is a grim fairy tale. It's easy to advocate passive resistance when you're sat in the penthouse suite of an hotel in a foreign land nurturing the hope that when it all blows over you can breeze back in and be the top dog, that's kind of leadership anyone can do without.

Numbers believing in something do not make it either a fact, wise, or anything else for that matter, and they never have. There are larger numbers of Chinese who'd happily crush such 'rebellion', does that make their conscensus correct? Plenty of people believe that flying some airliners into the World Trade Center was justifiable, but that doesn't make it so. Lots of people thought what Hitler did was right, same story. So if it's a choice between the Dalai Lama's brand of Nirvana or the Chinese government's, what the Dalai Lama ought to ask himself, if he really cares about the people he's supposed to represent, is which is going to end up with less of the people dead?

For someone who supposedly believes in reincarnation, he seems inordinately keen on hanging onto his skin.

:D Chock

Nonsens. You illustrate your own value system here, deriving from your own view of the world - and you assume your view is the same that Buddhism holds. Or tibetans. What you think on good and evil, must be seen by them the same way. You in fact illustrate the typical Western perception of things, and their judging. That'S why I said before you were standing in the tradition of the dualistic concepts of the (for example) church, and islam, while the church is violating Jesus in that regard (who also, like buddha, pointed the direction towards "beyond dualsim". )

Tiibet is not the Wild West. The Dalai Lama never was expected to be marshal Dillon in gunning action. He has tried for decades now to raise support for tibet in trying to get a dialogue with the chinese. Western nations showed him the door from the outside. He has inspired millions around the world to consider their lives and try to act less harmful and violent towards each other. His people still act with extreme self-restraint - not wanting to loose their inner peace even when it means their death, or torture, and for compassion with the Chinese raping their culture, and selling it. That is radical pacifism on the level of what Jesus showed. You may decide different if you were in his situation. But who are you to criticise him for having decided for himself not to use force at all cost, not for fitting into your schemes and values, and having acted peaceful for reasons of compassion even with the Tibetan'S enemies - and forgiving them, and in order ? Do not harm to those that harm you - sounding familiar, maybe? If all would act like that, we would have a much better world to live in. Instead, all act by the principle of intimidating each other, and use force - and look what mess we got.

Stop trying to judge their decisions by standards of Western religion and values - and one day I may believe you then, eventually. That you just expressed indirectly that Buddha'S teaching just is a religion, and a religion like others, tells me that you do not know much about him. Buddhism is NOT a religion in that sense. It's meaningless to argue in such terms. And where they have build static institutions around Buddha'S words, ceremonies, rituals, practices, with monks sitting in monasteries, they are violating Buddha, like the church is violating Jesus. I can forgive them that only because - different to the church - tibetan buddhism remained peaceful and tolerant and did not attack others, nor aggressively missionizes. If you say No, they accept it and keep away. More likely they will not even ask you in the first until you ask them.

Again, you see it from your perpsective, and that is not the perspective of buddhism. every action causes reaction, and what force you inflict, inevitably returns. Use the chinese way against them,. and you may save your life - and loose clearness of mind, and being slaved to the turning of the wheel of getting born, suffering, becoming old, and die. Meanwzhile you will have created even more violanece in response to yours. All that is far worse a fate. Says Buddhism.

All living is transitory, there is nothing that lasts forever in this world. And to loose all what you know or love, or being separated from what you love, or being together with what you do not like, and becoming old, and ill, and fear death - all this is suffering. All living is suffering. But you do not suffer because things are like they are, and you do not suffer becasue everything is transitory, but because you attach yourself to what is trasitory, and try to seek in it's domain everlasting happiness. that cannot be, and never will be, so that way you frustrate yourself. In other words: you do not suffer becasue the world is not in order, but becasue YOU are not in order. Only by transcending your yearning for happiness in the world of transitoriness eventually will set you free, and make you leaving behind the false illusions what you think who and what you are. And then you eventually may relaize who you really are. And that is a truth beyond the world of transitoriness. It can be checked by experience, it has nothing to do with belief and believing. It is a radical empirical approach. Science could take it as a shining example. In other words: self-awareness can only be gained at the cost of self-transcendence, and giving up yourself. As long as you cannot understand this, the tibetan's pacifism must remain mystery to you. that is okay, and worries nobody. Just stop to lecture us on why they must be silly when not following your different cultural standards and values. I cannot see you in the position to understand and judge them objectively. Do they suffer, and suffer dearly? Yes. And still - none of their authorities tries to buy weapons in the West. that should, at least, raise some doubts in your mind ,about your belief what you do know about them.

They do not suffer from invading tibet. but the Tibetans, on the other hand, do not benefit from the invasion, but stick to their decision, although they are sitting at the receiving end of the line. That is the decisive difference that makes your approach obsolete.

See above. And by your wording in this paragraph: you claim to know about Buddhism? Hardly. "Dalai Lama'S brand of Nirvana?" You know nothing about the concept behind Nirvana then, and the meaning and role of the four heads of lineages in Tibetan culture. You have your perception, but do not know how to interpret it, and make sense of it. So you impose Western views onto it. No wonder that it does not fit together.

What do you know about reincarnation? The usual Western clichees, I expect. One should wandering from one life to the other, eventually getting transformed into another life form, depending on sins and good deeds, something like that.

But Buddha, when being asked, strictly rejected the existence of an individual "soul". So what is reincarnated then? What does it mean? And what is karma, and what does it have to do with it?

You managed to trap yourself in a maze of mirrors, Chock, and your terms and labels get endlessly reflected between the glass surfaces, creating an illusory blizzard that fascinates oyu and makes you phlegmatically fall under it's spell. But if you reach out, you will realize that you cannot grab it, cannot hold it, cannot catch it. I certainly do not try to missionize you, I even do not see myself as Buddhist. I just see a lot of logic and reason in it'S views, and wisdom that leades beyond the limiuts of the intellect. You may be surprised, but I see the bilance the Dalai Lama has acchieved as not changing the fate of Tibet at all, becasue nations rank their economic interests and relations with China as higher than the fate of 6 million displaced and/or murdered people; and china goes on acting brutally. And yet - I also see him in total accordance with the teachings of the tradition he represents. the reality is simply this: the tibetans are weak, and the chinese are strong, and nobody wishes to ally with Tibet. That's neither good nor bad, in the fiorst: that is just the way how it is. Realism - period. If you make your cultural values or spiritual freedom depending on this, you already have lost. Lost in transitoriness, so to speak. :)

It seems the irony of writing about me judging things, when almost every paragraph of your reply has either 'You...' or 'Your..' in its first sentence, followed by a pronouncement about me or my disposition on life, has escaped you. I wonder whom is being judgemental, when we find such quotes as this:

It's a fact that you know next to nothing about me about me, neither how tall I am, how I live, whether I hold doors open for people, or whether I cut people up in traffic, beat my dog, lie or steal, or help old ladies across the road, and you most certainly do not know, until now that is, that I studied theology for several years, and yet with such a scant picture of me, it seems you find it possible to compartmentalise me into a neat, incontravertable appraisal of where I am coming from, simply from my opinion on one matter. Would that it was so easy to form an accurate picture of people in the real world from such a spartan lack of clues!

This thread was started by yourself, and I presume, note that is presume, not know, that in putting it in a discussion forum, you invite discussion. If, as seems logical, this is the case, that is 'who I am to critisise him'; you invited critical comment by putting the thread up in a discussion forum! But far from discussing things, instead you prefer to descend into making pronouncements about people who reply to an invitation to discuss matters, to postulate half-baked theories on them and about what they think, all from minimal evidence, and generally act in a condescending, superior manner. In stark contrast, none of this is speculation on my part, it is plain to see in your replies, which are, almost without exception, directed personally at people who have contributed an opinion, rather than addressing things in a manner which is conducive to discussion, and all whilst attempting to turn circumlocution into an art form.

Since you started thread, in a general topics discussion forum, discussion ought to be your motivation for doing so, but clearly it is not, and with that in mind, one suspects that it is yourself who perhaps ought to consider where you are coming from and what is your motivation for doing things; do you post here to invite discussion, or do you post here to make pronouncements on matters and people who choose to discuss them?

If that is the case, I suspect you'll find that people post replies in forums in order to discuss the subject at hand rather than to receive some half-baked psychoanalysis of themselves and their moral compass, and least of all from someone who is neither qualified, nor able to do so from the evidence at hand.

Anyway, I'm off to kick a dog to death, rob a few people and burn a church down, but then again, I presume you knew that already.

:D Chock

Evading into meaninglessness. I adressed your comments on all points I found vital in your reply. Can't see you doing the same in return. Instead you complain I hold you responsible for you comments, so to speak, and answer them on the basis that they had been coming from you. Some things you said are simply very biased and illustrate by the perspective they reveal, that you do not have the insight and knowledge on some technical things that you had just claimed to have. It also illustrates a certain inability to see things from different perspectives than just your own. If that is again too personal for you, well, I cannot help it, and if the impression is wrong, you certainly did not help to correct it. Instead you even strengthened it.

I cannot have a dialogue, where the other is holding a monologue and demands that it should remain unadressed, uncritically left as it is, and that the author should not be hold responsible for it. I did not generalize on you beyond the comments that had been given by yourself, Chock. I cannot read minds. Not others, not yours.

"...rather than to receive some half-baked psychoanalysis of themselves and their moral compass, and least of all from someone who is neither qualified, nor able to do so from the evidence at hand."

If you can think and write that - why do you violate it, then? why are all your comments referring to your own moral compass only, your own views, and being angry when one is telling you that you do? Again, by the way you just put religions and Buddhism on the same level, as if buddhism were a religion, wiped some conceptions off the table, indicated that all of that is meaning nothing for you (okayokay, your opinion, but not necessarily in conformity with ther nature of things), and the way you post your answers, I must conclude that on some things you do not have the information knowledge you claim to have, and I seem to know a bit more informational knowledge on some contents indeed. You accuse me of drawing falsoe conclusions on you, but you do the same thing nevertheless with regard to me, assuming it is just my private opinion i am voicing. But on some technical aspects, that is not true.

If you want me other conclusions to draw on you, you need to put up better answers. I can only estimate you on the basis of what you give me. And when you argue always from your own views of things, and mismatch that with all religions there are, and do not care to take other views from systems you comment on into account, even indirectly indicated a flawed understanding of some buddhist basic elemental thoughts and ideas, then yes - it is reasonable and logical and understandabale to judge you on that basis, and tell you that your perspective is maybe a bit limited, or wrong, or not complete, or whatever.

It's not good that even a thread on the Dalai Lama and a reasonable suggestion he made, is on the brink of turning into a personal fighting. I hardly can imagine he would agree that to be in Tibetan's interest, or being for the sake of his message, and attempts for peaceful autonomy. For that reason, I leave it here. And it is probably as clear to you as it is to me now that you and me will not reach anywhere anyhow.

So are you saying MacArthur was a coward for abandoning the Phillipines?

Or the Polish Government in Exile were cowards during WWII?

Regarding Tibet and the Dalai Lama.
I like the man, but he has his international reputation because of his personality, not because of his god-priest-emperor status.
I think he is realist enough to see that even if China suddenly gave Tibet independence, there would be no way to revert to the old theocracy.
The pre 1950s Tibet was actually a rather harsh place to live in, if you were not a priest. A theocracy stuck in the middle ages and isolated from the world.
Just because the priests happened to be bhuddists doesn't make that fact go away.
Also, the Lamas were not always that peaceful. Ancient Tibet fought was, exterminated other cultures and subjugated the whole population to bhuddism.
I suppose for some people the chinese occupation was just an exchange of rulers.
Also keep in mind that the other Himalayan states are economically less advanced that chinese occupied Tibet.
A dalai lama in today's Tibet could never enjoy the god-king status the current one had in his youth, no matter wether Tibet is chinese or independent.

I partially agree. When Buddhism was (peacefully!) brought to Tibet, it met the local culture, which was very much a state of worrying kings, some of whom took it upon them to convert to buddhism and spread it by enforcing it, which means that obviously they got some things wrong on it. It also is true that Tibet has been kind of a theocracy in deed, but not more or less in meaning than this is or was the case in many Buddhist nations. Point is that these theocracies mainly remained peaceful and non-expansive, nevertheless turned into institutions that ranked the support for monks and monasteries by local farmers very high, and gave medical and educational support and "spiritual caretaking" in return. However, the arrangement is as little supported by Siddharta'S teachings, than the existence of the church can be led back to Jesus teachings. Both men did not, neither in word nor in intention nor in deeds found a religious organisation. I have had my experinces with practicing Tibetan ways for some time, wanting to learn abiut it in order to assess it, but I found it not to be helping me, supporting me, or in any way helpful, in fact I found it to be focussed on rituals, ceremonies, and being very distractive in general - short: all the things that I attack in theistic religious institutions as well. I have been educated and trained in classical Chan anyway - and in a way one could say that "I went back to that". Not really that, but that is as close a description as it gets.

All in all, from a historical perspective, buddhist "theocracies" should be seen as less inhumane and more peaceful than the church has been in major phases of it's existence. On a general level, I give them that.

I dealt with Tibetans, monks for the most, and one thing struck me, no matter what I thought and think about Tibetan buddhism - and i see it quite critically: a certain natural unexcitement of theirs, and an underlaying, always present unwavering sense of humour. Think of them what you want, but if more people would behave like that, this world would be a much friendlier place to live in.

On the status of the term "God emperor", this is why I have started this thread, and another one as well. The current Dalai Lama ended a tradition of letting it go by unopposed to have people thinking of Dalai Lamas as "God emperors", which is another deviation from buddhas orioginal teachings. Buddha did not say there are gods and dieties, and even more no god-kings and -emperors. The simple man in Tibet very often has believed that nevertheless, and different 2aspects" of the Absolute, in the tibetan tradition get expressed in form of (symbolic) gods and goddesses (dhakas and dhakinis)). It happened, what had to be expected: these symbols were taken literally, and bang- there you had all of a sudden different buddhas and gods and godesses in Tibetan buddhism. That is a great trap, and westerns fall for it like flies. I know what I talk about, i lost almost all my student time's circle of friends when I left Tibetan buddhism, and saw them starting to "believe" in wonders where Buddha was abiut perceiving things like thex are, and exmaine them yourself. They also became very dogmatic. Tibetan buddhism leads many people to become simply this: miracle-believing, and superstitious. That'S why I do not support it. and it is also the major criticism I aim at Tiobetan buddhism: that it's representatives let this happen, either to make their culture surviving that way, or by inability to counter it and care for the students they attract: which would mean they have started more than they can handle. The teacher is to be blamed for that, it is his duty not to accept more students than he can handle. Today you have mass events, even trips to exotic countries for special rituals where one or two thousand people can agther. All this mass consummation of exotic spireituality is not what Buddha has taught, but is aberation, a fault, a dead end.

In the end, Buddhists are humans like all others, too, with strengths and weaknesses, and no spiritual supermen. This is also true for Tibetans. And for the Karmapa or Dalai Lama as well. where you can learn something valuable from buddhist tradition (and there is plenty), do it for your own benefit. Where man turns it into a state of holiness, break contact and get away.

Yeah, right... shall we just review some of your opinions that you didn't generalise on, and the attempts to read my mind you also didn't make?

Well, easing our way past the the inadequate attempt at profound phraseology, that sounds less like something buddha would say and more like something out of a chinese cracker (ironically enough), not to mention the fact that since you apparently appear to know what 'fascinates me and has me under its spell', apparently you can read minds, or at least think you can.

Oh well, now we know I'm going to meet a tall dark handsome stranger and make a journey across water, or whatever other mind reading cobblers we care to indulge in, let's move on to the sweeping generalisations/assumptions about me that you apparently also didn't make:

- Meaning I don't presumably

and lastly...

And from that, it appears you know nothing about analogies as opposed to direct references. Frankly, your arrogance is staggering and matched only by your condescension.

:D Chock

Chock,

this is derailing, and derailing fast. I thought long time about you, and think I understand where you are coming from by what you said in this thread, about your past as far as you have revealed it (it was not much), and why you must necessarily see me violating your self-image, and why you see me as arrogant. The limits of my written English and the need to keep things short in forum threads certainly do not help to weaken that impression. however, by intention and what I wished to express (and I think: mostly have), I stick to hwat I say. However, please believe me that this all is not really a personal issue that I have with you.

FYN, i am not angry at you at all. I just see that you simply mix up knowledge you have, with knowledge you just imagine to have, and having studied theology maybe helped you less than youm may think at least when forming your opinion on buddhism. And this is where your loose tongue (examples following) and mixing up of things is coming from. I do not tell you what to believe, nor must i convince you of my views, after all it is yourm life, not mine. You should not believe anything I say, or believe i am right or wrong - what I tell you at best is this: see yourself, make your own expeirnces, and get rid of your past. where you are wrong on an informational basis, and beyond that: you shouldn'T believe anything at all, but examine it yourself, make your own experiences, but do it objectively, with reason. Jesus said the same. Buddha said the same. Without wanting to put myself up to their level, i also do not play down myself: I'm just saying I am in good company. [/quote]

Sure it has nothing to do with the desinterest of these nations who prefer economic contracts as higher priority. priorities you have not objected until here. It's about him violating YOUR views then.
He is not fighting and slaughtering like YOU want him to do in order to fulfill YOUR category of heroism.
You cant mean that serious. ;)
You think it is about him. You are not aware how absurd that from the inner logic of their philososophy is. Again i tell you that you make the mistake to judging buddhism from your Western (theologian?) perception. The major problem behind it is that you cannot see how totally your views are dominated by dualism, while Buddha and Jesus tried to show people the need tpo go beyond dualism. didn't you claim to be informed about the inner teczhncial concepts of all the relguions there are?
He has done all that is possible in his position short of using violance, blackmailing and taking hostages. It's just that tibet has nothing to trade for gaining western support against chinese oppression. You arrognatly blame the man, where in fact - amongst others - your own nation must be blaimed.
Im sorry for that fate, and I mean that serious. At least that explains why you are so full of anger (I know this remark will rasie it even further, but you have to bear that). However, you claimed to know all about all religions, and put Buddhism on the same level, claiming to have understood it that way, too. but you haven't. I know it angers you that I tell you again and again, but it simply is the truth.
I totally agree. but I insist to exlcude the oro9ginal teahcing by Jesus and buddha from this else ciorrect accusation. You adress the exoteric level of relfgion: the dogma, the imnstitutions, the hierarchies, the orgnaisaiton, the priest, their material intersts and selfish powerpolitics. But Jesus and Buddha did not teach this.
Yes indeed. With the accent on "All organised religions", which excludes Jesus original teachings and that of buddha, for they were not constructing or trying to found organised religions. In fact, if compariong, you'll find so many hints and evidence that they would totally oppose it and reject it what has been made of theirn teachings, by perverting them. The church is not representing Jesus' teachings, in no way. Most buddhist sects are not really representing the essence of Buddhas' teachings. Both differ with reagrd to the intensity by which the pratcice that abuse. Judging by the level of brutality, agression and wars they have caused or excused, the first, churches, is worse than the latter, Buddhist sects.
Which does not make acting in a warlike fashion less bad and troublesome. One sutra which is associated not to one monk, but buddha himself: a monk needs to do a sea-travel, and boards a trading ship. On open sea, like Sam Hawkins in "Treasure island", he becomes aware that part of the passengers are pirates, planning to murder the others and the crew when they are sleeping, stealing ship and goods, and sell it all at a foriegn harbour. He goes to the captain and tells him. the cpatain wants to arm his crew, and fight for their lifes. the monk holds him back and says: let me do it. He then waits for the night, and then sneaks from bed to bed, and stabs every pirate to death while he is sleeping.
Wowh, that is a buddhist story. I killed much of what was left of friendship with earlier friends, when telling it, Buddhists think it cannot be. they do not listen to what buddha said in defense of this monk: that the monk did not do it to save his life, or that of the crew, he did not act of fear, that means, or hate, or blind aggression. He acted foir reasons of - compassion. He knew that the killing was inevitably, and would bring bad karma both to the crew, for they would fight with hate and fear in their heart, and the oirates, for they would commit murder and vbeing motivated by lower motoves. the bad karma would be there, this or that way. so the monk took it upon him to reduce it as much as possible - and bear it all himself, so that neither the pirates nor the crewman would need to darken their karma bilance, affecting their future path through birth and dying, and hopefully have a better chnace to find relief from all this drama. Seen that way, he sacrificed himself for the wellbeing of the others, pirates and crewmen alike. Compassion and caring for others - this is the real motive behind it, if only you look hard enough. This is the imprtant pount of this story. Don't even try to judge it by Wetsern values, it will not make sense to values you are indoctrinated with by the church, the military, Decartes or Kant, business life, or antroposophic schools, or psychoanalysis. :) Eventually, you can find parallels only in Jesus life, and the christian mystic.

see above. and i am wondering why are you trying so hard to talk bad and offend the man at every possible opportunity. I tell you why - because you do not understand the motive behind the tibetan's acting, and when you cannot imagine it, you also conclude that nothing you cannot imagine could exist. You need to learn that there are people in the world - the victims, in this case ä- who see it slightly different than you do. I know of monks who were tortured to death, and witnessed the shooting of villagers - and blessed the chinese soldiers, forgiving them. Obviosuly in the presence of greatest suffering, they still had the idea of something more valuable, than to make their owjn suffering less, and secure their own survival. Like Jesus. I do not demand you to follow thta example, or to blindly believe the content motivatin ghtme to behave like that. but I woudl ask you to stop making mockery of something you do not understand - and that way just making mockery of yourself. That is sound advise, one should guess.
Some of the implications or straight statements necessarily lead to that conclusion, with regard to buddhism, yes. It is obvious by the demand by which you judge the Dalai Lama'S motives, and apparently buddhism. If what you say in this thread is representative for your knowledge on the "theological" content of buddhism (they have no theolgy, but let's do not make it even more complex...), then you cannot know too much. but you must not like that. You can learn. You just cannot demand me or anyone to accept you as the great knowing man about it, if in fact you are not. I assume your experince with your youth and Catholicism were so bad that you become allergic, which means not only a counter-reaction, but an overreac tion against the avesive stimulus. But you are free to correct and adress that. they have a saying in Zen, which is true not only for Zen, but in general: small doubt, small awakening. Great doubt, great awakening. No doubt - no awakening. Knowing that one does not know something, is no offense, or minimizing of oneself - it is a chance. Because many people waste their life, thunking they know - and in fact just beolieving they know, but know not. They never see the need to change, and to learn and make their own new experiences. I taught Chan meditation and Kum Nye for several years - believe me, I can sing a song of this. :) Compared to man's ego, a raging stampede is a relatively cooperative affair.
Once again I only quote this, which is considert to be one of the most precious lines in human philosphy, literature, whatever you name it, from the kalams Sutra: "Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing be-cause many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others." That is a culkture.free statement of true reason, and empiry. It does noit matter if you are Buddhist or not. Try to argue with what is said in this passage, no matter if you are Jewish, Christian, whatever! even a scientist would find that hard, since he is working much accoridng to comparable mottos. That is the essence of Buddha's teaching, and everything beyond that is in principle just distracting: do not just believe, but experience yourself. Use your reason. Put your trust in yourself. Decide on the basis of empirical evidence. Do no harm. Use logic and reason. what you have found that way, put your trust in, and follow it. - Chan training is just a tool to train people the discipline needed to do like this. Learning the difference between what is - and what we wish to be, true self - and ego.
Indeed, I do not know all that, and I am also not interested. I said in precious postings that I focus onwnhat you said here in this thread. That is my basis. Thelogy you studied, okay. What ahs that to do with tibetan budhdism, the dalai lamna, and buddhism in general? Buddha's (and Jesus) teaching canjot be embraced academically, and intellectually alone. churches do that, and that is why they fail. It needs to be lived, and it means to transcend subject and object, until, onoly the process, the event is left. And that is only possible by experiencing it,not by studying it. My seocnd of the two teachers and mentors in my life is an "ordinated" Chan master, or Zensho, living in wiesbaden. Whenever visitors came, and with pride in their voices proclaimed and loisted how many bpopks they had read, he slapped his hands ovber his head, made a sad face and said with a mouruning voice somehting like "How tragic! Oh no, they have read books... now all is lost! how tragic!" :) Books mean nothing. There is not a single book I would recommend on Buddhism, not one. Eventually only the Tao Te king - eventually. event hat is misunderstood more often, than it does any good. It already starts with the translations. I did my own, for that reason. :)


there were were comments by you, mostly later, whom I alöready have adresses one way or the other. If you did not care for that the first time, it probably is no use to repeat them a second time.
Chock, I do not mean to attack you, and do not wish to fight with you, but what I say I back with not little experience in dealing with people, teaching students, and having enjoyed the dedicated training and education by two true masters in their fields. Interest started when I was 6 or 7. training started when I was around 10. Now I am 40. Thirty years of experience in getting trained, trianing myslof, and finally training others. I have thrown almost all books away. Both in physical and metaphorical/philosophical contexts, the training I received has saved my life several times. When I tell you you do not knopw some things concerning buddhism and it's psychology and philosophy, I do so by experience, becasue if I say that two thirds or more of the 3-4 hundred students I had were exactly like you, it would not be an exaggeration. Maybe it drives you crazy, or you see me as even more arrogant, when I assure you I really only mean it well. And for that it is necessary not to cooperate and to please your ego, but to kick you until you wake up. On very rare occasions i have physically beaten people, when the moment was ripe, just to achcieve that, and I do not hesitate to do the same with you, when considering that as appropriate. originally, your offending style in which you talked about the Dalai Lama - the man - annoyed me, and that's why I replied. But I also soon realised that you did so for having flawed knowledge on his fuction, the tradition that has formed the four now remaining lioneages in Tibet, and the Buddhist teaching behind it. But this thread, and the internet, is not the playe to conti8nue ion all this debate on these issues. So for a leaving I tell you only one thing. Leave all your bad ecxperinces from your ypouth behind, and forget all that you azhve learned when studying theology. It is nothing but ballast, and if you do not get rid of it, it will push your head and body under water, forever. Get rid of that rotten slime in your teacup, so that it even makes sense to offer you some fresh one. Else you cup flows over, and not only the slime but the new tea is wasted as well. And that is not to mine or anyone else'S consewqucnes, but only to yours.
Wish you well, and good luck. Cannot speak for you, only for me, but no hard feelings on my side. Please understand that this is my last adress to our little dispute. Continuing from here leads nowhere.

No they didn't, and if this thread had been about that, rather than the Dalai Lama, it might have had some relevance to my comments, which were not about the teaching of any religion, but about a man who thinks that the ideal way to demonstrate leadership of an ethos, is to disappear at the first sign of trouble and then fail to help from afar. And this is not an insult to the man, it's a simple statement of what has transpired; if he or anyone else should see that as an insult, then that's what it may be to him, but be that as it may, it is an insult of his own making, and not one born of retelling.

You may think that I have a chip on my shoulder about religions, but that is far from the truth, in point of fact I am glad to have been brought up under the influence of one and to have broken away from it, because it gives me an inside, as well as an outside perspective on how they work and what they can, and indeed do, trade off.

But you needn't imagine that since I have no time for organised religion, it makes me a less spiritual person when it comes to humanity. I, and everybody else for that matter, do not know whether there is a supreme being of some sort out there, or any other concept of that nature, and so I do not use the earthly pretence of a man-made one, made credible by nothing more than geography, time, tradition and earth-bound musings, as a crutch. And I think it is a mistake for others to do so too. Or, to put it more simply: I do not need to go to a building with a cross on the roof once a week/day to make me a nice person, nor one with a crescent, star, or prayer wheel.

Nobody needs the civility of being decent to their fellow man window-dressed with bells, books and candles, or any other writings or teachings that simply cloud the basic issue. As such, the people of Tibet do not need the emotional crutch of a man who has not helped them either in absentia, or with his presence, nor of the ethos he espouses. What they need is help, and the simple fact is, they haven't had it from him, either in his words or his deeds.

:D Chock

Since we are now back on topic, the Dalai Lama that is, my reply.

You criticise him for having fled "at the first sign", and having done nothing, and you compare him to the many examples of decadent selfishness Western church history is so very much filled with. Well, if you attack him and speak bad of him, I really want to pressure you to do that for correct reasons, because what you do is distorting and/or ignoring history and facts.

In autumn 1950 he was given the political leadership (traditionally the responsibility of the Gelupga-lineage amongst the Tibetan sects) at the age of 15, and became head of state, less than one month after the chinese invasion.

In the following years he repeatedly met Chinese representatives who confronted him with their demands for total submission. In 1954 he met Mao Tse Tung, and i think repeatedly, I am not sure. On wikipedia I just have read, what I didn'T knew myself, that he was elected twice as vice chairman of the People's National Congress.

Not before 1959, nine years later, and after the resistance movement of Tibet had been crushed, he fled to India, and formed the exile government of Tibet. This hardly can be described as having fled at the first sign. In 1959 the signs were clear to see that China planned to kill him or to take him prisoner. then he wouild have been unable to do anything anymore. Despite his efforts, no nation ever recognised the exile government, until today, in order to avoid angering China.

Throughout all the time, and until today, he has consequenctly defended the principle of no violence, and pacifism. Maybe that would not be your way in that situation, and even would not be mine. But that is how it is: the consequent realisation of the principle of non-violence. If you criticise him for that, you need to criticise Ghandi and Jesus and many unknown heroes as well. You need to criticise him then for being pacifistic, not for the suspicions of selfishness you consider him guilty of, and you need to criticise Buddhism for being a pacifistic attitude. One maybe still would not wish to agree with that criticism, but at least it would be based on a true fact. So is this your issue - pacifism? I ask for real, without any rethoric.

Since 1959, the Dalai Lama travelled the world to raise awareness for the drama in Tibet, and he did not leave anything untried, I would say. He reached millions and millions around the globe, not for selfish or narcissistic glory, but to show the reason in logic in the basic of Buddhism that are truly culture-free and could be agreed to by members of other, orthodox relgions as well. that'S why I said much earlier, Buddhism is no religion. It is healhty reason, and direct experiencing things and reality undistorted, not more, not less. But nations and government REFUSED TO GIVE HIM ANY SUPPORT despite his attempts. No government welcomes him in an official surrounding, despite the pressure of public opinions. You are simply unfair to the man when you cut it short (and wrong) and say he has to accept responsibility to have failed in bringing up substantial support. Your nation and mine and all others see their relations to China as more precious, and rank their trade interests higher than adressing that ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the Tibetans do not have them any profit to offer in return for a Western standup against China. we all spend lip confession on it only when adressing China. That simply is the situation. You could as well accuse the victims of the genocide in Darfur that it is their own guilt if they get slaughtered, for they are so uncapable to bring together international support for them. In fact, you make the victim the accused, and then tell him he fails to save himself for selfish reasons. Can it get any more absurd? That is rich, really. Blame your government. And mine, and all others. they are the ones slamming doors in the man'S face - still so, after over 40 years he knocked and asked and begged. And that leads us to Western people and the life style of consummation and egoism, which leads to economical policies designed to please the crowd and keep them happy, profitable customers, as well as trying their own to make people demand even more to make sure that this situation does not change. And from here it is no far jump to blame ourselves for not having helped the man's cause - for the sake of our own material well-being. WE fail to give support to the man, not he fails in making us doing it. He tried all he can short of kidnapping our leaders, blackmailing our nations, and threatening war on us. what else do you want? Giving up his convictions, stealing money, buy weapons and turn into a Tibetan Napoleon, seeing his army getting shot down by the Chinese superiority?

We are not talking about some corrupt pope, or local church caring for it's material well-being and power. Tenzin Gyatso hardly matches that description. And where he showed up at festivities, he did that for knowing that if he wants to beg for help, he needs to meet the fanous and the beautifuly, the powerful and the leaders in their own habitats. so, blame our leaders and idols living thatk ind of life then. and again: blame us that we accept such leaders living like kings in the age of absolutism. If you want to hunt, you go to the forest, if you want to catch a trout, you go to the river. and if you need to ask nations for help, you meet their leaders and idols in their chalets, and drink their champagne.

Concerning what you said last, what the Tibetans need and need not, and wether or not they should stand to their religiosity or not before and after 1950, I suggest we leave that assessement to themselves. They have not asked us to tell them they should change that, and seeing Europe's and America's record to impose their own values on others I am against trying to export our social systems and culture onto foreign people. Also, Tibetan'S culture is no threat to our own culture, we do not need to defend ourselves against them. And the chinese take care of that erasing of culture and religiosity anyway. Note that the Dalai Lama is realistic enough to have reduced the initial calls for independence and freedom to asking for autonomy "only". Even this gets totally rejected by China. and even for this reduced request western nations completely refuse to give the Tibetans any support.

Don't blame the man. BLAME US for leaving him standing in the rain.

Wikipedia notwithstanding, all of what you say is true, the west have indeed let the people of Tibet down badly, but the point is that when you are standing in the rain, what do you do, continue standing there, or come in out of the rain? His approach, for whatever the reason, has not helped the cause of the people in Tibet, so what I am saying is that when an approach does not work, the obvious thing to do is try another one. At no point in any of my posts did I advocate him picking up an AK-47 and going for it, although guerilla warfare is of course one approach, but I would have had more respect for the guy if he had tried something other than banging his head against a brick wall. There have been plenty of other figureheads who have been in a similar situation who have triumphed against such difficulties without picking up a gun, and you have mentioned some of these.

Jesus died in the process, but he eventually left a legacy which saw the Romans take the pragmatic approach and incorporate Christianity into being an acceptable faith for its citizens to follow, Ghandi put himself in harm's way and eventually defeated an empire that had crushed his people, Che Guevara and Fidel Castro defeated Bastista's regime, a regime backed by the might of the United States, in just 17 days, the US being a country that itself has stood up against the might of an empire and defeated it to win independence. Nelson Mandela was an ANC terrorist arrested in possession of a huge quantity of grenades and implicated in several terrorist actions, of course he was imprisoned, but as we know, he eventually ended up being revered all around the world and leading the country that imprisoned him. In fact, the vast majority of countries around the world that enjoy the democratic process and good treatment of their citizens have at some point gone through such revolutionary changes, in some cases violently, but in some cases without any blood, the 'velvet revolution' of the Czech Republic in recent times against the might of Soviet Russia being a good example.

If you place yourself, or are placed in a position where people look to you to show the way ahead, then you should show the way ahead, not drive up a cul de sac and then bitch about it not getting you where you want to go.

:D Chock

But what would yolu suggest he should do, then? He fleed short of his assassination. Nine years long, he tried appeasing the chinese, showing them Tibet is no threat. He worked from within their system, to acchieve changings in the chinese position not against them, but together with them. Later, he asked for help in the world, and asked national leaders. He asked again, and again and again. He tours all his life to make the tibetan drama known to people in all world, he founded institutions that tech Tibetan culture and tibetan buddhism, so that it shall not get losot in history, he tried hard to make northern India a domicile for the displaced.

what else than asking and begging for help, short of using violance, do you expect him to do? what can he do? He is a realost. now he talsk of hoped-fpor autonomy only, no longer indepedencace. He also has taken back efforts to talk nations into supoporting Tibet against the Chinese - because it will not happen. not now, not in the future. Instead he stuggles to even keep contacts to politcal leaders alive, most wish hoim out of the dorr and accept his visits only becasue of public pressure - it is nothing but a diplomatic walk on the line with eragrd to china to welcome the Dalai Lama even privately. Merkel just weeks ago gave it a more formal framing when he visited Berlin - and the Chinese have lost all mind and talk of Nazis, and a new third reich, and total arrogance and disrespect for China, and offend Merkel most insulting.

So, simple question. what do you expect him to do peacefully, without demanding him to violate the ethical principles of Buddhism, and without giving up the inherent pacifism coming from that? What options are left that you see? Becasue I cannot see any. As I see it, he knows that he is fighting for a almnopst certainly lost cause, and still he tries on. So he carries on with the only way open for him - keeping in contact, telling people about buddhist concepts, trying to make contact woith the Chinese (which they alsways have refused since he refused their attempt to assassinate him, and fled).

What can he do differently, but still peacefully? Pacifism must reject certain methods and ways, if it wants to stay pacifistic by definition. Ghandi probably only was successful because he had to deal with the British empire - and that was, after all, and despite it's arrogance and occasional acts of brutality, still a relatively "civilised" institution, compared to oh so many other empires in history. If he would have had to deal with stalin, islam, or the inquisition, even the romans, he probably would have found an early end, and his cause with him.

I doubt also that Jesus had on mind to make the Romans take over a religion of which I even would say he never had founded it. And South and Middle America were violent revolutions that hardly can serve as an example to compare to the Dalai Lama's options. As to your mentioning of Jesus legacy, buddhism has such a legacy, too, it is spread across all world now, though not in comparable quantities, but it still slowly grows in europe. This is possible, because it is not challenging existing cultures here, and does not confront them, but does not depend on any cultural background. And the Tibetan and Japanese schools are by far the most dominant sects. seen that way, there is quite a strong legacy indeed.

And finally you said he should "show the way ahead". You oversee that he does that, and very much so. He is seen as one of the most influential Buddhist leaders in the world - within his people, and outside as well. One really cannot say that he does not show the way. The Buddhist way, and as far as is politically possible, the Tibetan way as well. Just that concerning the latter, his options are limited. That's how it sometimes unfortunately is, no matter how much you wish it to be different, and better.