The Dalai lama just visited Vancouver for a Peace Summit. he gathered all the "leaders" of schools in British Columbia and allowed them to come and see him for free. He then preached Buddhist doctrine to them in a most wonderful way. Informing them that the only way to end war is for people to find "inner peace"
I think the Dalai Lama is a false idol. He preaches, but he doesn't practice.
He won the Nobel Peace Prize after he took money from the CIA in the cold war to fund crusades to liberate Tibet?
He uses air rifles to shoot hawks that eat the birds he feeds on his grounds in India?
He campaigns for religious tolerance but has condemned rival Buddhist Sect Dorje Shugden?
He has admitted to having sexual dreams about women.
He seems a bit hypocritical. Although I do agree with his ideals.
This whole topic is based on a deep misunderstanding of Buddhist teachings, and who the Dalai Lama is. Even Siddhartha Gautama, the first Buddha, never claimed to be divine or anything more than just a monk. The current Dalai Lama is simply the 14th reincarnation of this man.
As for your criticism of His Holiness's actions, like shooting at falcons with an air gun, Buddhism does not axiomatize morality like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do. It is a path of questioning, open mindedness, and self improvement. I imagine he shot at those falcons because he was the reason those smaller birds were there - he was feeding them. But His Holiness does not have to defend his actions against you or anyone else. Buddhism is about critical thinking, and if someone decides to now follow him, then that's their prerogative. So is the point of this to bash a man who helps millions of people to better their lives through meditation? Or are you trying to denounce the tenets of Buddhism, i.e., avoiding suffering and attachment? His Holiness has never claimed to be anything more than just a monk. He is not divine, and so should not be held to super-human standards. He is allowed to think impure thoughts and have certain emotions. Detaching oneself from these feeling is a lifelong struggle, and I think it's something to be admired, not mocked.
I agree Dalai lama (or nobody else) can be judged for his beliefs, but Dalai Lama was also the head of Tibet government (he is till the head of the government-in-exile) and politicians are and should be judged by their actions.
Even Siddhartha Gautama, the first Buddha, never claimed to be divine or anything more than just a monk
He doesn't claim to be devine. But there is an area in the world where his word is viewed as law. And if he is not aware of that, the condemning of a sect of his religion can result in the public turning on people who believe in that part.
His Holiness has never claimed to be anything more than just a monk.
But he IS more than that. I would compare him to the pope in Christianity. He may not hold any divine power, but he might as well given the fact that many believe his word is the word of god.
So is the point of this to bash a man who helps millions of people to better their lives through meditation?
but Dalai Lama was also the head of Tibet government (he is till the head of the government-in-exile) and politicians are and should be judged by their actions.
You read of what Tibet was like when the Dalai Lama was in power. Is helping people to meditate all this nice old man has done?
His Holiness
HOLY
1. specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated: holy ground. 2. saintly; godly; pious; devout: a holy life. 3. entitled to worship or veneration as or as if sacred: a holy relic. 4. nspiring fear, awe, or grave distress: The director, when angry, is a holy terror.
When you consider someone holy, you put them a step below a devine being.
Dangit. I had a long response all typed out and then AG just crapped out on me. I don't feel like retyping it, so I'll just summarize.
But he IS more than that. I would compare him to the pope in Christianity. He may not hold any divine power, but he might as well given the fact that many believe his word is the word of god.
Comparing the Dalai Lama to the Pope is just a false analogy. What god does the Dalai Lama speak for exactly? This salient disanalogy I think severs the comparison.
but Dalai Lama was also the head of Tibet government (he is till the head of the government-in-exile) and politicians are and should be judged by their actions.
Your comparisons seem to be all over the place. Are we judging him as a politician or a religious leader?
You read of what Tibet was like when the Dalai Lama was in power. Is helping people to meditate all this nice old man has done?
Obviously that's not all he's done. I'm not sure what your getting at here. When the Dalai Lama was asked to head the Tibetan government, China was already in the process of invading. Any circumstances in Tibet cannot be ascribed strictly to him.
Also, you're equivocating on the definition of holy. Those definitions you gave do not exhaust the available definition. Someone can lead a holy life and not be considered divine.
But I think we might be talking past one another. Honestly, I'm just not sure what you're arguing. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama is a bad person? Or that he is a poor political leader?
I also feel like you're taking snippets of my argument that are not representative of what I'm getting at. For example, you take the phrase I use "His Holiness" and then give definitions of what holy is. This has nothing to do with my argument. You seem to acknowledge that by agreeing that he's never claimed to be more than a monk and then start trying to show that he is in fact something more than that.
So please explain what exactly you're trying to argue here.
Comparing the Dalai Lama to the Pope is just a false analogy. What god does the Dalai Lama speak for exactly? This salient disanalogy I think severs the comparison.
I knew the way I worded that comparison would come back at me. If I want to re-say that the way I meant it to sound it would beee.
There are places in the world where his word is the word. What he says goes.
I was not comparing him to the pope in the way that he speaks for a god, but in the power he holds over followers of his religion.
Your comparisons seem to be all over the place. Are we judging him as a politician or a religious leader?
We're judging him as himself. I see no distinction between the religious Dalai Lama and the politicial.
Also, you're equivocating on the definition of holy. Those definitions you gave do not exhaust the available definition. Someone can lead a holy life and not be considered divine.
You say the Dalai Lama is a simple monk, nothing more. I was attempting to illustrate that he is much more than that. Once again I did it in a bad way =P
Honestly, I'm just not sure what you're arguing. Are you saying that the Dalai Lama is a bad person? Or that he is a poor political leader?
I'm not arguing anything. I am saying that the Dalai Lama's image is not how he is in reality. He is not necessarily a bad person, but he ain't all that gread =P Some would argue he is a bad buddhist.
You seem to acknowledge that by agreeing that he's never claimed to be more than a monk and then start trying to show that he is in fact something more than that.
He has never claimed to be more than a monk. But he is. A simple monk is not a man who's word can take away the creditability of a sect of a religion in the eyes of his followers.
So please explain what exactly you're trying to argue here.
He ain't as great as people make him out to be. I'm pointing out his faults
Has he ever been?
Apparently yes. I've heard of him all over the media for a long time now. But I never heard of anything bad he did. I felt misinformed when I learned some of these things.
