Dalai Lama supports US War

by Mordechai Fri Sep 19, 2003 10:53

are the most appropriate descriptions of James McKenna's original post. This characterization of Buddhism, is grotesquely inaccurate, if not in the realm of complete fantasy. Stick to the idiocies you know, JmK, don't try and indulge in new ones: You will just make yourself look even more idiotic than you usually do.

The Dalai Lama is one of the world's most admirable spiritual leaders, particularly in view of his espousal of non-violence, even if, as a political leader, he has not been effective in ridding Tibet of the Chinese invaders.

by pat c Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:21

But he is correct about the Dali Lama. Old Dali is a theocratic God King, the type of "Buddhism" he rules over is very much influenced by the worship of blood thirsty gods.

However, Buddhism per se is more of a mental discipline than a religion. In different countries different gods are associated with it. Some Buddhists worship no God. Its worth noting that when the Dali Lama made anti gay statements he was countered by other Buddhists who pointed out that the teachings of Buddha in no way encompasses discrimination.

The Dali Lama is the leader of a sect which has tacked Buddhism on to The "Bon" - an ancient Ancestral religion that rises out of the pre-Buddhist past of Tibet and also assimilated an eclectic bunch of deities into their cult.

by Raymond McInerney Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:59 raymond.mcinerney at ul dot ie

Here is a section from an article on the Dalai Lama over a year ago.

Dalai Lama criticizes U.S. war on terrorism, condemns use of violence

By ANGUS MCDONALD

DHARAMSALA, India August 29, 2002 (AP) -- The Dalai Lama criticized the U.S.-led war on terrorism on Thursday and said the use of retaliatory force would only lead to more suffering.

"Terrorism cannot be overcome by the use of force because it does not address the complex underlying problems," he said in a statement. "In fact, the use of force may not only fail to solve the problems, it may exacerbate them and frequently leave destruction and suffering in its wake."

He did not say what he meant by "underlying problems."

"The attacks on the United States were shocking, but retaliation that involves the use of further violence may not be the best solution in the
long run," he said from Dharamsala, the northern Indian city where he is based.

by Anonymous Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:04

Harsh words indeed on the poor old Dali Lama - albeit some of it may be correct.

Have ye read much of his stuff? I still believe his wisdom far exceeds the intellect of the likes of you or I - or of most people on the planet for that matter.

by Lone gunman Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:12

With his usual teneous links to anything anti American.I just LOVE his statement that the Chinese "liberated" Tibet.[I suppose that is PC speak for Invasion].
I think one of these days I am going to have to put together a series of "adventures" of James.
because this fellows thought and conception process is fasinating.

by simon Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:26

some people have too much time and too little sense. I dont see any support for war in his words. What I do see is that he accepts the fact that terrorism has complex sources that cant be dealt by hard force. Can James point out the said support for war.

You some how seem offended by the Dalai Lama calling Bin Laden a butcher. Are you allowing your opposition to the war turn you into a terrorist sympathiser. this whole claim reeks of ignorance and nonsense.

by Raymond McInerney Fri Sep 19, 2003 12:35

I haven't read much on the Dalai Lama, just a few articles from the web. However I have read a few books on Buddhism. Buddhism teaches the principle of 'action and reaction.'

The Dalai Lama should know that 'violence begets violence.'

by one god Fri Sep 19, 2003 13:55

would turn in his grave, if only he had one, at such nonsense, JmcK, you are a true nut.

by Anonymous Fri Sep 19, 2003 14:01

I've read a couple of his books and each page resonates with peace, love, understanding, forgiveness & compassion.

These concepts are at the core of his teachings.

by Maubere Fri Sep 19, 2003 16:06

Tibet may have been an oppressive place to live in but only the Tibetan can liberate themselves, do you really believe the Chinese govt invaded to free the people from the religous hierarchy???
if they wanted to free the people they they would allow elections and not rely on on some 18th century treaty signed between China and Tibet to justify their occupation,

by Peter the Wild Boy Sat Sep 20, 2003 16:39

jmck, you truly are. obviously a braindead stalinist/maoist drone. (once dogma enters the mind, all thinking ceases).

liberated? just like iraq.

have you ever been to tibet? or spoken to anyone who's been there? heard about the teror in the air? the way an entire culture was brutally crushed? the way an entire people are prevented by violent repression from practising their ancient and beloved religious culture? that it's illegal to even mention the name or existence of their spiritual leader?

have you ever met a tibetan? didn't think so. i met a few tibetan refugees in india. tibetans never ran in search of refuge from the lamas' regime, but they knew that if they wanted any kind of free and decent life for themselves and their families they had to run from the communist one. near mysore in southern india, i saw whole monasteries of refugee monks reestablished on new soil. and guess what? the lay people also settled all around the monasteries, by their own free choice, in a new country. they could have gone anywhere.

now, i ain't no fan of leaders or hierarchies, spiritual or temporal, but give me the dalai lama over some murderous maoist f**k any day. and more to the point, let those people live under a theocracy if that's what they want. i'm sure they know it wasn't perfect, but they know they could live their lives in relative peace and freedom under it.

and "buddhism is supremacist and... confirms the inequality of humanity"? your ignorance is truly awesome. the fundamental equality of men is one of the foundations of the buddha's teaching - that was why he rejected the indian caste system, and that is one of the reasons why buddhism represented such a fundamental break with hindu culture.

think for yourself. question authority. and don't presume things are true just because they fit in with your pathetic little stalinist worldview. schmuck.

by JMcK Sun Sep 21, 2003 09:58

Such negative emotional patterns dominating your minds!

Aum ni mani padme Aum

Chill out and accecpt the truth. It's a colourful and elaborate set of Emperors New Clothes.

Aum

by Anonymous Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:45

Wisdom, peace, love, understanding, forgiveness & compassion - nothing negative there James! : )

I've noted your last comment on the "Which way the revolution debate - Anarchism or Socialism" debate on:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60525&results_offset=40

You are at last, somebody who actually cares enuf about an argument & what they are saying to come back to it even after it goes down the newswire!!

When I reply i'll let you know.