The mother of all backahnded compliments for the Dalai Lama

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...lai-lama-tibet

I read this editorial and, I have to say, I was a bit shocked by the cheek of it.

I'll leave you to read it yourselves, but I thought the final sentence was particualrly trite and also vicious.

My impression is "average".

I don't really understand where you found shock and cheek...

Primarily in the part where they laud him for being a cultural and religious symbol for a culture and religion they then pour scorn upon.

Well, Buddhist Tibet pretty much was a caste-based theocracy in which the majority of power was held by a religious elite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Well, Buddhist Tibet pretty much was a caste-based theocracy in which the majority of power was held by a religious elite.

---

Indeed. I don't see how it's an attack on Dalai Lama to state the obvious....

Quote:

---

In the process, he has established that Tibet is no longer merely a country, still less a region of China. It now seems more like a nation. The difference is that a country can be annihilated in a single battle or written out of existence in an afternoon at a conference table. Nations are very much harder to extinguish.

---

I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I really, really have no idea what to make of it. Allthough he's well-known internationally he has practically no influence in Tibet itself for the simple reason that China doesn't allow his views to be published there. And if by "nation" he means "a cultural grouping", he's probably right. But the Chinese are pretty succesful so far in watering it down; both by demographic influxes of Han chinese and by repressing their culture and language generally.

---

I was more mindful of:

Quote:

---

Much of what he believes and teaches is absurd to modern ears. But he is still a world figure: a man who stands for nonviolence and the disinterested pursuit of truth in a way that no other religious leader manages to do.

---

and:

Quote:

---

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral this afternoon.

---

From which I take:

"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"

I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.

The article also goes so far as to say that we only think Buddhism is less corrupt because we don't understand it and it's exotic.

If such things were said about any major Western religious leader or politician they would not be published in a mainstream newspaper, not under the cloak of flattery at any rate.

Wasn't the current Pope's Hitler youth membership in newspapers?
Child molestation rings attributed to Catholic priests and nuns? That the Catholic church has actively covers it up and not assisted authorities until secular authorities had reams of damming proof? Haven't all this been published?

Add to it all the press coverage Islam gets.

Then all the kool aid drinkers, hate preachers, anti-abortionists who murder doctors etc etc

And you think Buddhism is being singled out by pointing out factual information? Or is it the snide my system is better then your system remarks that reek of colonial supremacy that is annoying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Wasn't the current Pope's Hitler youth membership in newspapers?
Child molestation rings attributed to Catholic priests and nuns? That the Catholic church has actively covers it up and not assisted authorities until secular authorities had reams of damming proof? Haven't all this been published?

Add to it all the press coverage Islam gets.

Then all the kool aid drinkers, hate preachers, anti-abortionists who murder doctors etc etc

And you think Buddhism is being singled out by pointing out factual information? Or is it the snide my system is better then your system remarks that reek of colonial supremacy that is annoying?

---

It's the snide remarks, especially the one I quoted, not the factual bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

"Look, I know he's a wiedo but he's basically a nice guy and after he dies the Tibetan diaspora will probably be all secular - like us!"

I call that more than a little offensive, and infantile.

---

The guy who wrote that also mentions that the Dalai Lama espouses all sorts of odd beliefs. I think his point was that the current Dalai Lama has done so much for the "Free/Autonomous Tibet cause" that any successor will pale in comparison. So from his perspective, the next Dalai Lama will simply be another cleric, albeit the highest one.

What puzzles me is is the writer seems to praise him for his achievements. From what I know the Dalai Lama is a good guy, but basically never managed to achieve anything for his own people. Tibet's sinification proceeds as we speak. In contrast, a person like Nelson Mandela was a good guy and managed to influence things for the better for his own country.

I mean, seriously:

Quote:

---

The Dalai Lama himself has managed the very difficult transition of Tibetan exile politics from a theocracy towards something very much like a proper democracy.

---

i guess the cheek is in this comment:

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion

Big hitter, the Lama.

Besides, the institute of the Dalai Lama isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by Mongol rulers in order to offset the influence of other tribal groups in Tibet. So there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Besides, the institute of the Dalai Lama isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by Mongol rulers in order to offset the influence of other tribal groups in Tibet. So there.

---

Similarly the institute of the "So there" isn't really Buddhist in origin, it was created more-or-less by the way seeking mind in order to offset the one-upmanship of other tribal groups in an online discussion. So here.





This space intentionally left shunyata.

So quoth the master.

Kanjizai bosatsu gyou jin hannya haramita ji shouken gon kai ku...

I am lost in my own thread.

It's like discovering some twonk has hidden your car keys.

Kurando resurrected the thread by taking issue with the term "so there" and is taking the piss. No idea what Hax is saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Even if his successor is chosen by the Chinese, the 14th Dalai Lama may have left as his legacy a nation that has no need of a 15th. That's real progress in religion, for which he deserves to be honoured in St Paul's Cathedral this afternoon.

---

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

---

Nope it's a religion. Philosophy's don't have monastaries priests and monks. Or belief in spiritual evolution and divination.

Quote:

---

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

---

Please refrain from assuming. It's probably the other way around, it's a religion with a lot of philosophical aspects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Please refrain from assuming. It's probably the other way around, it's a religion with a lot of philosophical aspects.

---

Name one buddhist god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Philosophy's don't have monastaries priests and monks.

---

They have priests?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Or belief in spiritual evolution

---

Seneca rings a bell? Proficientes and such. Unless you mean reincarnation, then you should probably look to Plato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

Name one buddhist god.

---

Actually Buddhist Gods are the same as Hindu Gods. If viewed in today's context, Buddha was what one would call a Hindu, before he received enlightenment/true knowledge and started preaching his ideas and it took shape of a religion.
Buddhism is more like a....offshoot of Hinduism (although that's putting it very...loosely) as far as I've always understood it. Over the years customs and practices changed and got moulded according to region.

Edit:
Another similar religion is Sikhism. They have no deities of their own. Only ten gurus who preached their own ideas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

Buddhism isn't even a religion but a philosophy and a way of life.

---

Look upthe word "etnocentric", and please reconsider your statement.

Religious concepts are different in the west and in the east. Buddhism(and confusianism, taoism, etc) is of course a religion, but it is different from the abrahamists religions(and the extinc euro religions as well). Not just in preaching, morals and rituals, but the very concepts are different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Look upthe word "etnocentric", and please reconsider your statement.

Religious concepts are different in the west and in the east. Buddhism(and confusianism, taoism, etc) is of course a religion, but it is different from the abrahamists religions(and the extinc euro religions as well). Not just in preaching, morals and rituals, but the very concepts are different.

---

I suggest you look up "ethnocentric" yourself. Buddhism does not conform to the defition of a "religion" and slapping a Latin word on it simply serves to obscure its alienness.

The closest you could come to describing it would be to say it is between a philosophy and a belief system - but that does not make it a "religion". For one thing, it is not about the individual's relationships half so much as about the sense of self and if I recall the Buddha himself was distainful of those who clung to such primitive concepts as "Gods".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I suggest you look up "ethnocentric" yourself. Buddhism does not conform to the defition of a "religion" and slapping a Latin word on it simply serves to obscure its alienness.

---

I am not surprised that it does not conform to *your* definition of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I am not surprised that it does not conform to *your* definition of religion.

---

Why are you trying to put a Western lable on it?

It doesn't need one.

Edit:

Come to think of it, I have no idea what you mean. I can think of at least three possible meanings, and so I can't respond.

Calling Buddhism a "religion" is innapropriate, because it has almost none of the peculiar charactaristics of a "religion" as it is understood in the West and Near East - insisting on calling it a religion is an attempt to fit it into a mental catagory which is anachronistic.

Calling it a "philosophy" is also wrong - because a philosophy is a way to find truth, and Buddhism is clearly more than that.

Using it to bait me RE: "*your* definition of religion" is pointless.

Buddhism is not a religion - I do not say that to cheapen it as a way of thinking or a belief system, but merely as a recognition that it is unlike anything we generally call a religion.

Quote:

---

Name one buddhist god.

---

Well, okay: Ebisu, Daikokuten, Benzaiten, Hotei, Fukurukoju, Jurojin, Bishamonten, Kichijioten, Shojo, Marishiten, Sanmen Daikoku.

Any other questions?

Buddhism is as much a religion as Hinduism - not saying they are similar, just emphasizing on the broad meaning of the term "religion".:shrug: