Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dalai Lama's views on the death of Bin Laden
Hi all,
I have seen that the Dalai Lama has given a talk this week. He spoke of the death of Bin Laden and has been quoted as saying
"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures" (source LA Times, and Daily Mail England plus others).
I'm quite surprised at his comment and am interested to know what people out there think about it. It's almost as if he's condoning revenge/anger as long as it's justified? I was of the understanding that the buddhist way of thinking is that anger/revenge/killing is not justified at all and it produces bad karma and goes against the practice of the eightfold path.
Look forward to hearing from you
B
I have seen that the Dalai Lama has given a talk this week. He spoke of the death of Bin Laden and has been quoted as saying
"Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures" (source LA Times, and Daily Mail England plus others).
I'm quite surprised at his comment and am interested to know what people out there think about it. It's almost as if he's condoning revenge/anger as long as it's justified? I was of the understanding that the buddhist way of thinking is that anger/revenge/killing is not justified at all and it produces bad karma and goes against the practice of the eightfold path.
Look forward to hearing from you
B
0
Comments
When he talked about how one must differentiate between action and actor, I think he meant that you can condemn an action (fx terrorism) and take counter-measures against future acts of terror. That could be by capturing the terrorist. When you have captured the terrorist, he should be treated with compassion. However, at times, you just don't have the opportunity to do the right thing if you want to stop a dangerous criminal.
This was a news story in my country too, and the headline wrote: "The Dalai Lama says that killing Osama could be OK". That's not what I see in his words. I think - even though I'm not a fan of DL - that his response was very wise.
This would be a good topic for a separate thread, and I seem to remember a number of those. This thread is about HHDL and Osama bin Laden.
I think another part of the answer is that life is not always simple.
news.yahoo.com/.../usattacksbinladendalailamatibet
www.indianexpress.com/news/nonviolence-cannot-tackle-terrorism
I think vinlyn you made an interesting point about whether we see the precepts as commandments or guidelines. I believe that they are to be taken as recommendations. And I know that there are lots and lots of precepts which in today's society, a lot of "modern" buddhists may not strictly adhere to (eg wearing perfume, singing etc!). However, killing has got to be the one and only precept we all most definitely should live by (Buddhist or not) as if it were a commandment no?
B
As far as wearing perfume and singing are concerned these are only forbidden to those who have formally taken the eight or ten precepts.
Most lay Buddhists don't take more than the five precepts which definately don't include anything about not wearing make-up/perfume or singing and dancing!
You can read about the precepts here:
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Precepts
kind wishes,
D.
If deadly force were going to be used against me, and my only alternative were to use deadly force in return, I would do it.
If, for example, a home invasion were taking place, and I had to use deadly force to save my family and me, I would do it.
Now, having said that, those are extremely rare occurrences. But, for me, the exceptions make the rule.
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war
As far as I can tell Buddhism was never about rules. Or at least not about externally-imposed rules. Imo it's about common sense too.
But more importantly the precepts are guidelines towards enlightenment. It's not a how-to on survival. You can't strive for enlightenment in the middle of a battlefield.
Still, killing Osama is sad. It may have been the most skillful choice available, but that does not make it a good one. It reminds me of the sutta where Buddha talks about how to consider our food... as though we are surviving on jerky made from our children. We do what we must, but do not revel.
A missile strike from an American military drone in a remote part of Yemen on Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric believed to be hiding in the country. ... The attack was part of a clandestine Pentagon program to hunt members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. ... The Obama administration has taken the rare step of approving Mr. Awlaki's killing, even though he is an American citizen. Although Mr. Awlaki is not thought to be one of Al Qaeda's senior leaders, he has been made a target by American military and intelligence operatives because he has recruited English-speaking Islamist militants to Yemen to carry out attacks overseas.
The precepts arn't rules, they are advice, if you break them then don't be surprised if your action results in suffering and unhappiness. If you follow them then again do not be surprised if you end up with happiness and reward. This how I interpret the precepts. So if you go around killing people, then expect bad consequences.
That's not true for everybody in the world. I notice we don't have any posts from Burma -- a nation that is overwhelmingly Buddhist. Perhaps because its military doesn't protect its citizens, but rather rules over them and prohibits their participation in such internet forums.
hmmmm, how should I put it........
rather...........
Buddhist! yea , rather BUddhist, that's it!
In my opinion the consequences of breaking precepts does not change because a person or a country think that they are doing it for the right reasons, even if the Dali Lama thinks other wise. I know and expect most people who are Buddhists know from experience that breaking precepts does not bring happiness.
I'll take that as a complement :thumbsup:
"I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy. But we can only judge whether or not a conflict was vindicated on moral grounds with hindsight. For example, we can now see that during the Cold War, the principle of nuclear deterrence had a certain value. Nevertheless, it is very difficult to assess all such matters with any degree of accuracy. War is violence and violence is unpredictable. Therefore, it is better to avoid it if possible, and never to presume that we know beforehand whether the outcome of a particular war will be beneficial or not."
this is dangerous to Buddhism
it is not the place of Buddhist monks to take political sides due to the worldly sufferings & concerns of puthujjanas
the role of a monk is to preserve & perpetuate the Dhamma for those seeking the end of suffering & liberation from the world
that the Mahayana has basically been wiped out in China, Tibet, Japan, etc, is due to their wrangling in politics (imo), mere karmic results of transgressing the Buddha's Vinaya (monks discipline)
when monks make Buddhism a political doctrine, they make enemies for Buddhism
once again HHDL's followers must enter into damage control over HHDL's verbal slips
the CIA, homosexuality, puritanical sex, Dorje Shugden, Osama Bin Laden...what next?
:wow:
However, this points out one of the problems that I see occasionally on this forum. Someone sees a video of a monk, or goes to a forest temple and hears a monk, or reads an article by a monk, likes it -- or doesn't -- and suddenly proclaims that particular monk is good or bad or terrible or wonderful. There is no consistently reliable filter.
in other words, your opinion is just that...moot
i trust your post suffers from the same judgement you are metering out
:coffee:
& yourself as your measure,
you dispute further down
into the world.
But one who's abandoned
all decisions
creates in the world
quarrels no more."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.12.than.html
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.11.than.html
how do we know as fact Bin Laden to be what the media says he is?
why did the USA invade Iraq using 9/11 as a cause?
is it mere co-incidence the USA once financed Bid Laden, whose family has close links to the Bush family?
why did it take the world's greatest superpower 10 years to find one man?
these questions are UNANSWERABLE
yet than Bin Laden was violently & unlawfully EXECUTED is a fact
imo, best the Dalai Lama avoid staining his robes with violent blood
He is just making the educated guess that none of us has 70 years as a Buddhist Monk, 40-some years as a scholar or spent decades on a monastic university. :-}
are you saying the Buddhist teachings are so vast they require 40 to 70 years to study, learn & practise?
or is he making uneducated assumptions & guesses, the same as you?
No. I actually disagree with him. Killing is a violation of the first precept. They should have arrested him and judged him for crimes against humanity. Same that happened with Pinochet (although hopefully faster and more effectively). Although he would probably need to be kept in an undisclosed location. Telling people he is dead would even be better.
"Are you saying the Buddhist teachings are so vast they require 40 to 70 years to study, learn & practise?"
I am saying his "flight-hours" qualify him as being knowledgeable on the subject. I am not saying being knowledgeable makes him enlightened, though.
"or is he making uneducated assumptions & guesses, the same as you?"
I leave that evaluation to your discretion.
OK. Now return to the subject of the thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/04/bin.laden.legal/index.html?hpt=Sbin
I just hate the fact that the media seem to sensationilise everything. for most people, just reading the headline about what HHDL said is enough to make some think that he advocates revenge or killing. There's obv a lot more to it than that! I suppose HHDL can't help how he's quoted by the press huh?
B
Nice clips DD which really get across some interesting and valid points about the Dali Lama and his involvement with the west and the kind of regime Tibet has now and used to have in the past. I agree with you DD, the Dali Lama should concentrate more on being a Buddhist teacher and practicing Buddha's teachings and less on meddling in politics and cosying up with famous and powerful people in the west, but then again it could be argued that the role of Dali Lama now and in the past has more to do with politics than it has to do with being a Buddhist teacher.
At the end of the day, if the Dali Lama really thinks that in some cases it is allright to kill a person, then he does not reflect what the Buddha taught on this matter. As I have said, the Dali Lama would find it unacceptable for himself to do it, so why would he find it acceptable for anyone else to do it ?
The whole matter of the planning, attack and events around Bin Laden's death is far from clear yet and we are engaged in a debate which may be of the highest ethical importance for the way we treat each other, divided into the fantasy of 'nations'. The question of whose word do we take extends from the factual to the moral. HHDL can shed light in some areas, the Pentagon in others: in the end, each of us must come to a personal conclusion by which we are prepared to stand. Ultimately, too, the umma, the sangha, the churches and so on may reach some sort of internal or fraternal consensus but I doubt that we shall ever be quite comfortable with assassination as a weapon of diplomacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Dalai_Lama#CIA_backing
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/02/world/world-news-briefs-dalai-lama-group-says-it-got-money-from-cia.html
a cannot believe someone with supposedly so much knowledge of Buddhist teachings could align himself with the CIA. :scratch:
The man is a CIA pawn. Him and Bin Laden had more in common than he'd care to ever concede.
Quite a while back I read a biography of FDR, although one of the most memorable segments in the book actually dealt with the mindset of President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was a Presbyterian. Okay, no problem. But what was a problem was that he, apparently, saw his actions as President as coming directly from God. And, in my view, that kind of perspective is very dangerous.
I don't want my President to say, "I am going to make my decisions based on the tents of the Presbyterian Church." I don't want him to say, "I'm going to operate based on the Old Testament." I don't want him to say, "I am going to make my decisions based on based on the Book Of Mormon." I don't want him to say, "I am going to make my decisions based on the Koran." I don't even want him to say, "I am going to make my decisions based on the Dhamma." I want him to balance international moral principles, international law, and other factors in fulfilling his most important responsibility -- protecting the sovereignty of the nation and protecting the American people...above all else.
Yes, based on a strict interpretation, he has broken the first precept. Just as there are people on this forum who harm living beings through eating meat, take things not freely given, participate in sexual misconduct, commit false speech, and drink and take drugs. All of us don't interpret Buddhist principles the same way. We don't even all agree what the Eightfold Noble Path and precepts are -- commandments or guidelines. We don't even all agree what karma is or how it works. Whether there is national karma, or not.
For those of you who want to give your sympathy and empathy to Osama Bin Laden, be my guest. It's your right...though he was clearly not in the right.
Also all I am saying is that the five precepts advise us of the consequences of breaking these precepts, if you break a precept then there are consequences, if someone wants to take on those consequences because of something they believe is for a "greater good", then that's their choice, but its still them that must face the consequences of their action, in my opinion.
If you stoop to the levels of your enemies you've been conquered. If murder isn't right for bin Laden, it isn't right for us. It really is that clear cut. America has conceded moral defeat here and it will only fuel and justify(in their minds) the actions of their terrorism and murder.
It's also worth pointing out that street celebrations and thirst for blood was only seemingly evident in America. Such scenes were absent from Europe and Australasia, who've been fighting the same war.
The bigger issue I have here is the Dalai Lama supporting American imperialism by proxy. As has been the case for a good while, and it's been documented. And it'ss also somewhat prevalent amongst posters in this thread, unfortunately! If somebody took out the main CIA building, would the people celebrating Bin Ladens death above, would they be celebrating the death of a far more dangerous and murderous organisation? Somehow I don't think so.