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.
I'm not even sure Buddhism is even needed in the equation. Surely this is elementary morality and fundamental hypocrisy? With or without Buddhism most people recognise we failed in killing him.
...
1. Yes, what you're putting forth is "elementary morality". And most of us have found that the morality we were taught in elementary school didn't answer all of life's needs. For many of us, we learned it the first time the playground bully beat us up while still in elementary school. Life is complex, it is not elementary. The Golden Rule is still Golden, but occasionally it is a bit tarnished by reality.
2. And your source that "most people" recognize we failed in killing him?
I wouldn't say it's much of a serious statement at all. It's an accepted and widely held view amongst most of the worlds Left. He's a CIA agent -- the worlds largest terrorist network -- for gods sake lol. He's supported murderous tyrants the world over(Obama as a recent example)
I'm not even sure Buddhism is even needed in the equation. Surely this is elementary morality and fundamental hypocrisy? With or without Buddhism most people recognise we failed in killing him.
...
1. Yes, what you're putting forth is "elementary morality". And most of us have found that the morality we were taught in elementary school didn't answer all of life's needs. For many of us, we learned it the first time the playground bully beat us up while still in elementary school. Life is complex, it is not elementary. The Golden Rule is still Golden, but occasionally it is a bit tarnished by reality.
There's little symmetry in the situation. Bin Laden was in hiding and could have been captured, trialled and put in prison. Instead the blood thirsty Americans decided to kill him.
And my source for most people believing killing him was the wrong action comes from not living in America. Have you read any international media reports?
And my source for most people believing killing him was the wrong action comes from not living in America. Have you read any international media reports?
As is well documented elsewhere on this site, the Dalai Lama was on the CIA payroll from 1959 until at least 1974. He was provided with $180,000 per year as part of the US anti-communist propaganda efforts.
What recently declassified documents now reveal is that the US wanted to deploy the Dalai Lama in Vietnam as part of their anti-communist propaganda efforts there. On three separate occasions deploying the Dalai Lama is discussed at the highest level.
On 16 December 1964, General Maxwell D. Taylor suggests steps the Government of Vietnam might take, the first of these being:
‘1. Arrange for the Dalai Lama, his brother, or other Buddhist leaders from other countries to visit Vietnam to educate Vietnamese bonzes on the perils of Communism and their civil responsibilities.’
On 8 March 1965, Henry Cabot Lodge – the Presidential Consultant on Vietnam – gives 14 recommendations regarding Vietnam to President Johnson, recommendation number 10 is:
‘The Dalai Lama should be brought to Saigon as an object lesson of the dreadful things Communism does to high ranking Buddhist clergy.’
On 4 April 1966, Jack Valenti – the President’s Special Assistant – gave the advice to President Johnson about what might be done about the desperate situation in Vietnam. Amongst his advice was to:
‘Split the Buddhist leadership:
This has possibilities. There is no durable cohesion in the Buddhist leadership. Can we pit some of the leaders against Tri Quang? Can we use the Dalai Lama and Buddhists outside Saigon, Hue and Da Nang to our advantage?’
One of the main reasons for the American involvement in Vietnam was that successive President’s subscribed to the ‘Domino Theory’ which argued that if one country fell to communist forces, then all of the surrounding countries would follow. It was, and is still, commonly hypothesized that it applied to Vietnam. Whilst still a U.S. senator, John F. Kennedy said in a speech to the American Friends of Vietnam:
'Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam.'
The Dalai Lama didn’t visit Vietnam, but in November 1967 he visited both Japan and Thailand, two countries affected by the ‘Domino Theory’. These were his first trips outside of India since leaving Tibet in 1959, and he didn’t make another trip outside of India until 1972.
We know little about who he met and who he spoke to, what messages he passed on and for whom. In his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’, he says very little about these trips but does mention that they were at the height of the Vietnam war and that on the way into Thailand he flew alongside a B-52 bomber.
Could the Dalai Lama have been doing the bidding of his US pay masters? Or at least finding a way to combine their interests and his own?
Many people wonder if the Dalai Lama’s relationship with the US is the reason why he refuses to condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that many ordinary people – not considered ‘the Buddha of Compassion’- find it easy to disagree with.
Cosmic...it seems as if you have posted how the US government wanted to use the DL, rather than what the DL himself did. That's a lot different than your previous statement that, "He's a CIA agent."
Yes, I specifically used the word 'pawn' a few times for that reason. But the fact he doesn't know himself to be indoctrinated and a tool of terrorists isn't an excuse.
And if it is, then Bin Laden who fought the Soviets was an all round good guy... Plenty of people believe themselves to be fighting the good fight, being on the right side, when clearly that much isn't true.
So at worst the Dalai Lama is a horrible person, at best he's a brainwashed person supporting horrible people and governments.
Cosmic...it seems as if you have posted how the US government wanted to use the DL, rather than what the DL himself did. That's a lot different than your previous statement that, "He's a CIA agent."
Word. I would ask you for more direct sources, but that would be hijacking the thread. You seem to know that you really won't change the minds of anyone here who respects the DL, and it seems you've made your point as well as possible. Why don't we agree to disagree and get back to the thread?
Yes, I specifically used the word 'pawn' a few times for that reason. But the fact he doesn't know himself to be indoctrinated and a tool of terrorists isn't an excuse.
And if it is, then Bin Laden who fought the Soviets was an all round good guy... Plenty of people believe themselves to be fighting the good fight, being on the right side, when clearly that much isn't true.
So at worst the Dalai Lama is a horrible person, at worst he's a brainwashed person supporting horrible people and governments.
And the fact that you overstate things -- at least based on your posting of the "facts" -- is no excuse, either.
And how do you personally know he's "indoctrinated", rather than his opinions evolved?
If you support the CIA and American government you're either indoctrinated or evil. "evolved" certainly isn't a reason lmao.
Clearly both of you are letting your religious dogma get in the way of the facts here. Those facts being the Dalai Lama has willingly supported the slaughter and misery of millions with his cooperation and support of both the CIA and the American government.
That both of you are implying that being bankrolled by the worlds largest terrorist organization is acceptable, it's outright shocking.
If you support the CIA and American government you're either indoctrinated or evil. "evolved" certainly isn't a reason lmao.
Clearly both of you are letting your religious dogma get in the way of the facts here. Those facts being the Dalai Lama has willingly supported the slaughter and misery of millions with his cooperation and support of both the CIA and the American government.
That both of you are implying that being bankrolled by the worlds largest terrorist organization is acceptable, it's outright shocking.
In my view, you are clearly getting into wrong speech here.
You have a world view that I disagree with. Yet, I would never say that you have been "indoctrinated" by Al Queda or the Taliban. I have no evidence that just because your view seems pro-Al Queda to me that they indoctrinated you. That would be gossip. Wrong speech!
When did the DL undergo these "indoctrination" sessions? Who specifically conducted them? What is your evidence? You have none...at least none that you've stated thus far. Gossip.
Are you aware of the generally accepted definition of indoctrination? Are you aware of the generally accepted synonyms of indoctrination?
I have my problems with the leadership that the DL provided Tibet and the results. But you've gone way too far...in my view.
The DL has a right to have a view of the world, of Osama Bin Laden, and of his murder. Just as you do. Just as I do.
To be frank, your presentation is an attack on a person -- in my view -- that is all too similar to the way people like Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney operate...with no regard to right speech. It would be much better if you clearly separated facts from your opinions. Both are valid, but they need to be clearly labeled as such when you make such sweeping statements. IMO.
The Dalai Lama is first and foremost the political leader of Tibet. For him, nationalistic concerns have to take precedence over the spiritual. The US is the primary ally of the Tibetan government in exile. For the leader of that government to tell the US it fucked up by killing Bin Laden would be suicide.
If you support the CIA and American government you're either indoctrinated or evil. "evolved" certainly isn't a reason lmao.
Clearly both of you are letting your religious dogma get in the way of the facts here. Those facts being the Dalai Lama has willingly supported the slaughter and misery of millions with his cooperation and support of both the CIA and the American government.
That both of you are implying that being bankrolled by the worlds largest terrorist organization is acceptable, it's outright shocking.
In my view, you are clearly getting into wrong speech here.
You have a world view that I disagree with. Yet, I would never say that you have been "indoctrinated" by Al Queda or the Taliban. I have no evidence that just because your view seems pro-Al Queda to me that they indoctrinated you. That would be gossip. Wrong speech!
When did the DL undergo these "indoctrination" sessions? Who specifically conducted them? What is your evidence? You have none...at least none that you've stated thus far. Gossip.
Are you aware of the generally accepted definition of indoctrination? Are you aware of the generally accepted synonyms of indoctrination?
I have my problems with the leadership that the DL provided Tibet and the results. But you've gone way too far...in my view.
The DL has a right to have a view of the world, of Osama Bin Laden, and of his murder. Just as you do. Just as I do.
To be frank, your presentation is an attack on a person -- in my view -- that is all too similar to the way people like Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney operate...with no regard to right speech. It would be much better if you clearly separated facts from your opinions. Both are valid, but they need to be clearly labeled as such when you make such sweeping statements. IMO.
Okay, some facts:
The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments. The CIA are responsible for putting into power 100's of brutal dictators. The CIA are responsible for the death of millions. The American government is responsible for the death of millions. The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA. These are all facts.
The Dalai Lama supports both the CIA and the American government. Regardless of my intentions and whether I'm engaging in wrong speech, this is too a fact.
Your response is just another example of the outright hypocrisy that's plaguing this thread. If someone speaks truth about the Dalai Lama, America and the CIA, they're engaging in wrong speech. Yet, when the Dalai Lama supports the slaughter of millions through his subservience to the CIA and the American government -- well -- that's okay? We'll give him a pass. After all, me offending a few people on the internet is evidently much worse than being a CIA pawn and lapdog to America.
My attacks and views on the man are personal, of course. Are your views on Bin Laden not personal?
If you support the CIA and American government you're either indoctrinated or evil.
Consider speaking less and listening more, you might find some help evolving past such ugly and unskillful actions as your soap box posts.
Hypocrisy is pointing out the crimes of others while refusing to acknowledge your own. I'm not being criticized for the way in which I'm expressing my opinion, I'm being criticized for my opinion. Lets be honest here.
If I criticised Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and some token figure who supported and was bankrolled by both, there would be no issue.
My attacks and views on the man are personal, of course. Are your views on Bin Laden not personal?
No.
And somebody just needs to come out and say this- you're ranting. And you've hijacked the thread with your ranting. You made your point. Now please stop.
Is there a thread left to get back to?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
On March 10 of this year the Dalai Lama announced his retirement as Tibet's political leader.
I think we need to differentiate actions of the state and actions of the individual. The individual can take a vow of not killing and self sacrifice, but if a state does that, then the whole population will collapse and only evil forces will take over.
So the person as a head of the state or organization or even as a member of it has a role to play dictated by the situations. By the very nature state has to be stern and more powerful than individuals who can destroy the state or people. If killing is necessary, it has to be done. Not doing so will betray the society. Of course state decisions must be sober, for the collective good of the people for whom alone the state exists and must be based on norms and sense of justice.
Buddhist precepts are for individuals and for individuals only. Not even for the family unit. That is my take.
The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments. The CIA are responsible for putting into power 100's of brutal dictators. The CIA are responsible for the death of millions. The American government is responsible for the death of millions. The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA. These are all facts.
The Dalai Lama supports both the CIA and the American government. Regardless of my intentions and whether I'm engaging in wrong speech, this is too a fact.
Your response is just another example of the outright hypocrisy that's plaguing this thread. If someone speaks truth about the Dalai Lama, America and the CIA, they're engaging in wrong speech. Yet, when the Dalai Lama supports the slaughter of millions through his subservience to the CIA and the American government -- well -- that's okay? We'll give him a pass. After all, me offending a few people on the internet is evidently much worse than being a CIA pawn and lapdog to America.
My attacks and views on the man are personal, of course. Are your views on Bin Laden not personal?
Can we say "hyperbole"?
"The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments." There are only 195 nations in the entire world. Only 120 of those 195 nations are democracies. Therefore, we can't have overthrown "hundreds of Democratic governments".
"The American government is responsible for the death of millions." Millions????? Show me some evidence that the number is in the millions.
"The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA." Again, hyperbole.
Supporting the CIA and American government does not equal indoctrination.
Yes, and I clearly present my views on Bin Laden as being my personal opinions, not based on the Buddhist canons.
I think we need to differentiate actions of the state and actions of the individual. The individual can take a vow of not killing and self sacrifice, but if a state does that, then the whole population will collapse and only evil forces will take over.
So the person as a head of the state or organization or even as a member of it has a role to play dictated by the situations. By the very nature state has to be stern and more powerful than individuals who can destroy the state or people. If killing is necessary, it has to be done. Not doing so will betray the society. Of course state decisions must be sober, for the collective good of the people for whom alone the state exists and must be based on norms and sense of justice.
Buddhist precepts are for individuals and for individuals only. Not even for the family unit. That is my take.
Very interesting post. I hope it generates a number of responses. Thank you.
The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments. The CIA are responsible for putting into power 100's of brutal dictators. The CIA are responsible for the death of millions. The American government is responsible for the death of millions. The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA. These are all facts.
The Dalai Lama supports both the CIA and the American government. Regardless of my intentions and whether I'm engaging in wrong speech, this is too a fact.
Your response is just another example of the outright hypocrisy that's plaguing this thread. If someone speaks truth about the Dalai Lama, America and the CIA, they're engaging in wrong speech. Yet, when the Dalai Lama supports the slaughter of millions through his subservience to the CIA and the American government -- well -- that's okay? We'll give him a pass. After all, me offending a few people on the internet is evidently much worse than being a CIA pawn and lapdog to America.
My attacks and views on the man are personal, of course. Are your views on Bin Laden not personal?
Can we say "hyperbole"?
"The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments." There are only 195 nations in the entire world. Only 120 of those 195 nations are democracies. Therefore, we can't have overthrown "hundreds of Democratic governments".
"The American government is responsible for the death of millions." Millions????? Show me some evidence that the number is in the millions.
"The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA." Again, hyperbole.
Supporting the CIA and American government does not equal indoctrination.
Yes, and I clearly present my views on Bin Laden as being my personal opinions, not based on the Buddhist canons.
You're misunderstanding the word Government. Government and country are two separate things. Government and nation are two separate things. You're also assuming a present time frame. Tens of thousands of governments have come and gone in the last century.
Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 by himself! Pinochet killed a good 10,000, tortured 500,000 more. Jorge Rafael Videla slaughtered 30,000. Suharto killed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND!!! And you can really go on and on like this. Millions is a conservative estimation. In reality that number is probably in the tens of millions.
And the American government IS responsible for the suffering of billions. America is the chief promoter of Capitalism, Capitalism forces the majority into poverty and suffering.
So yes; support for the CIA and the American government absolutely equates to indoctrination. No freely educated individual would support such disgusting and vile, murderous, oppressive tyrants and terrorists. The only support comes from evil people who know this is going on, or people such as yourself(and I don't mean to offend) who haven't been taught this, or have been told over and over that America is some great beacon of freedom and Democracy.
I imagine if you knew of the above you wouldn't support the American government or the CIA. Or at least I'd hope not!
These are not conspiracy theories. It's observable and documented fact. The CIA are criminals and the US government bow to corporations and bankers.
The topic of the thread is HHDL's view on Bin Laden and his capture. It's not a tribunal for judging HHDL for any perceived transgressions during his long career. Anyone interested in pursuing that topic is welcome to start a new thread.
HHDL made his statements re: Bin Laden's death as a spiritual leader, not as temporal leader of Tibet.
NOT THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAD TOPIC (please start another thread), but HHDL was on the CIA payroll after arriving in India, when the CIA trained tibetan guerrilla fighters in the vain hope of retaking TIbet. That was a long time ago. It's over. Move on.
Hypocrisy is pointing out the crimes of others while refusing to acknowledge your own. I'm not being criticized for the way in which I'm expressing my opinion, I'm being criticized for my opinion. Lets be honest here.
If I criticised Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and some token figure who supported and was bankrolled by both, there would be no issue.
If you spat venom and hatred for any concept or phenomena, I would offer the same advice. I am neither concerned or impressed by your opinions. I notice venomous words, clear hatred, sweeping general statements, polarized thinking... yes, but is doesn't ripen as distaste for you in my mind.
My suggestion to stop speaking and listen more was because in my view, doing so, for you, would be a step toward right action. I have metta for you, and know painful it can be in a mind full of the patterns you exhibit.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2011
In Political circles it's been known that the Dalai Lama sold his soul. This may be a surprise to Buddhists, but anyone with a general interest in Political issues will know this mans views have long been untrustworthy and tainted. He's the wolf in sheep's clothing if there ever was.
The man is a CIA pawn. Him and Bin Laden had more in common than he'd care to ever concede.
Agreed. Either provide definitive, written evidence, or retract the statement. This is potential slander and as such, not acceptable.
Much of it is also Bullshit, by the way....
Edit: late to the thread, I see @Lincoln has already made a comment.
HHDL made his statements re: Bin Laden's death as a spiritual leader, not as temporal leader of Tibet
Why do you believe that?
Simple. He anounced 2 months ago he's stepping down from his position as temporal ruler of Tibet. He's washing his hands of politics. The only thing delaying making it official is that the Tibetan parliament has refused to create the separate post of President that HHDL requested. He's working on persuading them to move in favor of democratization.
Legal or not, from a Buddhist point of view, it was wrong, for me there is no question about it.
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 Dalai Lama doesn't think it's alright to kill someone, at least not in this instance. That was a false interpretation of his words the US press gave. This was already clarified earlier in the thread, please see the statement from the Dalai Lamas office provided on page 1 of this thread.
The Dalai Lama agrees he shouldn't be involved in politics, and he has devoted so much of his time to being a Buddhist teacher, against the recommendations of his doctor, that his health has been adversely affected. It isn't physically possible for him to "concentrate more on being a Buddhist teacher", he already has a grueling lecture schedule, and he's in his 80's. HHDL announced his resignation from politics months ago, and has been talking of his retirement as temporal ruler for many years.
He anounced 2 months ago he's stepping down from his position as temporal ruler of Tibet. He's washing his hands of politics.
As we've discussed here several times, this move is motivated by nationalistic concerns. If Tibet were to continue with its present naive succession scheme it would expose itself to manipulation by China suborning lamas in the TAR to appoint an impostor Dalai Lama (as they presumably already did with the head of the karma kagyu school.) Your observation actually supports the proposition that for the DL, political imperatives outweigh the spiritual.
Oh gosh, this thread is long! I haven't read it but the topic makes me go aha! In Smile at Fear, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche talks about sometimes having to kill an enemy as a very real part of life.
The thing about it is, there's no right and wrong. In an objective sense, anyway. There's only "right" and "everything else" in any given moment, in my opinion. There's the one right path that we know in our hearts. And sometimes that means turning the other cheek. Sometimes it means killing a man. The thing to remember is that none of it involves hate. I don't hate Osama Bin Laden. I do not wish for him to burn in Hell as a lot of people in America are saying. I don't celebrate his death. But I also don't condemn killing him. Chogyam Trungpa says that to kill an enemy you must have a big heart, a very big heart. To recognize, perhaps, someone's neurosis, someone's karma, your own karma, the great perfection and all the pain we experience as a part of that. About keeping an open heart even to that last moment.
So I believe the Dalai Lama's quote (from the top of this thread,) is brilliant and I'm very glad he said that. Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. It just means that even if you feel it's right to take counter measures, you still maintain that place of a big heart and compassion. Otherwise you might call it "idiot compassion," rolling over. Nothing is really just as it seems. The only one who knows what they do, and if it's right, is the person doing it. And that is a very unnerving way to live. (I'm not that great at it... yet.)
for the DL, political imperatives outweigh the spiritual.
This is your interpretation. Why would you assume that he doesn't consider both his roles equally?
Oh gosh, this thread is long! I haven't read it but the topic makes me go aha! In Smile at Fear, Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche talks about sometimes having to kill an enemy as a very real part of life.
The thing about it is, there's no right and wrong. In an objective sense, anyway. There's only "right" and "everything else" in any given moment, in my opinion. There's the one right path that we know in our hearts. And sometimes that means turning the other cheek. Sometimes it means killing a man. The thing to remember is that none of it involves hate. I don't hate Osama Bin Laden. I do not wish for him to burn in Hell as a lot of people in America are saying. I don't celebrate his death. But I also don't condemn killing him. Chogyam Trungpa says that to kill an enemy you must have a big heart, a very big heart. To recognize, perhaps, someone's neurosis, someone's karma, your own karma, the great perfection and all the pain we experience as a part of that. About keeping an open heart even to that last moment.
So I believe the Dalai Lama's quote (from the top of this thread,) is brilliant and I'm very glad he said that. Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. It just means that even if you feel it's right to take counter measures, you still maintain that place of a big heart and compassion. Otherwise you might call it "idiot compassion," rolling over. Nothing is really just as it seems. The only one who knows what they do, and if it's right, is the person doing it. And that is a very unnerving way to live. (I'm not that great at it... yet.)
Thanks, Cristina, for bringing the thread back on-topic.
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:
I certainly agree with you on this one and the long list at the end. A Buddhist monk or nun should not be engaging in politics like this. When a monk or nun engages in politics and religion they can't do a good job of either. It would have been best for him to have remained silent.
The role of clergy is to comfort and provide guidance to those in pain. HHDL was doing his job as a spiritual guide. Comments about Tibet's history, sex, etc. have no relevance to this thread.
Here is another statement by HHDL, provided hours after the events of 9/11. Speaking again, as a man of the cloth. www.wildnesswithin.com/dalai.html
"80% of my time is spent in the spiritual field". "I'm not a politician. My main concern [in that regard] is preservation of Tibetan culture, Tibetan spirituality."
My goodness, the Dali Lama smiling while holding a Fox news mug, his judgement is worse than I thought !
:hair:
Fox News isn't all bad. Glenn Beck is good comedy.
Well one thing is for sure some things Bill O'Reilly comes out with certainly makes me laugh, and then cringe and then become silent with disbelief, and then I switch it off :rolleyes:
There are so many things I admire about USA. Then I watch fox news, & its supposed to be the most popular news network. Then, I think to myself........ Well, there's always the dark side of the moon....
The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments. The CIA are responsible for putting into power 100's of brutal dictators. The CIA are responsible for the death of millions. The American government is responsible for the death of millions. The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA. These are all facts.
these statements are very far from facts. They are assertions. You believe them to be true. That doesn't mean they are, therefore, true.
The Dalai Lama supports both the CIA and the American government. Regardless of my intentions and whether I'm engaging in wrong speech, this is too a fact.
that is more or less true. I also support the US government and, by extension, the CIA. Neither the US government, the CIA or the Dalai Lama are purely evil. The US government and the CIA definitely do evil things from time to time. They are not a single person with a single will and a single purpose. They are a collection of people through time and their purposes and goals are various. Both have done very good things in the past and continue to do very good things RIGHT ALONG BESIDE all the bad things they do. I have no idea if the Dalai Lama has done bad things. Being human I have to assume that he has. I also know he has done very good things. I also know he gets a bad smear job from time to time that doesn't seem to have any foundation in fact but seems to be founded in "he wasn't nice to somebody I like."
Your response is just another example of the outright hypocrisy that's plaguing this thread. If someone speaks truth about the Dalai Lama, America and the CIA, they're engaging in wrong speech.
they are wrong speech because you don't know them to be true. You assert them to be true. They are wild generalizations about very complex people and entities. If nothing else, they are unfair.
Alright, enough with the CIA/FOX etc. stuff and back to topic please. I don't want to see any more pointing fingers and making this a political/conspiracy thread. If anyone wants to answer any of the former posts, PM the poster. Thank you.
This is your interpretation. Why would you assume that he doesn't consider both his roles equally?
I just gave you a reasonably cogent argument based on the fact that changing the succession scheme makes no sense from the DL's spiritual perspective (it will undermine the credibility of the rebirth cosmology the current scheme is based on, which Tibetan Buddhists seem to think is spiritually valuable) but makes a lot of sense politically. In addition, a number of people in this thread have pointed out that a national leader such as he is must put politics ahead of spiritual concerns at times or risk the destruction of the subject nation. The Tibetans have already had a couple of spectacularly painful object lessons regarding this principle. And I outlined the political imperatives which would dictate a supportive response from the DL regarding the assassination of Bin Laden, namely that the US is a key ally in Tibet's struggle with China. It's a much simpler and more plausible argument than the ethical somersaults which have been speculated upon in this thread. Why don't you address these reasoned arguments instead of lazily dismissing them as mere interpretation?
I don't believe HHDL spoke in (what's left of) his political role, as I've stated before. I believe he spoke in his role as spiritual guide. And btw, the succession scheme for the Dalai Lama as spiritual leader of the Tibetan people wouldn't necessarily be changed by separating his political function from the spiritual role.
Comments
2. And your source that "most people" recognize we failed in killing him?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517837,00.html
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/13373
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12804
http://www.straight.com/article/dalai-lamas-links-to-cia-still-stir-debate
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-vietnam-war/
The man is a pawn of America and the CIA and I wouldn't touch him with a 10 foot barge pole. Unfortunately he'll probably see a pass on here.
And my source for most people believing killing him was the wrong action comes from not living in America. Have you read any international media reports?
What recently declassified documents now reveal is that the US wanted to deploy the Dalai Lama in Vietnam as part of their anti-communist propaganda efforts there. On three separate occasions deploying the Dalai Lama is discussed at the highest level.
On 16 December 1964, General Maxwell D. Taylor suggests steps the Government of Vietnam might take, the first of these being:
‘1. Arrange for the Dalai Lama, his brother, or other Buddhist leaders from other countries to visit Vietnam to educate Vietnamese bonzes on the perils of Communism and their civil responsibilities.’
On 8 March 1965, Henry Cabot Lodge – the Presidential Consultant on Vietnam – gives 14 recommendations regarding Vietnam to President Johnson, recommendation number 10 is:
‘The Dalai Lama should be brought to Saigon as an object lesson of the dreadful things Communism does to high ranking Buddhist clergy.’
On 4 April 1966, Jack Valenti – the President’s Special Assistant – gave the advice to President Johnson about what might be done about the desperate situation in Vietnam. Amongst his advice was to:
‘Split the Buddhist leadership:
This has possibilities. There is no durable cohesion in the Buddhist leadership. Can we pit some of the leaders against Tri Quang? Can we use the Dalai Lama and Buddhists outside Saigon, Hue and Da Nang to our advantage?’
One of the main reasons for the American involvement in Vietnam was that successive President’s subscribed to the ‘Domino Theory’ which argued that if one country fell to communist forces, then all of the surrounding countries would follow. It was, and is still, commonly hypothesized that it applied to Vietnam. Whilst still a U.S. senator, John F. Kennedy said in a speech to the American Friends of Vietnam:
'Burma, Thailand, India, Japan, the Philippines and obviously Laos and Cambodia are among those whose security would be threatened if the Red Tide of Communism overflowed into Vietnam.'
The Dalai Lama didn’t visit Vietnam, but in November 1967 he visited both Japan and Thailand, two countries affected by the ‘Domino Theory’. These were his first trips outside of India since leaving Tibet in 1959, and he didn’t make another trip outside of India until 1972.
We know little about who he met and who he spoke to, what messages he passed on and for whom. In his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’, he says very little about these trips but does mention that they were at the height of the Vietnam war and that on the way into Thailand he flew alongside a B-52 bomber.
Could the Dalai Lama have been doing the bidding of his US pay masters? Or at least finding a way to combine their interests and his own?
Many people wonder if the Dalai Lama’s relationship with the US is the reason why he refuses to condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that many ordinary people – not considered ‘the Buddha of Compassion’- find it easy to disagree with.
And if it is, then Bin Laden who fought the Soviets was an all round good guy... Plenty of people believe themselves to be fighting the good fight, being on the right side, when clearly that much isn't true.
So at worst the Dalai Lama is a horrible person, at best he's a brainwashed person supporting horrible people and governments.
And how do you personally know he's "indoctrinated", rather than his opinions evolved?
Clearly both of you are letting your religious dogma get in the way of the facts here. Those facts being the Dalai Lama has willingly supported the slaughter and misery of millions with his cooperation and support of both the CIA and the American government.
That both of you are implying that being bankrolled by the worlds largest terrorist organization is acceptable, it's outright shocking.
You have a world view that I disagree with. Yet, I would never say that you have been "indoctrinated" by Al Queda or the Taliban. I have no evidence that just because your view seems pro-Al Queda to me that they indoctrinated you. That would be gossip. Wrong speech!
When did the DL undergo these "indoctrination" sessions? Who specifically conducted them? What is your evidence? You have none...at least none that you've stated thus far. Gossip.
Are you aware of the generally accepted definition of indoctrination? Are you aware of the generally accepted synonyms of indoctrination?
I have my problems with the leadership that the DL provided Tibet and the results. But you've gone way too far...in my view.
The DL has a right to have a view of the world, of Osama Bin Laden, and of his murder. Just as you do. Just as I do.
To be frank, your presentation is an attack on a person -- in my view -- that is all too similar to the way people like Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney operate...with no regard to right speech. It would be much better if you clearly separated facts from your opinions. Both are valid, but they need to be clearly labeled as such when you make such sweeping statements. IMO.
The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments. The CIA are responsible for putting into power 100's of brutal dictators. The CIA are responsible for the death of millions. The American government is responsible for the death of millions. The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA. These are all facts.
The Dalai Lama supports both the CIA and the American government. Regardless of my intentions and whether I'm engaging in wrong speech, this is too a fact.
Your response is just another example of the outright hypocrisy that's plaguing this thread. If someone speaks truth about the Dalai Lama, America and the CIA, they're engaging in wrong speech. Yet, when the Dalai Lama supports the slaughter of millions through his subservience to the CIA and the American government -- well -- that's okay? We'll give him a pass. After all, me offending a few people on the internet is evidently much worse than being a CIA pawn and lapdog to America.
My attacks and views on the man are personal, of course. Are your views on Bin Laden not personal?
If I criticised Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and some token figure who supported and was bankrolled by both, there would be no issue.
And somebody just needs to come out and say this- you're ranting. And you've hijacked the thread with your ranting. You made your point. Now please stop.
Is there a thread left to get back to?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/10/us-india-dalailama-idUSTRE7290UK20110310
So the person as a head of the state or organization or even as a member of it has a role to play dictated by the situations. By the very nature state has to be stern and more powerful than individuals who can destroy the state or people. If killing is necessary, it has to be done. Not doing so will betray the society.
Of course state decisions must be sober, for the collective good of the people for whom alone the state exists and must be based on norms and sense of justice.
Buddhist precepts are for individuals and for individuals only. Not even for the family unit. That is my take.
"The CIA are responsible for overthrowing hundreds of Democratic governments."
There are only 195 nations in the entire world. Only 120 of those 195 nations are democracies. Therefore, we can't have overthrown "hundreds of Democratic governments".
"The American government is responsible for the death of millions." Millions????? Show me some evidence that the number is in the millions.
"The American government is partly responsible for the suffering of billions, as is the CIA." Again, hyperbole.
Supporting the CIA and American government does not equal indoctrination.
Yes, and I clearly present my views on Bin Laden as being my personal opinions, not based on the Buddhist canons.
Saddam Hussein killed 200,000 by himself! Pinochet killed a good 10,000, tortured 500,000 more. Jorge Rafael Videla slaughtered 30,000. Suharto killed FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND!!! And you can really go on and on like this. Millions is a conservative estimation. In reality that number is probably in the tens of millions.
And the American government IS responsible for the suffering of billions. America is the chief promoter of Capitalism, Capitalism forces the majority into poverty and suffering.
So yes; support for the CIA and the American government absolutely equates to indoctrination. No freely educated individual would support such disgusting and vile, murderous, oppressive tyrants and terrorists. The only support comes from evil people who know this is going on, or people such as yourself(and I don't mean to offend) who haven't been taught this, or have been told over and over that America is some great beacon of freedom and Democracy.
I imagine if you knew of the above you wouldn't support the American government or the CIA. Or at least I'd hope not!
These are not conspiracy theories. It's observable and documented fact. The CIA are criminals and the US government bow to corporations and bankers.
Edit - Couldn't edit my previous post
HHDL made his statements re: Bin Laden's death as a spiritual leader, not as temporal leader of Tibet.
NOT THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THREAD TOPIC (please start another thread), but HHDL was on the CIA payroll after arriving in India, when the CIA trained tibetan guerrilla fighters in the vain hope of retaking TIbet. That was a long time ago. It's over. Move on.
My suggestion to stop speaking and listen more was because in my view, doing so, for you, would be a step toward right action. I have metta for you, and know painful it can be in a mind full of the patterns you exhibit.
Either provide definitive, written evidence, or retract the statement.
This is potential slander and as such, not acceptable.
Much of it is also Bullshit, by the way....
Edit:
late to the thread, I see @Lincoln has already made a comment.
Consider it seconded.
The Dalai Lama agrees he shouldn't be involved in politics, and he has devoted so much of his time to being a Buddhist teacher, against the recommendations of his doctor, that his health has been adversely affected. It isn't physically possible for him to "concentrate more on being a Buddhist teacher", he already has a grueling lecture schedule, and he's in his 80's. HHDL announced his resignation from politics months ago, and has been talking of his retirement as temporal ruler for many years.
The thing about it is, there's no right and wrong. In an objective sense, anyway. There's only "right" and "everything else" in any given moment, in my opinion. There's the one right path that we know in our hearts. And sometimes that means turning the other cheek. Sometimes it means killing a man. The thing to remember is that none of it involves hate. I don't hate Osama Bin Laden. I do not wish for him to burn in Hell as a lot of people in America are saying. I don't celebrate his death. But I also don't condemn killing him. Chogyam Trungpa says that to kill an enemy you must have a big heart, a very big heart. To recognize, perhaps, someone's neurosis, someone's karma, your own karma, the great perfection and all the pain we experience as a part of that. About keeping an open heart even to that last moment.
So I believe the Dalai Lama's quote (from the top of this thread,) is brilliant and I'm very glad he said that. Forgiveness doesn't mean forget what happened. It just means that even if you feel it's right to take counter measures, you still maintain that place of a big heart and compassion. Otherwise you might call it "idiot compassion," rolling over. Nothing is really just as it seems. The only one who knows what they do, and if it's right, is the person doing it. And that is a very unnerving way to live. (I'm not that great at it... yet.)
Here is another statement by HHDL, provided hours after the events of 9/11. Speaking again, as a man of the cloth.
www.wildnesswithin.com/dalai.html
:hair:
if violence under certain circumstances is justified
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/dalailama/interview.html
Thanks, Z.
Then I watch fox news, & its supposed to be the
most popular news network.
Then, I think to myself........
Well, there's always the dark side of the moon....