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.
why does the Dalai Lama not want me to be Buddhist??
His Holiness states this in his teachings for some very pratical reasons. Firstly, if you all of the sudden state that you wish to become a Buddhist and your family is another religion this can cause more unhappiness for everyone. This is not the intent in the Buddhist teachings. My own family were surprised at first, but since then they have come to realise that I hadn't joined a cult that would treat me badly, but through my actions and my behaviour they have come to know what I believe as something truly beneficial to myself and others around me. In this I am very fortunate as not everyone's family and friends understand. Then who does? If you were Hindu, Muslim, Jew does everyone accept these leaders, or understand all the teachings in exactly the same way. They don't, but then this is why there is such diversity in our world. Sometimes it takes great patience for families and friends to understand a person's beliefs. There are also the teachings themselves. The understanding that we go from life to life, sometimes this is very difficult for western cultures to understand or accept. Then there are the many dieties that can be hard to understand. His Holiness is what you make of him nothing more. It all depends on your view of things in this life. If you feel he is a spiritual person then this is what he is, if you think that he is a great teacher then this is what he will be to you. If you feel he is the Bodhisattva of Compassion then this is how he will appear. He always says he is just a Buddhist monk and no one special. I know from the many classes I have taken from him that he is a good teacher and tries his best to be understanding. Everyone thinks and feels differently about religion. His gentle way of teaching and his compassion resonate in the things he says, and what he does. No matter what religion or non-religion you are these things are useful to listen to. I of course have my own view of who or what he is but that is not the point I wish to make. If you think that being Buddhist is beneficial then this is what you should do, you can take some of Buddhist information, some Christian or whatever to make you a better person in your own faith. What ever brings you happiness and peace in this life and does not cause harm is always beneficial. This is always a good thing.
Why should one consider the advise of HHDL ? There are plenty of other reputable teachers out there who are free from politics, Worldly concerns such as an intermix of politics and religion cause degeneration of Buddhadharma it is only an example to look on those who believe His Holiness advise to be infaliable and him to be a manifestation of Chenrezig and yet they forget his words are intertwined with the politics of the day, such advise would not be well spoken or well followed so one has to be able to discern his true intentions and meanings, For those unable to it is simple better to Ignore him.
1. If you want to find truth, you have to consider what wise men say. 2. Politics is nothing more than humans attempting to put order to life. 3. Politics is almost always intertwined with religion. Look at America. Look at Thailand. Look at every country I've ever been in. One always influences the other. 4. I never suggested he was infallible. Stop trying to cloud what I said. 5. Ignore is the base word of ignorant. Better to objectively consider someone's words, rather than remain ignorant.
He happens to be the only one in TB (or in all of Mahayana, possibly, if not all of Buddhism) who's travelling the world pontificating on a wide variety of subjects, meeting with heads of state, and being picked up and amplified by the media. This, plus he's very well read in the Buddhist classics of his tradition, and he exudes humility and kindness. This is why we listen to him.
Bingo! The Dalai Lama is both a religious figure and a political leader trying to keep and expand support for his government in exile. Being political means having to be very careful not to cause conflict with potential allies, especially ones with large populations that have strong religious beliefs of their own. Any statement supporting converting to Buddhism will cause a backlash across competing religions.
If that were the crux of it, he wouldn't teach at all in the United States. Buddhism is growing by leaps and bounds in North America, but he continues to teach. So the answer must lie elsewhere.
I've never met a pushy Tibetan Buddhist, so in my experience non-pushiness can't be written off as a political strategy. More like a religious or cultural norm.
Why should one consider the advise of HHDL ? There are plenty of other reputable teachers out there who are free from politics, Worldly concerns such as an intermix of politics and religion cause degeneration of Buddhadharma it is only an example to look on those who believe His Holiness advise to be infaliable and him to be a manifestation of Chenrezig and yet they forget his words are intertwined with the politics of the day, such advise would not be well spoken or well followed so one has to be able to discern his true intentions and meanings, For those unable to it is simple better to Ignore him.
I'm curious - in what instances do you find his dharma teachings different from other Tibetan Buddhist teachers'?
He happens to be the only one in TB (or in all of Mahayana, possibly, if not all of Buddhism) who's travelling the world pontificating on a wide variety of subjects, meeting with heads of state, and being picked up and amplified by the media. This, plus he's very well read in the Buddhist classics of his tradition, and he exudes humility and kindness. This is why we listen to him.
Why shouldn't Tibetans have a representative? Is it wrong for Archbishop Tutu to meet with heads of state?
I personally find it outstanding that along with all the sordid garbage that gets amplified by the media, occasionally men of peace get noticed as well.
I work for public radio--we are committed to fair and balanced coverage of new and politics. I am a Democrat. Are you saying intelligent people are not capable of doing the right thing in the right situation? In what way do you think the Dalai Lama has given Dharma teachings which differ in a bad way from, say, Lama Zopa Rinpoche or other Gelug teachers?
If anything, I find the Dalai Lama's teachings to be, in general, substantially less dogmatic and more ecumenical than other TB teachers; very often they are general teachings on peace and ethics. How is it that this is an unethical political move on his part, and what do you see as the unethical goal that he is striving for?
He happens to be the only one in TB (or in all of Mahayana, possibly, if not all of Buddhism) who's travelling the world pontificating on a wide variety of subjects, meeting with heads of state, and being picked up and amplified by the media. This, plus he's very well read in the Buddhist classics of his tradition, and he exudes humility and kindness. This is why we listen to him.
I think @Sile that you accidentally quoted the wrong post. It seems that you and compassionate_warrior agree?
Maybe you intended to echo and agree with him rather than contradict or rebut.
Sorry--I thought by "pontificating" Dakini was implying a negative view of what he does, and suggesting that he exudes humility and kindness as a way to hook people and get limelight (for said pontificating) and meetings with heads of state. "Pontificating" is generally pejorative.
We need "tones of voice" buttons as well as emoticons, lol; audicons?
1. the office or term of office of a pontiff. 2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff. 3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about the responsibilities of a good citizen? 4. to serve as a bishop, especially in a Pontifical Mass.
Yeah if we go by this definition I don't think the Dalai Lama is pompous. Quite the opposite. He is warm and playful and curious. And his answers to questions seem quite powerful
It might be argued that he is dogmatic as you can pretty much say any religion with a doctrine is dogmatic.
Pontiff. It's just a great word. Like something that would be made use of in Monty Python (or likely has). Pontiff. I wonder what the etymology is...(off to look it up).
pontiff c.1600, "high priest," from Fr. pontif (early 16c.), from L. pontifex, title of a Roman high priest (see pontifex). Used for "bishop" in Church Latin, but not recorded in that sense in English until 1670s, specifically "the bishop of Rome," the pope. Pontifical, however, is used with this sense from mid-15c.
he advises us to stay in the religion of our culture...why???
why? because the initiated buddhists are not telling you the entire picture or all the story - his path is to show you compassion and love and not to teach you everything Buddha said - it is not to tell you how it really is but rather to use the knowledge to lessen your suffering! The most compassionate things is to tell you to stay in your culture as that causes the least suffering to you - if you motivate yourself then so be it, noone is stopping you - the tendency has been for the west to view buddhism as this super-religion of serenity and peace etc etc... false expectations lead to more suffering.
Yes, I can see what you are saying here and just as any teacher I have chosen to study with has advised ... it is not about becoming a Buddhist, a Tibetan Buddhist or otherwise.
Comments
2. Politics is nothing more than humans attempting to put order to life.
3. Politics is almost always intertwined with religion. Look at America. Look at Thailand. Look at every country I've ever been in. One always influences the other.
4. I never suggested he was infallible. Stop trying to cloud what I said.
5. Ignore is the base word of ignorant. Better to objectively consider someone's words, rather than remain ignorant.
I've never met a pushy Tibetan Buddhist, so in my experience non-pushiness can't be written off as a political strategy. More like a religious or cultural norm.
I personally find it outstanding that along with all the sordid garbage that gets amplified by the media, occasionally men of peace get noticed as well.
I work for public radio--we are committed to fair and balanced coverage of new and politics. I am a Democrat. Are you saying intelligent people are not capable of doing the right thing in the right situation? In what way do you think the Dalai Lama has given Dharma teachings which differ in a bad way from, say, Lama Zopa Rinpoche or other Gelug teachers?
If anything, I find the Dalai Lama's teachings to be, in general, substantially less dogmatic and more ecumenical than other TB teachers; very often they are general teachings on peace and ethics. How is it that this is an unethical political move on his part, and what do you see as the unethical goal that he is striving for?
Maybe you intended to echo and agree with him rather than contradict or rebut.
We need "tones of voice" buttons as well as emoticons, lol; audicons?
1. the office or term of office of a pontiff.
2. to perform the office or duties of a pontiff.
3. to speak in a pompous or dogmatic manner: Did he pontificate about the responsibilities of a good citizen?
4. to serve as a bishop, especially in a Pontifical Mass.
Yeah if we go by this definition I don't think the Dalai Lama is pompous. Quite the opposite. He is warm and playful and curious. And his answers to questions seem quite powerful
It might be argued that he is dogmatic as you can pretty much say any religion with a doctrine is dogmatic.
c.1600, "high priest," from Fr. pontif (early 16c.), from L. pontifex, title of a Roman high priest (see pontifex). Used for "bishop" in Church Latin, but not recorded in that sense in English until 1670s, specifically "the bishop of Rome," the pope. Pontifical, however, is used with this sense from mid-15c.