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 urges Christians not to convert to Buddhism
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_051121dalailama.shtml
Dalai lama urges Christians not to convert to Buddhism -21/11/05
By Fran Race
The Dalai Lama has urged Christians not to convert to Buddhism.
The controversial words were spoken by the spiritual leader of Tibet and the leader of the Tibetan Government in Exile at a conference entitled "Ethics for a New Millennium" in Edinburgh, Scotland this weekend.
Instead, the Dalai Lama urged Western Christians and Muslims embrace the teachings of compassion and peace that can be found in their own religious traditions.
"All major religions carry the same messages. Messages of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment and self-discipline. I have Muslim friends, Christian friends. All have these same values."
It's clear that we're a problem for him. So Be it.
0
Comments
Some of us have already given you our reactions to and understanding of HHDL's comments.
If what you are aiming at is to be disobliging towards him, it is not in his attitude towards Christians or any other religious group that ammunition can be found. His political stance or his conflict with NKT provide other avenues of criticism.
What are you talking about? He is urging people not to convert from Christianity. He has said on multiple occassions that he thinks people do so without really exploring the true depths of their religious tradition (and he discourages this). He also says that shifting from one religion to another can cause a lot of inner confusion & turmoil. Your statements indicate that he made this statement out of disdain for Westerners & Christians. Or that we somehow are inferior to non-westerners. Honestly, I would be careful to go further on this line of speculation, unless you can find some explicit statements which say these things, as it is not far off from slandering a Holy Man and Dharma brother.
_/\_
metta
My original link seems not to be working. Here is another one:
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=3,1964,0,0,1,0
The Dalai Lama was not talking to Xtians on this occasion. He was talking to the general public, in what was supposed to have been a general discussion of ethics. Edinburgh is a University town. His audience undoubtedly included Buddhist converts from Christianity. Although many of those people were in London at the time, demonstrating against talks between Hu Jin Tao and the PM, they undoubtedly got the good news later.
When the Dalai Lama made these comments, he degraded the status of every Western convert to Buddhism before his or her Xtian peers, neighbors, and family. Do you imagine that he did not know this when he did it?
It could also be said that he devided the peaceful Sangha, by distinguishing between those born Buddhist, and converts. That is one of the five grave offenses.
What I consider here is neither speculation nor slander. These are recorded facts, which you block with your unconscious instincts.
Please practice precious Buddhadharma.
BTW, Edinburgh is, indeed, a city with universities, and a population of around half-a-million. Larger and smaller cities have universities. Even the state of Texas has universities. Doesn't seem to prevent ignorance.
I am aware that the audience was the general public. That really doesn't change a thing about what I said. I do NOT agree that he disparaged the status of every Western convert, as he did NOT say anything about the status of Western converts. Sorry, you are projecting. And in doing so, you are slandering a High Lama & a wonderful human being. Nor is he dividing the peaceful Sangha. Accusing His Holiness of one of the five grave precepts is quite serious. You better provide some direct quotes from His Holiness about those who do convert & those who already have converted. Since you have not provided those quotes, then you are speaking without basis.
So, either prove your point with direct quotes or other specific evidence of such sentiments or quit it!
*grumble grumble grumble*
_/\_
metta
P.S.- While you're at it, could you please provide us with Sutta/Sutra references as to what is constitutes 'causing a division in the peaceful sangha'.
I suspect that an attempt to address this on the part of the Dalai Lama-- if that is what this is-- would arise from compassion, rather than anything else. Jumping from one place of misunderstanding to another is not a fruitful path. Isn't it sometimes better to keep working on understanding the place from which you started?
I think that the DK is OT on a thread about American Buddhism. He has nothing to do with it. Ask him. He'll tell you.
I also think that the actual words and actions of the DL, rather than cultic phantasies about a "Buddhist Pope" or "Tibetan God-King" are a valid basis of a thread. There seems to be some agreement about this. This is something like the 8th respose to a thread I started last night.
He has an agenda, and the transmission of the Buddhadharma to the West isn't it. You might consider noticing that, and you might consider getting used to it. It will be good for your practice to do those things. Trust me.
Who is "DK" and what is "OT"? Who is the "him"? If the "him" is the Dalai Lama, I can assure you, from personal experience, that his attitude towards Christians is one of respect and warm regard.
We are all agreed that his words are important, which is why I asked for a verbatim transcript and quotations rather than journalistic spin. Nobody here has used the nonsense expressions like "Buddhist Pope" or "God-King". These are outdated and erroneous designations given by early travellers to Tibet whose understanding of Tibetan socio-political structure was very limited. It has to be remembered that this not the first time that China has invaded, and that Tenzin Gyatso is not the first Dalai Lama to go into exile. For a very long time, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, Lhasa was a forbidden city. You may like to refer to the work of Mme Alexandra David-Neel.
It is true that His Holiness has a first responsibility towards his own people and has stressed that ever since his first pronouncements and writings. His first autobiography (1962) is entitled My Land and My People and is shocking in the lack of hatred towards the Chinese: "I believe it is one of the curses and dangers of the present age to blame nations for the crimes of individuals." [My Land and My People (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London. 1962) Words which have a crucial resonance today! Indeed, it could be argued that the Dalai Lama represents, even mythologised, the possibility of acting justly and ethically despite being a head of state or high political official. Another useful lesson to our own rulers.
Additionally, how do you envisage the transmission of the Buddhadarma taking place? Through words and books? Or through the lives and actions of those who try to follow the Noble Eighfold Path? St Francis' instruction about transmission of the Christ Gospel is true here, too: Spread the Gospel and use words only if no other way exists.
What other Buddhist do you know who has been so recognised as an advocate of peace and negaotiation as a road out of conflict? Has any other been so honoured and, despite the Murdoch empire, so reported worldwide?
It is my first reaction to trust, although my late half-brother only used to say "Trust me" when he was about to do or say something untrustworthy! This is, I hope, not true here. A number of us have asked you about your agenda. Harsh words about someone whom you know to be an important inspiration and is much loved square in what way with Right Speech?
Please understand that I am not attacking you personally. I am trying to understand why you hold such negative views about the Dalai Lama. My own experience of the man, limited to reading, hearing and a mere 45 minutes in private audience, admittedly, is of someone who is genuine, direct, loving, wise and smells of sweat.
You, once again, seem to be placing yourself on some higher plane of knowledge than us mere mortals.
A question, when His Holiness holds weeklong seminars on the 4 Noble Truths (of which I have a DVD copy), what is his agenda? Now, as I & others have mentioned, His Holiness is the secular leader of Tibet in Exile, so his primary public objective is to represent his people. Now, if you're saying his agenda is against spreading the buddhadharma, then I think you've got some work to do in proving it.
Now, honestly, this issue is entirely non-essential to our practice in one way or another, so I don't see how recognizing your assertion would do anything for us. And as far as trusting you & your opinion, I see no reason to do so. By what authority do you make such a statement? Do you have firsthand knowledge of some statements by HHDL? Or is this something you've realized now that you are meditating? Have you attained omniscience or the ability to read minds? If you've attained the supramundane paths, that's quite advanced.
Another question. Have you talked to your teacher about this? If so, have they encouraged you to go warning everyone about this?
_/\_
metta
Can I get an Amen?
So much for right speech. Damn
I just wish the Mormons and other fanatics in Mongolia would heed the Dalai Lama's example and leave the poor Mongolians alone! They've got enough problems. I think it's really refreshing to see a major world religious leader like the Dalai Lama not try to convert everybody, especially in a non-Buddhist country. Eh?
Palzang
Great responses everyone! You guys are smart.
Oops... I guess I meant Amen.
I couldn't agree more, Palzang. It's so nice to be a part of a religion where our only goal isn't to try and convert everyone else in this world and to just accept peoples differences. It's wonderful.
http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=22,2146,0,0,1,0
which I wrote myself, as a response to a reply to that article, which itself raised the concerns that you have expressed. I can do no more than direct you toward it, and urge you to read it.
A nice, sane comment, Padawan, about a really sane comment by HHDL.
In my conversations with Tibetan refugees in India and Canada, there is a oft-mentioned problem: they are seen as quaint. The 'quaintification' of Tibetan culture and Buddhism is everywhere: iconography used as decor, 'celebrity' converts and media hype. Whilst the world sees native Tibetans as latter-day 'sambos', to be patronised and lionised, the real pain of those living under the Chinese rule can be avoided, as can the vital strength of the spiritual tradition.
Palzang
Palzang
The last time I heard it used was in a sit-com in the UK called "Love thy Neighbour" about a white family living next door to a Jamaican couple... the wives were firm friends, but the menfolk were childish in their equal bigottry....
It could never, ever be shown now.....
always acting like little kids.. all of them
Where can one obtain a copy of that DVD with the Dalai Lama speaking on the 4 Noble Truths? Would love to see it.
I rented it on Netflix. I'm not sure what kind of stores carry it, but I'm sure you could find it somewhere.
_/\_
metta
If he says people shouldn't convert without investigating all sides, ok. I agree it's good to look deeper into other religions, I learned about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Thelema and other Occult traditions before finding Buddhism and realizing that it's how I want to live.
People put too much on what the Dalai Lama says like he really is some Tibetan God, he's just as he says, a simple monk (at least to me).
I think all he's trying to say is what the Buddha said before he passed into Parinirvana, 'work out your own salvation'.
sorry if i got a little confusing.
By the way, what's Thelema? Just curious.
Palzang
Thelema is also an initially fictional philosophy of life first described by François Rabelais (16th century) in his famous books, Gargantua and Pantagruel. The essence of this philosophy was summarized in the phrase "fay çe que vouldras" (Do what thou wilt), and this philosophy was later put into practice in the mid 18th century by Sir Francis Dashwood at Medmenham.
This Thelemic Law of Rabelais was revived by Aleister Crowley[5] in 1904 when Crowley wrote The Book of the Law, which contains both the word Thelema in Greek as well as the phrase "Do what thou wilt." From this, Crowley took Thelema as the name of the philosophical, mystical and religious system which he subsequently developed, which includes ideas from occultism, Yoga, and both Eastern and Western mysticism (especially the Qabalah). Thus Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, in speaking of svecchachara, a Sanskrit term which he considered the eastern equivalent of the term Thelema, wrote that "Rabelais, Dashwood, and Crowley must share the honor of perpetuating what has been such a high ideal in most of Asia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema
Palzang
I would not like to disagree with you or HH on this point, but just to point out that it is an exoteric point of view, and that it does not survive real practice, even in the Sutra school. I believe that the DL knew this at the time, but he probably was trying not to confuse his audience.
Previous Bishops of the Jodo Shinshu branch in Honolulu successfully negotiated (with the Honshu in Japan) the right to use the word "God" for Amida Buddha, when dealing with Western converts. In the Pure Land, we are most definitely relying on a Divine Person, without whose Great Vow, our practice would literally not exist. Where this differs from the Xtian point of view is that we do not consider the Person on who we rely to be our Creator God. That Creator idea is NOT the teaching of the Buddha. But that He exists as a Person for us cannot be denied.
In general, I do not agree with the Jodo Shinshu, but they were absolutely right, in the face of tremendous opposition from Asia, in several cases, and this is one of them.
In general, the Mahayana point of view is inclusive. It finally includes all beings, all practices, and all points of view, even those that may be Divine.
Are you saying that, for you, the Amida Buddha is a god? And in what sense do you use the term? You appear to exclude the notion of a creation god, which chimes with what HHDL says over and again, both privately and in public. What, then, does the god-ness of the Amida Buddha mean?
As one who keeps a very open mind about gods, sources of power and so on, I am always fascinated by the scope and reach of each aspect of the 'pantheon'. The more usual Buddhist take on the deities seems to me to be either that they are external manifestations of our own psyche or that they are so involved in their own happiness that they care nothing for impermanence or the swift passing of humans. Are you saying that the Amida Buddha is one who 'interferes' in human life, helping some but not others, depending on formulae and right practice?
First, the useage of the word "but" removes any value from the phrase that precedes it, and shifts validity to another clause. Yes, it does survive real practice. To say otherwise, is to deny the tenent of the observer having capability to discern threw one's own observations, and to imply that I have not really experienced what I have with my wife, family of origin, and members of my community of whom the majority are Fundamentalist Christians.
So, yes, you would like to disagree, and rather flagrantly at that.
Probably none of the above. You can be the author of a Path to Enlightenment without being a Creator. Such was the historical Buddha. Amida is considered the Sambhogakaya of Shakyamuni, and as such He never dies or passes away. He is always there in His Pure Land, and whenever we get through putzing around in this world of red dust, we can go to Him in His Pure Land. His power is as significant as that of the Xtian God; He has provided, through ages and kalpas of practice, the means for our Birth in His Pure Land, which is tantamount to Enlightenment because you can't do anything in the Pure Land but practice Precious Buddhadharma.
But all that does not imply that He created us. We arose spontaneously through the process of conditioned co-origination. (But I do not believe that this is equivalent to what the Darwinists believe; I think that the transmigration of consciousness is dependent on far more causes than 'natural selection,' but we won't go there right now, OK?)
The Xtian God-package is a product of their hard-wired mental preconditioning (i.e. it is not a product of any direct perception). They believe that if someone can save you, then that person must have created you to begin with. I think that it is futile to argue with Theists about this, but it just doesn't follow. Given human tendences altogether, and the state of the world as it exists, I think it is rather far-fetched, to say the least, to blame it all on a 'benevolent' God. The Buddha's beginningless ignorance (avidya) is a far more likely explanation from my point of view.
Again, I do not wish to disagree with you. Our paths are karmically determined, and yours may not be Buddhism, and I don't feel like that is a problem for either of us.
Your description of a "hard-wired mental preconditioning" is interesting but confusing. Are you suggesting that genetics or karma 'preconditions' a person to be an Abrahamist? And if such a 'hard-wiring' (please show me the wiring) results in belief in something that is "not a product of direct perception", how is it different with a belief in an invisible "Sambhogakaya" and a "Pure Land" which also cannot be directly perceived?
It is not different, which was my whole point going in. The Mahayana is inclusive.
It is, surely, apparent that a large number, if not a majority, of Buddhist practitioners choose not to believe in a 'god' in the sense of an intervening, external force which takes direct interest in and has metaphysical influence on human life.
Additionally, I remain puzzled by the mechanistic aspect of some Pure land beliefs. I also challenge your implied difference between the beliefs of Amida Buddhists and the Abrahamist, both of which assert unprovables.
Right Speech involves a prohibition on frivilous speech,
Right Mindfulness involves the cessation of frivilous mentation.
I don't think that it was part of the answer Si the Pi was looking for, either....
What is all this 'scrapping' anyway?
Check it out:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mentation
He will probably survive the shock.
Beats the deleted out of me. I'm having a perfectly civilized discussion of Buddhist practice. Perhaps it is over his head.
Cool! I looked it up, but obviously not as extensively as I thought! Thanks for that! I was concentrating on English/UK language dictionaries, and omitted the USA ones.... My bad.....
I am sure...it would take something far more seismic to unsettle him.... !
Doubt it's over his head....Not much gets past our Si.... still, let's all keep it civil....:)
I was just going to say that! There is truly not much that Simon "doesn't get".
I understand if my questions are a bit simple. They arise from his own comments on Christianity and Buddhism, and, of course, on HHDL whoim I respect very deeply and count as one of the teachers of my heart.
I would like the thread to stay on topic, that's all. I really do not have an agenda in this discussion, other than that. When it starts to stray to Xtianity and Theism in general, I start to lose interest. I think it's rather silly to be irritated at me for not entertaining those digressions. Please notice that I haven't aggressively disagreed with what you might believe in these non-Buddhist issues, I just fail to discuss them. That is the Buddhist tradition.
Frankly, I think that if you want real answers on things like Abramism, you will have to go to forums and threads where they are discussed by informed people of like mind, and I'm sure there are some.
You may be right to ascribe some irritation to me. I recognise that I find your mode of reply to be patronising and evasive. I have to accept that you are not going to reply to my genuine questions about what appears to be a theist/deist strand of Buddhism. I am not asking you to comment on the Abrahamic religions, although I notice that you do not deny yourself such remarks when it suits your position.
My own experience of what you choose to call "the Buddhist tradition" has been that my interlocutors, both lay and monastic, have been kind and accomodating in their readiness to teach a poor seeker.
To return, therefore, to the topic of the thread, how do you justify your assertion that HHDL does not teach the Dharma?
He teaches exoterically, and he does not transmit. That is not my opinion, it is the consensus of the American Sangha, a consensus which is reflected in the content of this thread.
Moderator, as the thread author, I ask you to now lock it. I think that further discussion will prove fruitless.