Quote
shakti
Oh, so I guess you're not leaving us after all, Alchi!

"Failed. Just google “Dalai Lama Nazi” and see what comes up. "

"Failed?" Because many groups who I have nothing to do with agree with me that means I quoted something? Your arguing skills are poor, if existent at all. Show me where I quoted Shugden, Diamond Way, or the Chinese government. You can't, thus it is YOU have failed. Quite clearly to anyone with any sense of logic or rationality.

And keep repeating that someone on this board said "the Dalai Lama eats children for breakfast", maybe somebody will be stupid enough to believe you.

Dear Shakti, I couldn't leave you just yet.
My point is that appart from the groups you mentioned and yourself, you cannot find hard evidence backed up by scholarly work or at least investigations following thorough analytical methods which support your serious allegations against the DL.
You might dislike him for whatever reason, I have no problem with this but when you accused someone with many serious allegations then you must be able to back it up with facts No hearsay or internet rumours. It's only fair don't you think? We are not talking about a New Age guru selling fairy dust on Ebay.
The thing about eating children is my attempt to humour.
Sorry If I offended you.

Best,

This may be off-topic but I want to write it anyway, as I think it important in the context.

The religions of Asia are utterly unlike our modern western conception of Judeo-Christianity and this needs to be understood by any Christian converts to any Asian traditions, and by those who dabble a bit.

In these modern times most Christians see the universe as a benign creation of a benign god who wants only the best for his human children. This is because the beliefs have been continually and swiftly re-interpreted for the modern follower.

In all the ancient religions, both western and eastern, the universe is still viewed as something vastly indifferent to the machinations of the puny humans in it and the gods are variously evil, capricious, occasionally interfering in human pursuits, and sometimes granting of favours to humans--they are never viewed as benign or as on the side of humans to any great degree.
The gods can be viewed as anthropomorphic projections of all the many human foibles and traits, including the vicious and nasty power-seeking impulses of humans. The western anthropologists who study ancient beliefs view them this way, but that is through the lens of a western culture steeped in scientific truths.

The regular Asian 'worshiper', as opposed to priest, of these gods doesn't so much worship as 'propitiate' the gods--attempt to placate them, and that is because their cultural lens has previously lacked that scientific cultural grounding that we westerners take for so much for granted.
I think it a very confusing mistake to attempt to graft a western sensibility onto these these ancient religions for which we do not have the required cultural background and understanding.

Which is not to say that we cannot judge the promoters in the west of these ancient beliefs systems by our current western standards and understanding. They, after all, are attempting to influence our cultural understanding.

There is a biblical quote (apologies, I'm not very up on biblical quotes) that tells us something like "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" and another one about "giving to God what is God's due and to Caesar what is Caesars"
Like it or not, most westerners cultural heritage, that which forms their sensibility, is Judeo-Christian in origin and is greatly at odds to the eastern belief systems, the two are not generally compatible. The savvy promoters of these systems are aware of this incompatibility.

This should apply when considering the Asian belief systems that many are now adopting in the west.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2010 04:29PM by Stoic.

This may be off-topic but I want to write it anyway, as I think it important in the context.

"The religions of Asia are utterly unlike our modern western conception of Judeo-Christianity and this needs to be understood by any Christian converts to any Asian traditions, and by those who dabble a bit."


"In these modern times most Christians see the universe as a benign creation of a benign god who wants only the best for his human children. This is because the beliefs have been continually and swiftly re-interpreted for the modern follower."

This is also true of the major Asian religions or philosophies. No social events are « stuck » in the past they are always evolving either in the West or the East. I think you perceive what you describe as « ancient » as « primitive » which is incorrect. Also the major religions/ philosophies of Asia vary in « age ». Buddhism is « younger » than Judaism for example.
the Judaeo-Christian traditions and I will include Islam (which share its origins and most characteristics with the Jewish and Christian faith are centred around a god figure which shares these human qualities: intransigent, capricious, jealous etc… as depicted in the original texts, I am not saying that all modern followers are interpreting the Bible of the Qur’an literally but that is the nature of the God depicted in their central texts. These texts are also considered to be from divine origin. This is really different from Jainism, Buddhism, Taoism or Confucianism .

"In all the ancient religions, both western and eastern, the universe is still viewed as something vastly indifferent to the machinations of the puny humans in it and the gods are variously evil, capricious, occasionally interfering in human pursuits, and sometimes granting of favours to humans--they are never viewed as benign or as on the side of humans to any great degree."

This is a really general statement. I can’t really reconcile it with my knowledge of some Asian religions.

"The gods can be viewed as anthropomorphic projections of all the many human foibles and traits, including the vicious and nasty power-seeking impulses of humans. The western anthropologists who study ancient beliefs view them this way, but that is through the lens of a western culture steeped in scientific truths. "

Which religion do you have in mind? Hinduism? If it is then my comments will be Yes and No. Yes Hindu gods share human characteristics but this is only one aspect of a complex and multi layered system of beliefs. The sacrificial element is also crucial in all Vedic religions.
If you think of the wrathful aspect of some « deities » of the Tibetan Buddhist iconography. These can induce a lot of confusion if you don’t know their true meanings.

"The regular Asian 'worshiper', as opposed to priest, of these gods doesn't so much worship as 'propitiate' the gods--attempt to placate them, and that is because their cultural lens has previously lacked that scientific cultural grounding that we westerners take for so much for granted."

I have a problem with this. There’s no regular Asian worshiper. Asia is made of many different cultures and religions or belief systems. Lots of Asian nations share the same scientific heritage with the Western world. Think about Japan, modern India, Malaysia or China. Although some western cultures that some might think as « advanced » like in the US is a centre for orthodox Christian beliefs including Creationism. the history of modern science teach us that Asia had a great influence on the development of mathematics and modern medicine, as well as the Muslim Middle East. Scientific thinking and religion are not mutually exclusive, they can co-exist in the same culture, even in the same person. Some religions might be more open to scientific thinking than other, because their core views on the nature of reality is less rigid.

"I think it a very confusing mistake to attempt to graft a western sensibility onto these ancient religions for which we do not have the required cultural background and understanding."

The problem is not western sensibility or Eastern sensibility. The problem is mis-knowledge. You can deeply understand a culture which is not yours. It takes a bit of effort though. Although cultural difference are not as wide as one might think.

"Which is not to say that we cannot judge the promoters in the west of these ancient beliefs systems by our current western standards and understanding? They, after all, are attempting to influence our cultural understanding."

Alternatively our cultural understanding of the world might be enriched by outside views.
"There is a biblical quote (apologies, I'm not very up on biblical quotes) that tells us something like "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" and another one about "giving to God what is God's due and to Caesar what is Caesars"
Like it or not, most westerners cultural heritage, that which forms their sensibility, is Judeo-Christian in origin and is greatly at odds to the eastern belief systems, the two are not generally compatible. The savvy promoters of these systems are aware of this incompatibility."

This is a bit alarming. I don’t believe in cultural apartheid. To me it comes across as a deeply insecure and a really old fashion view of the cultural superiority of the West. I am sure it was not your intent.

Alchi:

Your last post is off topic.

The topic of this thread is "Doubts about the Dalai Lama" of Tibet, not religions.

Please stay on topic.

As previously posted on this thread, the Dalai Lama has supported groups called "cults," which has included Aum (Japanese group that gassed subway in Tokyo) and NXIVM.

See [www.cultnews.com]

The Dalai Lama received over $1 million dollars from Shoko Asahara (leader of Aum), who he considers his "friend."

It has been rumored that a big check from the Bronfman heirs may have persuaded the Dalai Lama to change his mind and show up for a controversial one-night lecture in Albany, New York.

See [www.cultnews.com]

He seems to shill a bit for money from questionable sources.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2010 10:45PM by rrmoderator.

Quote
rrmoderator
Alchi:

Your last post is off topic.

The topic of this thread is "Doubts about the Dalai Lama" of Tibet, not religions.

Please stay on topic.

As previously posted on this thread, the Dalai Lama has supported groups called "cults," which has included Aum (Japanese group that gassed subway in Tokyo) and NXIVM.

See [www.cultnews.com]

The Dalai Lama received over $1 million dollars from Shoko Asahara (leader of Aum), who he considers his "friend."

It has been rumored that a big check from the Bronfman heirs may have persuaded the Dalai Lama to change his mind and show up for a controversial one-night lecture in Albany, New York.

See [www.cultnews.com]

He seems to shill a bit for money from questionable sources.

Sorry but my last post was a reply to Stoic post which he said might be off topic. So I guess we are both off topic. Sorry.

The DL has already commented on Shoko Ashara and his visit to Albany.

Alchi:

Yes.

Both you and Stoic were off topic.

The Dalai Lama's comments in response to criticism about his apparent support of Asahara and NXIVM has raised more doubts about him.

His best response would have been to give the "cult" money back and renounce his involvement with these groups.

Frankly, in my opinion the Dalai Lama has lost some of his credibility by allowing himself to be used by "cult" groups.

Apologies for the off-topic post and for leading Alchi astray.

I tried to keep my off-topic remark very general as I did not want to get into a discussion of comparative religions, but did want to highlight the very different generalised worldviews which are stalemating this discussion.

In this instance I think that the Dalai Lama has deeply overestimated the extent to which western sensibilities will allow him free reign to dictate what is ethical and what is not. Westerners generally appraise their religious figures with a more critical eye than he is perhaps accustomed to. The fact that his public appearances attract a devoted following normally reserved for the celebrity of the moment probably encourages him to have an unstable view of the extent to which he can milk that fickle fame.

Tibetan Buddhism has been flavour of the month in new religions for some time and that is reflected in the way that the Dalai Lama has been lionised in recent times. These fads do wax and wane in the west though and he is unlikely to keep such a level of support and the clout it conveys for an extended period of time. There are already signs in the Tibetan Buddhist monastic community that they are increasingly looking for the hefty financial support they need from Taiwan and not the US and Europe, where financial support is rapidly dwindling.

Accepting donations from such shady types as Asahara and Raniere does not do much to support their cause in western eyes.

I have suggested in my off-topic post that this cultural collision stems from the different worldviews approaching the subject of donations and financial support. I was not suggesting in any way that humans, who are biologically and mentally equivalent the world over, should be judged according to the belief system that shapes their cultural heritage. They are, however, answerable to the accepted cultural standards of the society they are currently operating in.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2010 12:14AM by Stoic.

Stoic:

Accepting more than one million dollars from a cult leader like Shoko Asahara was stupid, to say the least, no matter what your worldview may be.

Compounding that stupidity the Dalai Lama allowed his name to be used to promote yet another purported "cult" NXIVM.

In my opinion the Dalai Lama exercised extremely bad judgment in both these instances.

Whatever culture you come from this represents serious mistakes/lapses in judgment.

Having said that, I don't receive complaints about the Dalai Lama regarding "brainwashing" or cult-like behavior, as I have NXIVM and other groups.

Nevertheless you would think a world leader like the Dalai Lama would go through much more due diligence and very careful consideration concerning any seeming endorsement and/or use of his name.

What are people to think?

Should the public see the Dalai Lama as someone that is essentially for sale, i.e. like celebrities that are paid to do commercial endorsements?

It seems that a Nobel Peace Prize winner should perform better than that.

rrmoderator,

I agree that the Dalai Lama did a remarkably stupid thing in accepting money from these cult leaders. He has compromised himself as an ethical person of good judgement by not returning those donations which are by any understanding money from a tainted source.

However he is revered as a reincarnated god-king by his own people and has a following in the west of westerners who are being encouraged to view him in the same uncritical light.

My original off-topic post was an attempt to underline this very different attitude towards the leaders in eastern religions and to point out that it does not bode well for western followers who are unaware of this difference. The Dalai Lama repeatedly says all the right things but his actions do not give the same message---and when those two are in conflict it is safer to believe the behaviour than the nice sweet words.

I am concerned that the western followers and supporters of the Dalai Lama do not fully understand what they are getting themselves into by adopting an uncritical view of him. Tibetan Buddhism is a tantric system which requires complete devotion for the guru from the follower, despite the Dalai Lama's insistence that criticism is acceptable.

I note that when badly behaving gurus are reported to him he says all the right things that westerners like to hear but takes no action at all to rectify the situation.

I think this stems from the very different cultural attitudes towards religious leaders in the east and west, in particular the widely accepted notion that the guru cannot ever be faulted, no matter what he gets up to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2010 01:35AM by Stoic.

Stoic:

Yes.

But for the record, no one has come forward with proof that the Dalai Lama accepted money through one of his charities for the NXIVM appearance.

This is the repeated rumor.

The money from Shoko Asahara has been reported though.

It's sad to seem a Nobel Peace Prize winner act this way.