lpetrich

I've seen some unflattering things about pre-Communist-China Tibet; stuff like Bertrand Russell once commenting that its monkish theocratic rulers had been "obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel to the highest degree", and that many Tibetans had been serfs on monastery land. Also that some previous Dalai Lamas had died under suspicious circumstances, and that some Tibetans would stick out their tongues to prove that they were not blue, because followers of Tibet's pre-Buddhist religion Bon were sometimes said to have blue tongues. (I'm doing this from memory)

And as big-name religious leaders go, the Dalai Lama is relatively un-obnoxious, though he has caused some controversy by rejecting one Tibetan Buddhist sect's favorite god as unworthy of worship.

Waning Moon Conrad

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Waning Moon Conrad

One hears all sorts of spectacular garbage about various things, Tibetan Buddhism included.

Tibetans are human. Humans are subject to greed. Power can definitely corrupt a person and religious authority is power in any society, let alone a theocracy.

The whole basis of Tibetan Buddhism is compassion and that is hammered home enough so that most people take it seriously.

Naturally you find the odd arsehole lurking about in Dharma centres, or prancing about all puffed up with some perceived spiritual status derived from their position as supreme answerer of telephones in the office or supreme emperor of looking after the tapes of Rinpoche's teachings or thrice holy empress of re-stocking the little bookshop.

Or puffed up wanker who tells you what tantra you should be practicing because he's practicing it and Lama Thingumywops is fantastic.

Or the same wanker who asks you what you think of Lama Thingumywops and when you say, "oh he's okay" he arrogates the right to get indignant and tell you what to think, "okay ?!?! Lama Thingumywops is incrrrrrrrrrrrredible!!!!!"

This is in the west now. How could it possibly be different in Tibet then or now?

On the other hand, some Lamas really are extraordinary and many Buddhists attending the dharma centres and retreats are genuinely motivated and compassionate, helpful to newcomers, learned, not spiritually snobbish at all, inclined to take dharma seriously but not to take themselves too seriously.

Buddhism doesn't have a dark side. Humanity has a dark side.

Flame away hardcore sceptics! I'll pop back to read but not necessarily to answer.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

Jabbersnacky

I agree with this statement. Anything philosophy, or Dogma can be used as a stepping stone for someone with desires, to have or feel, power over others.

I see no doctrine in the Christian bible that tells priests to diddle little children, yet they use the power provided by their dogma to take advantage of children. I have no doubt there have been Buddhist monks that were horrible people, It's not the fault of their belief system that has caused this, it is the fault of their humanity (or lack there of it).

Personally I would rather be lost in a monastery of Buddhist monks for eternity that stuck on an island with a bunch of Fundamentalist Christians for a month, the Dhammapada, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path
are far more peaceful, and inspiring guide than the Bible.

If it makes any diffrence to the convo. I've never met a nasty Buddhist, a few crazy ones yes, but nice as could be

Answerer

Well, as for me, I saw some extreme buddhists who wanted the world to become vegetarians without giving a damn to the would-be consequences.

Waning Moon Conrad

Wankers! And definitely not Tibetan Buddhists!

We have rituals where you musteat some meat and drink some alcohol. The meat represents devotion and the alcohol clarity. You don't get rolling drunk of course. And you don't gorge yourself on the meat either!

The meat eating is also in order to form a karmic connection with the sentient being that once wore the flesh you're eating. When you dedicate the merit of your practice, it gets direct benefit and is guaranteed a precious human rebirth - eventually at least - possibly as one of your disciples when you attain buddhahood although personally I would hope that no animal whose flesh I've eaten, no spider I sprayed because I'm arachnophobic and no ant I burned with a magnifying glass as a kid has to wait until I attain buddhahood! May they get there before me but if they don't, then of course I'll be at their disposal to teach and guide them.

And Gloryhole, thanks for your comments, I don't blame you one bit!

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Waning Moon Conrad ]</p>

raistlinjones

What "would-be consequences"? What possible harm could come from not eating animals? Aside from the rampant good health and the abundance of food, that is...oh, right, and the lack of horrible living conditions and painful deaths for a lot of animals.

luvluv

There's also the question of whether or not there would be enough food if you eliminated half of it. And vegetarianism is a priviledged faith. There are a lot of people in the world who don't get to decide what they eat, they have to eat what they can.

Ought Naught

Pardon? I thought that meat production was a much less efficient utilization of Earth's resources.

muon

That depends on the land in question. There is plenty of land that is useful only for grazing/pasturage, not agriculture.