Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nick Riviera · 09-27-2002, 07:32 AM

I am currently reading the book "His Holiness The Dalai Lama, In My Own Words". Although I agree with most of what he says in the book, there are some things I have trouble accepting. Maybe some Buddhists (or non-Buddhist) on this forum can help me understand his words.
My main problem occurs when he speaks of HIS people and HIS country.
I thaught that the ideas of Self and Me and Mine were nonexistent in Buddhism.
For example, the Dalai Lama says:

-"I have always envisioned the future of my own country Tibet..."
-"Tibet - an ancient nation with a unique culture and civilization - is disappearing fast. In endeavoring to protect my nationfrom this catastrophe..."
-"As long as I lead our freedom struggle, there will be no deviation from the path of non-violence."

Does anyone else have a problem with the use of these words? In saying things such as my nation or my people you are in essence distinguishing and therefore separating yourself from others. This is precisely what the Buddha taught should be avoided.
I feel that you should be equally concerned with the suffering of all peoples and of all nations and should not strive for freedom for
your country anymore than you would for someone else's. If there were no distinction between mine and yours, than this would not be an issue.

Also, I was surprised to read the following statement:
"I would dare to say that no people have suffered more since the Second World War; and their sufferings have not ended, they are continuing every day, and they will continue until the Chinese leave our country..."

There are two things I have a problem with here. One, he is comparing the Tibetan people to the rest of the world. It was Buddha that said one should not have thoughts of being inferior, superior, or equal to others, for this is a result of comparing yourself to and competing with others.
And Two, he is presupposing that Tibet would cease to suffer only if the Chinese leave. By saying that he seems to be judging the Chinese people.

I may be reading too much into his words and would love to hear differing points of view.
I really do respect the man and agree with many other things he has said, so I hope that someone could clarify these questions that I have about the Dalai Lama's choice of words.

Thank you.

roshan · 09-27-2002, 07:46 PM

i think that the dalai lama is correct in wanting the chinese to leave tibet.

i read an article written by an indian who visited tibet recently. he says that lhasa is now a big and modernized city. the chinese in lhasa have all the money and control the business, and they outnumber the tibetans 10 to 1. he tibetans on the other hand live in slums filled with dirt nd sewage, and they have jobs such as sweeping the streets etc. there are very few monasteries left, and the monks in them are fakes who have been planted by the chinese. when the tourist bus arives, they start debating philosophya nd doing other monkish activities, but when the bus leaves they stop.

its quite a sad thing.

monkey mind · 10-01-2002, 11:36 AM

I don't have a problem with him refering to the country he was born in has his country, or the people he is the leader of as his people.

It is true that the Buddha taught that the root of our problems is the fact that a part of our conciousness is a constant awareness of a self apart from others.

However, in order to function in this world, it is necessary for us to discriminate. This cup is good for tea, this cup good for juice. etc. How else could we interact with our environment?

I think what is meant is a complete non attachment to the self. And this is an extraordinary subtle, and difficult thing to achieve. The Dalai Lama is obviously made of flesh and bone, so we can appreciate that he views something as his.

Sarpedon · 10-02-2002, 04:35 AM

In the Pali Canon, someone confronts the buddha with the same kind of problem. The response is lengthy, and not a little tedious, but boils down to the fact that although the "self" (similar to freud's ego, the seat of selfish desire) has been destroyed, the body still exists, and is now inhabited by the buddha-consciousness. If the D.L. is enlightened (of which I have some doubts) then, although his ego is destroyed, his body is still around, and there is something pulling the strings. It would not be an ego, but there is a limit to the number of pronouns and reference words to talk about this, so he uses the usual ones, as the buddha did in the Pali Canon.

Nick Riviera · 10-04-2002, 06:35 AM

Your points are well taken monkey mind & Sarpedon. Thank you for helping me see it from another perspective.
Serpedon, you had stated that you have some doubt that the DL is enlightened. Can you elaborate?

Thanks.

Sarpedon · 10-04-2002, 07:13 AM

Oh, its nothing more than my usual mistrust of clergy. In my opinion, most high-ranking clergy people are insincere. Take Cardinal Law for example. That man obviously doesn't believe in Hell. As for the D.L. he is a relatively nice and harmless religious leader, though I cannot judge his sincerity. The man lived in a palace until the chinese kicked him out of it. The buddha lived in a palace until he was ready to seek enlightenment, then he went and lived in the woods.

muon · 10-04-2002, 10:33 AM

I don't think the Dalai lama has ever claimed to be enlightened. In fact, I think I saw an interview once in which he denied any claim to enlightenment.

monkey mind · 10-04-2002, 01:11 PM

i think enlightenment should be considered an entirely personal thing. rating other peoples enlightenment is useless. you can judge the effectiveness of the dalai lama's teachings without worrying about whether or not he's enlightened.

just a general statement, not critizing anyone here. i know i do it. i think that part of us thinks if we could find a perfectly "enlightened" teacher (of whatever practice or philosophy) then it would be easy street because we wouldn't have to do anymore thinking, just follow what they say. of course everyone here know that's not the way it works.

Answerer · 10-05-2002, 01:55 AM

Well, no truely enlightened person will claim himself to be 'fully awakened'. On the other hand, Dalai Lama might be speaking the truth as well. Somehow, I don't enjoy watching monks or lamas having involved with politics. There should be a clear cut between the secular and spiritual world. I guess that Dalai Lama should know this better than anyone else. Anyway, it appears that he doesn't wish to share anything with the publics regarding his thoughts.

monkey mind · 10-05-2002, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:
<strong>Well, no truely enlightened person will claim himself to be 'fully awakened'. On the other hand, Dalai Lama might be speaking the truth as well. Somehow, I don't enjoy watching monks or lamas having involved with politics. There should be a clear cut between the secular and spiritual world. I guess that Dalai Lama should know this better than anyone else. Anyway, it appears that he doesn't wish to share anything with the publics regarding his thoughts.</strong>

But a fully enlightened person wouldn't lie if asked would they?

I agree about the politics. Even a lay Buddhist shouldn't get too worked up about politics methinks.

[ October 05, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]</p>

09-27-2002, 07:32 AM	#1
Nick Riviera Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 10	Another question about the Dalai Lama (and some of the things he has said) I am currently reading the book "His Holiness The Dalai Lama, In My Own Words". Although I agree with most of what he says in the book, there are some things I have trouble accepting. Maybe some Buddhists (or non-Buddhist) on this forum can help me understand his words. My main problem occurs when he speaks of HIS people and HIS country. I thaught that the ideas of Self and Me and Mine were nonexistent in Buddhism. For example, the Dalai Lama says: -"I have always envisioned the future of my own country Tibet..." -"Tibet - an ancient nation with a unique culture and civilization - is disappearing fast. In endeavoring to protect my nationfrom this catastrophe..." -"As long as I lead our freedom struggle, there will be no deviation from the path of non-violence." Does anyone else have a problem with the use of these words? In saying things such as my nation or my people you are in essence distinguishing and therefore separating yourself from others. This is precisely what the Buddha taught should be avoided. I feel that you should be equally concerned with the suffering of all peoples and of all nations and should not strive for freedom for your country anymore than you would for someone else's. If there were no distinction between mine and yours, than this would not be an issue. Also, I was surprised to read the following statement: "I would dare to say that no people have suffered more since the Second World War; and their sufferings have not ended, they are continuing every day, and they will continue until the Chinese leave our country..." There are two things I have a problem with here. One, he is comparing the Tibetan people to the rest of the world. It was Buddha that said one should not have thoughts of being inferior, superior, or equal to others, for this is a result of comparing yourself to and competing with others. And Two, he is presupposing that Tibet would cease to suffer only if the Chinese leave. By saying that he seems to be judging the Chinese people. I may be reading too much into his words and would love to hear differing points of view. I really do respect the man and agree with many other things he has said, so I hope that someone could clarify these questions that I have about the Dalai Lama's choice of words. Thank you.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-27-2002, 07:46 PM	#2
roshan Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: philippines Posts: 72	i think that the dalai lama is correct in wanting the chinese to leave tibet. i read an article written by an indian who visited tibet recently. he says that lhasa is now a big and modernized city. the chinese in lhasa have all the money and control the business, and they outnumber the tibetans 10 to 1. he tibetans on the other hand live in slums filled with dirt nd sewage, and they have jobs such as sweeping the streets etc. there are very few monasteries left, and the monks in them are fakes who have been planted by the chinese. when the tourist bus arives, they start debating philosophya nd doing other monkish activities, but when the bus leaves they stop. its quite a sad thing.

10-01-2002, 11:36 AM	#3
monkey mind Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: canada Posts: 140	I don't have a problem with him refering to the country he was born in has his country, or the people he is the leader of as his people. It is true that the Buddha taught that the root of our problems is the fact that a part of our conciousness is a constant awareness of a self apart from others. However, in order to function in this world, it is necessary for us to discriminate. This cup is good for tea, this cup good for juice. etc. How else could we interact with our environment? I think what is meant is a complete non attachment to the self. And this is an extraordinary subtle, and difficult thing to achieve. The Dalai Lama is obviously made of flesh and bone, so we can appreciate that he views something as his.

10-02-2002, 04:35 AM	#4
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	In the Pali Canon, someone confronts the buddha with the same kind of problem. The response is lengthy, and not a little tedious, but boils down to the fact that although the "self" (similar to freud's ego, the seat of selfish desire) has been destroyed, the body still exists, and is now inhabited by the buddha-consciousness. If the D.L. is enlightened (of which I have some doubts) then, although his ego is destroyed, his body is still around, and there is something pulling the strings. It would not be an ego, but there is a limit to the number of pronouns and reference words to talk about this, so he uses the usual ones, as the buddha did in the Pali Canon.

10-04-2002, 06:35 AM	#5
Nick Riviera Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 10	Your points are well taken monkey mind & Sarpedon. Thank you for helping me see it from another perspective. Serpedon, you had stated that you have some doubt that the DL is enlightened. Can you elaborate? Thanks.

10-04-2002, 07:13 AM	#6
Sarpedon Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le Posts: 8,446	Oh, its nothing more than my usual mistrust of clergy. In my opinion, most high-ranking clergy people are insincere. Take Cardinal Law for example. That man obviously doesn't believe in Hell. As for the D.L. he is a relatively nice and harmless religious leader, though I cannot judge his sincerity. The man lived in a palace until the chinese kicked him out of it. The buddha lived in a palace until he was ready to seek enlightenment, then he went and lived in the woods.

10-04-2002, 10:33 AM	#7
muon Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,767	I don't think the Dalai lama has ever claimed to be enlightened. In fact, I think I saw an interview once in which he denied any claim to enlightenment.

10-04-2002, 01:11 PM	#8
monkey mind Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: canada Posts: 140	i think enlightenment should be considered an entirely personal thing. rating other peoples enlightenment is useless. you can judge the effectiveness of the dalai lama's teachings without worrying about whether or not he's enlightened. just a general statement, not critizing anyone here. i know i do it. i think that part of us thinks if we could find a perfectly "enlightened" teacher (of whatever practice or philosophy) then it would be easy street because we wouldn't have to do anymore thinking, just follow what they say. of course everyone here know that's not the way it works.

10-05-2002, 01:55 AM	#9
Answerer Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,956	Well, no truely enlightened person will claim himself to be 'fully awakened'. On the other hand, Dalai Lama might be speaking the truth as well. Somehow, I don't enjoy watching monks or lamas having involved with politics. There should be a clear cut between the secular and spiritual world. I guess that Dalai Lama should know this better than anyone else. Anyway, it appears that he doesn't wish to share anything with the publics regarding his thoughts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.