The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Dalai Lama - an impish monk > Comments

Dalai Lama - an impish monk : Comments

By Judy Cannon, published 26/4/2007

The Dalai Lama - how much is holiness and how much is man?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
It's interesting to note that a thread that involves the Dalai Lama invokes precious little response when compared to topics that feature Judaism, Christianity or Islam.

To me this is a clear indication that the Dalai Lama is a far greater religious figure than any Rabbi, Priest or Sheik. His Buddhist religion also appears to be of more benefit to the human race than the other three ego-manical and anti-human monotheisms.

Quite frankly, I can't imagine the Dalai Lama leading out in last nights suicide bombing in Kabala where innocent women and children were killed or use proactive and aggressive missionary tactics to convert a society that doesn't need or want to be converted.
Posted by TR, Sunday, 29 April 2007 1:43:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What does he do other than proclaim peaceful inaction as a virute?

Meanwhile here in the real world of blood and violence, corruption and crime, real people do good deeds everyday.

He's a religious pop star, nothing more nothing less.
Posted by Rainier, Sunday, 29 April 2007 2:06:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A True Fact, “People get the impression that love, compassion and kindness is religious. This is not a religious matter - it is a matter of humanity, whether you believe it or not.”

Yes, like many others I too am frustrated by the lack of social justice in Tibet and the way we are supposed to passively watch.

While I adore the Dalai Lama I never ever forget Buddhism evolved from a need to practice social justice, a social justice that is not taught - in modern times.

Extremes eh!

I feel the SELF in Western terms is too one way. Too individualistic, and while I see the need to meditate, for me it is to use that clarity for strength and thought about issues that need our attention, to grow and innovate action towards world change.

I am not surprised there are not more people commenting on this forum. Many of us have a high respect for the Dalai Lama and Buddhism but I am sorry to say the mass in this country that may practice Buddhism and, who get to go and see the Dalai Lama (are usually privilaged and) unfortunately do not contribute openingly to social or political actions, as advocates for others.

This I find extremely sad.

http://www.miacat.com
.
Posted by miacat, Sunday, 29 April 2007 8:39:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rainer, Miacat,

I think that what you describe as peaceful inaction is not well understood in us in the West. As I understand it, Buddhism says that it is from a point of stillness that right actions can be made. By contrast, from a point of mental/emotional confusion the results of actions are at best fortuitous and often negative. Meditative practice is about learning to remove my identity (ego) from any situation and becoming aware of my mental, emotional and sense experiences and how they bear upon me when I decide to take subsequent action (i.e. the impulse). This is the related to the concept of karma (which means action) which is about understanding how actions lead to (re)actions and further actions etc.; the past and the future hinging on the ever-present moment. It's not an intellectual exercise - it is something that is experienced, that can be observed. This is the liberation that is spoken of - to see things as they really are. So it is not about non-action so much as understanding when it right to act and when it is right to sit still. This is what we can learn from the Dalai Lama.

Regards
Posted by Ando, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 2:35:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am taking my two daughters to see the Dalai Lama when he visits next month as we did when he was last here. I can't really explain why I think it is so important but I just seem to know it is. Perhaps this is why there have been so few responses to this topic, maybe it defies an explanation. I thought part of it for me was to, in my own little way, stand up to the Chinese pressure on our government not to meet him, but on reflection even this reason seems to be demeaning to the man.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 19 May 2007 4:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ando, with respect, most people live in world where they do see things very clearly and know when to act - and do!

No need for me and others to sit under a tree and contemplate life via my inhaling and exhaling when its right there in front of me.

So this inaction is just an excuse never to get engaged and have lots of 'spiritual smoothy' explanations (exuses) on why inaction is chosen.

Existential, narcisistic, selfish inaction. That's all it is.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 19 May 2007 8:48:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I forgot to add: only 4 of his 23 lectures of peace are free.
The res are mostly corporate / business talks etcetera.

He's not here to spread the word, he's here to raise money.

How different is this from any other shonky motivational speaker circus?

http://www.dalailama.org.au/
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 19 May 2007 9:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
in response to Rainier;

I work for the Dalai Lama tour office and there is alot of confussion as to why the talks are ticketted.

Have you ever thought that it costs that much because we need to not only pay a hire fee for a number of stadiums (costing up to $40000 a day) but also transport costs, accomadation costs, and public liability insurance?
Along with this there is a number of other costs, security, cleaning staff(not everyone will work for free)

And just so you know the Dalai Lama makes NO money from the visit, all excess money after the tour is given to the Tibett goverment.

I hope I've cleared a few issues for you.

Kind Regards
Posted by QueenB, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 2:07:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Has anybody else seen the John Safron show where he conducts a man in the street quiz regarding comments about sexulity and asking if the comments came from the Pope or the Dalai Lama?

For those interested I found the following extract from the book
"Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses"
http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Dogma-Discourses-Dalai-Lama/dp/1556432186

"Something may be considered improper in terms of organs, time and place-where sexual relations involve inappropriate parts of the body or when they occur at an unsuitable time or place. These are the terms Buddhists use to describe sexual misconduct. The inappropriate parts of the body are the mouth and the anus, and sexual intercourse involving those parts of the body, whether with a man or a woman, is considered sexual misconduct; masturbation as well. As for when sexual intercourse takes place, if it is during the day, it is also held to be a form of misconduct, as is having intercourse with a partner who professes to certain principles such a sexual abstinence or celibacy, even if those vows are only temporary. To force someone to have intercourse also comes under the category of improper time. Inappropriate locations include temples, places of devotion, or positions where one partner is uncomfortable. A sexual act is deemed proper when the couple uses the organs created for sexual intercourse and nothing else. To have sexual relations with a prostitute paid by you and not by a third person does not, on the other hand, constitute improper behaviour. All these examples define what is and what is not proper sexual behaviour according to Buddhist morality. Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact. Is this clear?"

Not what I expected.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 7:44:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy