Dalai Lama and Dorje Shugden

[Kevin Solway]

The Dalai Lama's karma is coming to fruition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aboblx-0zAs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1dILwsmwCQ

He's only got himself to blame for all this, since he has been instrumental in creating a whole religion full of mindless sheep.

Of special significance to me, was in part 2, where the interviewer said, "I've seen it with my own eyes", and the Dalai Lama replied, "No . . . I think it's rumours."

If this is right, then the Dalai Lama is living in a total dreamworld, and has much further yet to fall.

[Carl G]

As the videos are now nearly 11 years old, I wonder how much further he has fallen.

[Kevin Solway]

Good point. Ok, so let's just hope that his karma is starting to come to fruition.

[Dan Rowden]

This is a tad more recent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Z2Wml1X ... re=related

[Kevin Solway]

I noticed how a couple of monks were saying how they "wish they could have died", rather than have to go against the Dalai Lama's instructions.

The stupidity of that comment is almost beyond belief, for more reasons than I care to mention.

[Ryan Rudolph]

oh come on guys, how can you all be so critical of a face like this?

[Carl G]

Ryan, I'm curious. What exactly do you see mock-worthy in that photo?

As for the controversy, yeah it's a can of worms. If you're damned if you do (worship Dorje Shugden) and damned if you don't (kowtow to the Dalai Lama), then clearly you're in the wrong can. And not a lot you can do about it, for some of them. The bottom line is, it sucks to be a worm.

[Kevin Solway]

The truth is, the Dalai Lama is just a simple man, and he's been lumbered with a terrible mess, and is without the tools to be able to do anything about it. He understands neither the problem nor the solution.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

The truth is, the Dalai Lama is just a simple man, and he's been lumbered with a terrible mess, and is without the tools to be able to do anything about it. He understands neither the problem nor the solution.

Exactly, sheep like humans will always find Sheppards to worship and lead them, it isn’t so much a problem with the Dalai Lama as the sole cause, it is a much more serious problem with the human condition in general.

In my opinion, organized religion should eventually be replaced with what could be called “wisdom studies” where students study the works of 10-20 of the wisest philosophers who ever existed in a group setting with a teacher who is quite knowledgeable, and then individuals could also analyze each of their imperfections, inconsistencies or sloppiness in their writing if there was any. You could also have an advanced course after the philosophical basics have been mastered, where individuals study what could be called ‘human depravity’ where some of the most unconscious behaviors of the animal mind are brought to the surface and exposed in discussion. Or you could take that course model, and do something like that on You Tube – something like a historical analysis of wise figures.

Carl,

Ryan, I'm curious. What exactly do you see mock-worthy in that photo?

there's a bit of irony there, as the way I think of it is that Kevin is pointing out how much negative karma the Dalai Lama has caused in this ignorance, and he is even compared to a tyrant, but when you look at that picture - he appears very harmless, nice, friendly, and almost child-like…

You basically have mild unconsciousness trying to lead unconsciousness to wisdom, so how can we expect any other result? It just strengthens the argument that one cannot personally blame someone for his or her ignorance. For instance: I can’t blame the Dalai Lama for his karma anymore than I can blame a child who climbs onto the kitchen top looking for chocolate cookies before supper.

In my opinion, the Dalai Lama has a much milder form of unconsciousness because his ego doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings so he has many mental blocks as to the deeper truths of wisdom. He doesn’t understand psychology very well because he believes being nice to all beings is the ultimate spiritual attainment. However, on the other hand, he doesn’t have the mind of a animal tyrant who might use his power to have a harem full of women, a huge army, endless material possessions, statues of himself, and the ability to torture his enemies through the worst acts sadism. The Dalai Lama isn’t a cruel and evil person in that sense, so one could even suggest that there are spectrums of unconsciousness.

[Dan Rowden]

In my opinion, the Dalai Lama has a much milder form of unconsciousness because his ego doesn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings so he has many mental blocks as to the deeper truths of wisdom.

He has a public face and a Tibetan leader face - I suggest the two are quite different.

He doesn’t understand psychology very well because he believes being nice to all beings is the ultimate spiritual attainment.

Does he really believe that? Lots of Tibetans and worldwide Shugden devotees would argue otherwise.

However, on the other hand, he doesn’t have the mind of a animal tyrant who might use his power to have a harem full of women, a huge army, endless material possessions, statues of himself, and the ability to torture his enemies through the worst acts sadism. The Dalai Lama isn’t a cruel and evil person in that sense, so one could even suggest that there are spectrums of unconsciousness.

His entire support base is a statute of himself. As for the rest of it, I don't think I've once heard him repudiate the feudalism he came from and was part of, so I'm not so sure of your overall characterization of him. Tibet under the lamas was an oppressive and sadistic serfdom, not some shangri-la.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dan,

He has a public face and a Tibetan leader face - I suggest the two are quite different.

Well, from the surface, he seems to have a very naïve mind, as he is probably being controlled by more clever and shrewd individuals behind the scenes, but that is just my interpretation based on his personality and intelligence from interviews.

Does he really believe that? Lots of Tibetans and worldwide Shugden devotees would argue otherwise.

But do you have evidence that he was directly responsible for the complained injustices?

His entire support base is a statute of himself. As for the rest of it, I don't think I've once heard him repudiate the feudalism he came from and was part of, so I'm not so sure of your overall characterization of him. Tibet under the lamas was an oppressive and sadistic serfdom, not some shangri-la.

As I said before, did he weld the manipulative power as the decider? Or is he just the naive face of Buddhism, while meanwhile being controlled by clever people behind the scenes?

[Kevin Solway]

But do you have evidence that he was directly responsible for the complained injustices?

"Responsible" doesn't mean much when you're talking about a person who is naive and unconscious.

You saw the way he blindly dismissed that interviewer who said that he had seen it with his own eyes.

It's clear to me that the Dalai Lama doesn't want to see anything that might upset him, and which might impinge on his fantasy world.

[Kelly Jones]

Problem is that all the witnesses speak in Tibetan. English is spoken by the Dalai Lama, his interviewer, the female (probably Tibetan) presenter, and a male assistant presenter. We all know how easy it is to put words into people's mouths. So, although it seems very convincing, how can one be sure ?

What I can go on is the Tibetan government's history as a religious state, and the Tibetans' use of oracles and other shamanistic rituals. Putting the two together would seem reasonable. That is, some oracles and deities would be promoted by the government, and the serf-like people punished if they disobey. So, I'd go on the gullibility of Buddhists and their emotional rigidity as to the truth of their teachings.

I back this up by my experience of modern Buddhists in Australia, though it's mostly of female nuns - Tenzing Palmo and followers, the Taiwanese monastery in South Wollongong, and Chenrezig in Eudlo. They are all very adamant about the truth of their teachings, and suspicious of other sects.

The E-Sangha fits in with this theory. It seems like a nightmare, a real-life cult. It has a very dark, menacing quality.

I think 'westerners' clasp hold of Buddhism when they've suffered a lot in life, and want a totally different culture to escape to. They clasp hold of these otherworldly fundamentalist teachings, in order to block out thinking and suffering. So they are very wary and defensive of anyone who thinks freely and questions anything. It is literally their lifeline, but what a karma comes along with it - serious paranoia, increasingly fragile ego, even more precarious happiness.

[clyde]

I think 'westerners' clasp hold of Buddhism when they've suffered a lot in life, and want a totally different culture to escape to. They clasp hold of these otherworldly fundamentalist teachings, in order to block out thinking and suffering. So they are very wary and defensive of anyone who thinks freely and questions anything. It is literally their lifeline, but what a karma comes along with it - serious paranoia, increasingly fragile ego, even more precarious happiness.

Kelly;

I don't doubt that what you wrote may be true for some Western Buddhists, but based on my personal experience and my limited exposure to Western Buddhists, I don't think your generalization is true; then again you may have more experience and met more Western Buddhists than I. Even if you are correct, I don't think your generalization is helpful as many people, including I believe QRS, have found Buddhist teachings beneficial to their own path and teaching. I know I have found the teachings beneficial on my path.

I do think you make a valid point about what is sometimes called 'the shadow side'. I think it is important to note that all paths have a shadow side. Recognizing what the shadow is for one's path is also part of the path.

clyde

[Kelly Jones]

I don't think your generalization is helpful as many people, including I believe QRS, have found Buddhist teachings beneficial to their own path and teaching.

It's more the quality of the main teaching presented to westerners that concerns me: that everyone seeks happiness and that Buddhism teaches the path to ultimate happiness. This in itself is guaranteed to attract a lot of desperately unhappy people.

This isn't just philosophically misleading, but has a more sinister side. It creates significant political support in the west for Buddhism, particularly Tibetan Buddhism as it is the most popular form, and, since the Tibetan government (I think) is operated by the Tibetan Buddhist leaders, for that government's behaviour directly.

So look at what kind of supporters Tibetan Buddhism has, and how difficult it would be to change injustices in that system.

I think it is important to note that all paths have a shadow side.

This is false, Clyde. The shadow side is created by love of falsehood. So the path to truth, if truth it be, and if one travels it uncompromisingly, has no shadow side. But who travels that path?


I think that Kevin wrote Poison for the Heart with a lot of the karma of modern Buddhism in view. The latter is one of the most appallingly close-minded religions, saved only by its popular face of being non-violent. But even that is changing these days.

[Kevin Solway]

I think Clyde is saying that if there were people who hung on my every word, for example, and blindly believed everything I said, that would be a dark side to my own teachings.

But there's nothing in my teaching, or in my nature, I don't believe, that would produce such a thing. (You're free to differ!)

By contrast, there is much in the teaching of the Dalai Lama, and in his teaching, which produces darkness. That is, the darkness is not coming entirely from his followers.

However, I would agree with Clyde insofar that we should always be alert to the dark side, because for every positive we create, there is a very good chance a negative has been dragged along with it.

[clyde]

Kelly;

Perhaps our locations explain some of our different experiences. My experience here in California and from what I can judge in the U.S. is that Tibetan Buddhism is growing in popularity, but is not the dominant form. I would say that for Western Buddhists in the U.S. (not including those Asian Americans whose families are traditionally Buddhists) Zen has been and still is the most popular form of Buddhism. I do not say this as an expert, but only as my observation.

Given my experience, I would not present the main teaching of Buddhism as "the path to ultimate happiness", but of liberation.

I disagree with your view that there is a path without a shadow; even the path to truth or enlightenment has a shadow. Of course, it is easier to see the shadow of another's path than our own.

clyde

[Kevin Solway]

saved only by its popular face of being non-violent. But even that is changing these days.

Yes, it's as though they believe in non-violence so fervently that they'll kill anyone who doesn't go along with it.

[Kelly Jones]

Perhaps our locations explain some of our different experiences. My experience here in California and from what I can judge in the U.S. is that Tibetan Buddhism is growing in popularity, but is not the dominant form. I would say that for Western Buddhists in the U.S. (not including those Asian Americans whose families are traditionally Buddhists) Zen has been and still is the most popular form of Buddhism. I do not say this as an expert, but only as my observation.

Yes, it's interesting for sure. This is present in Australia too. I'd put it like this: immigrant Buddhist culture in western countries is basically a club, much like Catholicism. Immigrants don't really believe the doctrines, because it's just the apparel by which they can recognise their social contacts. Westerners recognise this. They see the matey ritual and usually reject it as foreign.

Westerners are interested in the teachings and the Buddhist teachers are interested in securing the migrants' culture. So some westerners are taught some teachings, and other westerners are given a load of happiness codswallop to form a strong attachment to the Buddhist culture.

Clyde, if you walk into any mainstream bookstore in America, would you expect to see Buddhist books in the religious section? If so, what percentage would you say will be by the Dalai Lama or similar, and what percentage be by Alan Watts or Paul Brunton or the like? Will there be more Buddhist books in a religious section, or more Buddhist books in an eastern philosophy section?

I disagree with your view that there is a path without a shadow; even the path to truth or enlightenment has a shadow. Of course, it is easier to see the shadow of another's path than our own.

Well, it all depends whether you're talking quality or quantity.

All other paths have countless, endless shadow, and no relief. Plenty of darkness, right?

But if there is one thought that is tinged by truth, then the darkness recedes a bit. The more light, the more stark is the darkness. So the quality of the shadow, the saturation if you please, is less.

[clyde]

Perhaps our locations explain some of our different experiences. My experience here in California and from what I can judge in the U.S. is that Tibetan Buddhism is growing in popularity, but is not the dominant form. I would say that for Western Buddhists in the U.S. (not including those Asian Americans whose families are traditionally Buddhists) Zen has been and still is the most popular form of Buddhism. I do not say this as an expert, but only as my observation.

Yes, it's interesting for sure. This is present in Australia too. I'd put it like this: immigrant Buddhist culture in western countries is basically a club, much like Catholicism. Immigrants don't really believe the doctrines, because it's just the apparel by which they can recognise their social contacts. Westerners recognise this. They see the matey ritual and usually reject it as foreign.

Yes, it seems this way to me too.

Westerners are interested in the teachings ...

Yes.

... and the Buddhist teachers are interested in securing the migrants' culture.

I don’t know. I think it depends on the teacher.

So some westerners are taught some teachings, and other westerners are given a load of happiness codswallop to form a strong attachment to the Buddhist culture.

It depends on the Westerner.

Clyde, if you walk into any mainstream bookstore in America, would you expect to see Buddhist books in the religious section? If so, what percentage would you say will be by the Dalai Lama or similar, and what percentage be by Alan Watts or Paul Brunton or the like? Will there be more Buddhist books in a religious section, or more Buddhist books in an eastern philosophy section?

Kelly, it has been some time since I visited a “mainstream bookstore”, so I don’t know what I would see. I would hope to see a wide selection from all the traditions. And I don’t think I would care if I found them in a religious section or an eastern philosophy section or the Dharma section : )

What would you see and where? And how would you feel about that?

clyde

[clyde]

I disagree with your view that there is a path without a shadow; even the path to truth or enlightenment has a shadow. Of course, it is easier to see the shadow of another's path than our own.

Well, it all depends whether you're talking quality or quantity.

All other paths have countless, endless shadow, and no relief. Plenty of darkness, right?

But if there is one thought that is tinged by truth, then the darkness recedes a bit. The more light, the more stark is the darkness. So the quality of the shadow, the saturation if you please, is less.

Kelly;

It seems we agree. You agree that there is a shadow for all paths, but that the nature of the shadow (“quality or quantity”) is different for different paths. And I agree to that.

clyde

[Kelly Jones]

Clyde, if you walk into any mainstream bookstore in America, would you expect to see Buddhist books in the religious section? If so, what percentage would you say will be by the Dalai Lama or similar, and what percentage be by Alan Watts or Paul Brunton or the like? Will there be more Buddhist books in a religious section, or more Buddhist books in an eastern philosophy section?

Kelly, it has been some time since I visited a “mainstream bookstore”, so I don’t know what I would see. I would hope to see a wide selection from all the traditions. And I don’t think I would care if I found them in a religious section or an eastern philosophy section or the Dharma section : )

Bookstores are one way to judge the dominant culture. What about the biggest tv networks, most distributed newspapers, most often-watched movies, most widely broadcast radio shows? What are they telling you about the form of Buddhism most dominant in America?

The point is just to see if "seek happiness above all else" is the strongest message that Buddhism offers. To see if this shadow has overcome the light...

[Kelly Jones]

You agree that there is a shadow for all paths, but that the nature of the shadow (“quality or quantity”) is different for different paths. And I agree to that.

The difference is between great, intense, unrelenting shadow and small, intermittent shadow.

What I think we should be focussing on is that teachings can be strong and truthful, or not. We're not talking so much here about the quality of the student, though that comes into it.

A weak teaching has many opportunities for false interpretations. The weaker, the more it gives into, and is, the shadow side.

So, really, there is only a shadow side, and a light side. They are not equally balanced in all teachings.

[clyde]

Bookstores are one way to judge the dominant culture. What about the biggest tv networks, most distributed newspapers, most often-watched movies, most widely broadcast radio shows? What are they telling you about the form of Buddhism most dominant in America?

Your questions made me realize how 'out of touch' I am with "the dominant culture" and what I do see and hear has no form of Buddhism, although the Dalai Lama does get more news coverage than any other living Buddhist. As I wrote above, my limited experience leads me to think that Zen is the most dominant form for Western (American) Buddhists, followed by Tibetan Buddhism, and Theravada and Pure Land. But I may be mistaken.

The point is just to see if "seek happiness above all else" is the strongest message that Buddhism offers. To see if this shadow has overcome the light...

I think we agree that "seek happiness" is NOT the strongest message that Buddhism has to offer. Perhaps it is the loudest. I don't know. It doesn't seem that way to me.

clyde

[Kelly Jones]

I apologise for any confusion. I wrote:

A weak teaching has many opportunities for false interpretations. The weaker, the more it gives into, and is, the shadow side.

but in the previous post I wrote:

The point is just to see if "seek happiness above all else" is the strongest message that Buddhism offers.

So it's understandable if you thought that "seek happiness" is what I regarded as the truest message of Buddhism. I mean strong as in dominant, yes, the loudest voice. I reckon that it is the most heard message of Buddhism, and therefore the most popular.