Friday, June 13, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

by ABC the 7.30 Report

Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2273196.htm

Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: For decades now, Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has waged a sustained campaign maintaining global pressure on China to relax its iron fist on Tibet and grant a genuine autonomy within the People's Republic.

But rarely has the Dalai Lama been in the headlines more than since the sometimes violent demonstrations that began in Tibet on March 10 this year and raged on and off for two weeks.

In the inevitable Chinese crackdown, an unknown number of Tibetans were killed. The Chinese acknowledge 21 deaths; demonstrators say it
was more than 200.

It's now history that the protests spread, dogging the journey of the Olympic torch through Europe, America and Australia on its way to China for the Beijing Olympics. The Dalai Lama, of course, has always preached non-violence, but a growing number of young Tibetans are obviously frustrated by China's intransigence on their calls for full autonomy. The Dalai Lama is in Australia - not, he says, to play politics, but to teach his Buddhist philosophy.

I spoke with him in Sydney earlier today.

Your holiness, you have described what is going on in Tibet as cultural genocide. How severe? How rapid a genocide in your terms?

DALAI LAMA, TIBETAN SPIRITUAL LEADER: My expression, like this: whether intentionally, or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place. Word genocide qualified right from the beginning. The reason, in fact, is the administration in autonomous area and also outside of the mission of Tibet, Chinese officials put a lot of restrictions - Tibetans study. And last year, or, I think two years ago, I met with some Tibetan student who came from mainland China from Tibet, and study in America. Some of them, see, can not speak Tibetan, only Chinese. So, since they are majority of the population, the minority Tibetan in their daily life, they have to use Chinese language rather than Tibetan. So, these are unintentionally some kind of - all elements of the situation, the Tibetan culture, heritage, including language - degenerate.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It must concern you, if that continues for uninterrupted long enough, then Tibetan culture disappears, or becomes very weak?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, yes. Would die.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've argued Tibet's case to the world and to China for decades now. Do you think the fact that younger Tibetan protesters have become more militant this year - the fact that they have - reflects some frustration at the failure of your leadership and your dialogue to force change in Tibet?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, it is true now a growing sort of feeling of frustration now growing among Tibetan is understandable. So, the criticism towards my stand also increasing. Sometimes they won't listen to my suggestions or my advice. But, of course, I respect - you see, they are utilising freedom of speech, freedom of heart. I'm always telling them I have no authority to say, "Shut up". It is up to you.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you have a moral authority?

DALAI LAMA: Oh, yes. Even those people, I think they love me, they respect me, but in certain views, they have different. But as far as violence and non-violence is concerned, I think generally Tibetan, you see, including youth organisation, generally they support, they agree, non-violent principle. But some individual, one or two - that's a different question.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You have urged Tibetans not to demonstrate against the Olympic torch, but do you sympathise with those who see the torch route through Tibet itself as a provocation?

DALAI LAMA: Our citizens do not seeking separation and then, moreover, the Olympic Games. I think, over a billion Chinese brother, sisters really feel proud of it. Therefore, we must respect. So, in the past, many occasions I appeal, including Tibetan, should not disturb that sort of ceremony, or even torch. For example, after incidents in London and Paris because of the disturbances, so I particularly, specifically appeal to Tibetan community in San Francisco, don't make disturbances. I appeal. So, in visit in area of Tibet, I personally feel may not much disturbances. It's better. Not much use.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you think that China's long-term strategy is simply to wait you out. That you are the most effective focus of resistance on Tibet? That if they simply wait you out in the expectation that you're gone, that you will be gone one day, and at that point what is left of Tibetan resistance will fade away?

DALAI LAMA: There are two opinions since early '80s - there are two opinions even among the Chinese. One opinion, yes, Dalai Lama as a troublemaker. So, after he gone, he pass away, the thing's automatically solved. That's one opinion. Another opinion is better while that troublemaker remains there, you can deal.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Not quite like dealing with the devil?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, devil, with horn. One say, "That demon, gone." Then nobody can truly represent or in other words, I think I'm popular among Tibetan. I'm, I think, I don't know. I think if I say Tibetan, I think generally, listen. Majority, certainly majority of them listen. Therefore, while such person alive, it is better to find solution.

KERRY O'BRIEN: I assume that even the Dalai Lama acknowledges human frailty. What negative emotion do you personally have the most trouble with?

DALAI LAMA: Anger - sometimes.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Is that right? How do you deal with it? What makes you angry?

DALAI LAMA: If you ask some silly questions again and again, then I may lose my temper.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you haven't lost your temper today?

DALAI LAMA: Yes. One time in New York, in America. One New York Times - what do you call?

DALAI LAMA'S ASSISTANT: Columnist.

DALAI LAMA: Columnist. One lady asked me, "What is your, sort of, legacy after me?" And I told, "I'm Buddhist practitioner. I cannot think about my name after me". So, important is while I alive I should do something useful for other. Then she again that same question. Then I answer same way. Then, third time - then I lost my temper.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So, how do you deal with anger?

DALAI LAMA: But I think the basic mental attitude, I think, through training. If you're basic mind calm, then anger come, go, comes and go. Not remain.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And that's the important thing?

DALAI LAMA: Yeah, that's important.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Not hanging onto your anger.

DALAI LAMA: No, no. Within minute, it go. Now, for example, after 10 March, a lot of anxiety, a lot of sadness and also feeling of helplessness. So, intelligence level, a lot of disturbances. But things, you see, on deeper mind, I think through years, years training of mind, so senses are quite calm. So, these disturbances on intelligence level may not disturb much deeper level. So, at least, in spite of the many, sort of, worry, I think one indication, since last now, more than two months, 10 March, when I give some sort of lecture on Buddhism, my mind not that much clear. I think that's I think as disturbances in my intelligence level. But, you see, these disturbances never destroy my sleep. So that, I think, at a deeper level, still calm mind. I feel like that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And on that note, we'll have to end the interview. But thank you very much for talking with us today. Thank you.

DALAI LAMA: Thank you, thank you.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Some well-timed advice from the Dalai Lama on anger management and finding the inner peace.

Posted: Friday, June 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 101 - 131 of 131 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

101. Comment #193102 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Not quite Brian.
You should be able to express the same points without resorting to clearly specifically subject related jargon or dumbing down.
Speaking plain English should be achievable,
whatever the subject matter. Jargon is the last refuge of the bullshitter.

Other Comments by the great teapot

102. Comment #193104 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Jargon is the last refuge of the bullshitter

Maybe, but the converse doesn't hold. Do you think it is possible to explain for example string theory in "plain English", without losing precision?

Other Comments by MPhil

103. Comment #193105 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 3:31 pm

PBUM,

However, the idea of organising society by setting rules or ascribing actions as good or bad in a way that tries to achieve maximum benefit to society doesn't seem that complicated to me.

I think it is complicated: First, you have to determine what the range of applicability ought to be: Why construct a first-order moral theory to maximize the benefit of one society? What about inter-social relations? What about the nature of that society as it is already - how should that figure in?

Then you have to ask yourself - should society be of more value than the individual? Wouldn't that end in collectivism?

Then you might ask: What is the proper balance between protecting individuals and protecting society as a whole?

Furthermore, what moral code would work best, how do we judge this, how do implement it?

A lot of questions :)

Other Comments by MPhil

104. Comment #193106 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm

MPhil

I think it is complicated: First, you have to determine what the range of applicability ought to be: Why construct a first-order moral theory to maximize the benefit of one society? What about inter-social relations? What about the nature of that society as it is already - how should that figure in?

Then you have to ask yourself - should society be of more value than the individual? Wouldn't that end in collectivism?

Then you might ask: What is the proper balance between protecting individuals and protecting society as a whole?

Furthermore, what moral code would work best, how do we judge this, how do implement it?

A lot of questions :)

I guess the concerns of moral philosophers are wider than I had thought. Most of those questions relate to implementation rather than the basic aims of a moral code. I would have thought many of them were more important to political theorists.

(On a side issue, I'm not joining the small band of people here who have questioned the merits of philosophy generally. I hope I'm not coming across in that way.)

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

105. Comment #193107 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Many of those things are important to political theorists. But I don't think that most of the points above relate to implementation...

Anyway, you're not coming across that way. Not at all :)

Now I have to go do some work. Specifically, prepare a talk on John Bickle's account of intertheoretic reduction. That, btw (teapot)- is also something you cannot explain without Jargon, because it rest on formal logic and set theory. Without knowledge of these disciplines - the account cannot be understood.

Other Comments by MPhil

106. Comment #193109 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Funny you should mention string theory. I am inclined to think " when they can explain what it actually means in physical terms then I will listen" but I am prepared to admit that is my error.
But I don't believe ethics can not be discussed in plain English without losing precision- on the otherhand- i do know jack shit about it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

107. Comment #193115 by alovrin on June 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm

First, you have to determine what the range of applicability ought to be: Why construct a first-order moral theory to maximize the benefit of one society? What about inter-social relations? What about the nature of that society as it is already - how should that figure in?

Then you have to ask yourself - should society be of more value than the individual? Wouldn't that end in collectivism?

Then you might ask: What is the proper balance between protecting individuals and protecting society as a whole?

Furthermore, what moral code would work best, how do we judge this, how do implement it?

Excellent lines of enquiry that should be dealt with at the national and international level as well as the personal.
Alas it seems we are still monkeys fighting over the waterhole.

Other Comments by alovrin

108. Comment #193117 by thewhitepearl on June 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm

meh, I have never been impressed with the Dalai Lama.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

109. Comment #193120 by Bonzai on June 14, 2008 at 4:15 pm

PBUM

It is interesting to ask how the impulse of explicitly to lay down a "codec" for morality arise and in what sense these codecs actually capture the elusive idea of "morality".

In a society where no one kills there would be no law against murder, no one would have thought of it. So explicit code of morality may be the result of "loss of innocence". The truly "moral" are not self conscious. The preoccupation with moral questions maybe the sign of a deeply corrupt society. My impression is that the more "immoral" and hypocritical a society is, the more elaborate and detail its moral code will be, as witnessed by many theocracies.

I deliberately leave "morality" in a vague, unspecified way because of the problems outlined below,

How should we judge whether an action is "moral", there have to be some ground rules. Where do these come from and how do we decide what they should be operationally?

Religion is the source of moral codes in most societies until relatively recently In some cases these moral codes just formalize and articulate our "natural" sense of morality, like the Golden rule; in some cases they express taboos or anxieties whose origins are not immediately clear; in yet other cases they are just self serving dogmas manufactured by the ruling class as a way to maintain existing social order.

Since there is a great diversity of moral codes across cultures and throughout history we need to have ways to judge whether an ethical system is actually "moral" and for that we obviously need to apply criteria which are outside any particular system. It would be unsatisfactory to simply adopt a different system and judge the first system according to it, the choice of moral axioms would have to be independently justified.

I understand Mphil's point that actions "just are" and they carry no values in themselves. But I think it is probably inevitable that we would have to regard some actions as intrinsically moral or immoral if we need a set of independent criteria to evaluate ethical system. I understand the "naturalistic fallacy", but I don't think we can completely detach what should be and what is, because what should be good to us is not separable
from what we are.

Other Comments by Bonzai

110. Comment #193135 by mmurray on June 14, 2008 at 6:32 pm

You should be able to express the same points without resorting to clearly specifically subject related jargon or dumbing down.
Speaking plain English should be achievable,
whatever the subject matter. Jargon is the last refuge of the bullshitter.

Sometimes jargon is also a dramatic summary of a lot of knowledge. I just finished teaching a course in which some terms were defined in the last lecture that took the whole 24 lectures (and a good solid undergraduate degree) to get to. So the jargon can be removed but it might be at the expense of studying some years of the relevant subject area. Mind you mathematics is particularly painful in this respect but I imagine philosophy can be as well.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

111. Comment #193143 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Bonzai

It is interesting to ask how the impulse of explicitly to lay down a "codec" for morality arise and in what sense these codecs actually capture the elusive idea of "morality".

It is, and biologists and neuroscientists are researching the matter. Its a pity that its yet another area where theists have the 'I don't understand, therefore god' standpoint.

In a society where no one kills there would be no law against murder, no one would have thought of it. So explicit code of morality may be the result of "loss of innocence". The truly "moral" are not self conscious. The preoccupation with moral questions maybe the sign of a deeply corrupt society. My impression is that the more "immoral" and hypocritical a society is, the more elaborate and detail its moral code will be, as witnessed by many theocracies.

My view would be that the underlying aims of any moral system, for any society, would be the same: something like the best possible reduction of net harm amongst humans.

With respect to 'true morality', unless I am mistaken your point is that true morality requires you want to help another and act on that feeling, without knowing you are adhering to a moral code. That is, you are just doing it because you are a 'good' person, there is no rationalisation at play. Importantly, there is no change in your disposition as a result of carrying out the act.

I'm not sure that's fair, or possible. We know when we feel empathy and know what the results of any assistance we provide are. We get a warm feeling from being good to another. I don't think this reaction renders us less 'moral'.

How should we judge whether an action is "moral", there have to be some ground rules. Where do these come from and how do we decide what they should be operationally?

When you get down to specific situations there are not always simple solutions. However, at the core, we are just talking about a system that helps us get along as best as possible. Rules should be based on this premise, I don't see that it goes any deeper than that.

Religion is the source of moral codes in most societies until relatively recently In some cases these moral codes just formalize and articulate our "natural" sense of morality, like the Golden rule;

Exactly. I would not call religion 'the source' of moral codes, its just that religious texts formalised and attemped to more rigorously enfice pre-existing social mores.

in yet other cases they are just self serving dogmas manufactured by the ruling class as a way to maintain existing social order.

Oh, I'm sure the ruling class exploited the prevailing social climate as best they can.

Since there is a great diversity of moral codes across cultures and throughout history we need to have ways to judge whether an ethical system is actually "moral" and for that we obviously need to apply criteria which are outside any particular system. It would be unsatisfactory to simply adopt a different system and judge the first system according to it, the choice of moral axioms would have to be independently justified.

Well, its impossible to have a totally independent system. We are just talking about us all working out a way to get along cosidering our different concerns. Its a collective concern, and different groups of people may agree different sets of rules so that they best fit each group.

My own view of morals is quite restrictive compared to the number of issues classed as moral by societies. For example, a christian may view acceptance of homosexuality as a moral issue. A prude may have a problem with the Nude World Bike Ride. I don't consider these moral issues as they have nothing to do with reducing net harm. They are just examples of people interfering with other people's business. As I see it, a well defined moral code would ignore such concerns.

I understand Mphil's point that actions "just are" and they carry no values in themselves. But I think it is probably inevitable that we would have to regard some actions as intrinsically moral or immoral if we need a set of independent criteria to evaluate ethical system.

Well, they are not intrinsically moral or amoral are they? They can only be judged as such based on the moral system they are carried out under.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

112. Comment #193323 by Lil_Xunzian on June 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

My final testimony is this: we need to distinguish between something like a moral duty or virtue and something that's just a feeling. Empathy is not a virtue. In fact, the word "feeling" (pathos) is built right into the word. Empathy and sympathy can't be more than mere feelings just as apathy and antipathy can be. The question is about whether or not morality exists at the level of emotion or cognition. If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics. I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective). We don't abstain from gratuitous lying because it feels wrong (the yuck factor) or, as is the case with dimmer wits, because we're commanded not to, but because we wouldn't want to live in a society where nobody could be trusted, where nobody could be trusted as a credible source of information.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

113. Comment #193325 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 10:26 am

Comment #193323 by Lil_Xunzian

If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics. I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective).

Firstly, I am afraid I have little patience with arguments that we play into the hands of religionists. We should be concerned with what is true, not what is convenient.

Anyway, you are setting up false dichotomies. Morality exists both in terms of emotion and cognition.

We don't abstain from gratuitous lying because it feels wrong (the yuck factor) or, as is the case with dimmer wits, because we're commanded not to, but because we wouldn't want to live in a society where nobody could be trusted, where nobody could be trusted as a credible source of information.

That is rationalising as intellectual something that can clearly be seen to have evolved.

Mass lying is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. That is why we feel lying is immoral.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

114. Comment #193347 by Quetzalcoatl on June 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Lil_Xunzian-

If you say that it exists at the level of emotion, then you're committed to saying it's something we just feel, not something we think. You remove anything rational or intellectual from ethics.

I don't see why it is an either/or situation. It seems reasonable to me that ethics should have both an intellectual and emotional component, the latter part hard-wired into us during the course of our evolution.

I think we fall right into the hands of the religionists by saying that ethics is just something I feel (and is, therefore, subjective).

The value that any one person attaches to morals and ethics does have a subjective element. Some believe that white lies are acceptable, some do not. This is essentially a matter of personal preference.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

115. Comment #193608 by stevenlebeau on June 15, 2008 at 9:07 pm

I wouldn't trust anything the Dalai Lama has to say, especially when it comes to China. The fact is, Tibet was a feudal society, and the Lamas were slave-owning aristocrats.

Other Comments by stevenlebeau

116. Comment #193923 by Serdan on June 16, 2008 at 8:10 am

Where's Henri when you need him?

Could someone explain to me why "pure, disinterested altruism" should be preferable to rational self-interest?

Other Comments by Serdan

117. Comment #194054 by Lil_Xunzian on June 16, 2008 at 10:40 am

stevenlebeau,

It is amazing how much blind trust the Dalai Lama inspires. Even many otherwise skeptical people accept his every word as something akin to divine revelation. His claims can't be substantiated. Some of the them are downright absurd. It's amazing how he can get away with advocating theocracy, racial segregation, and the caste system just because he's the Dalai Lama. There's no way of knowing, but had Tibet achieved real independence after its de facto independence prior to 1950, it would probably have remained a feudal theocracy, something akin to a Buddhistic Afghanistan, and become a breeding ground for Buddhist fandamentalism, something which, contrary to popular belief, does exist. Who knows, it could even have become an exporter of terrorism. Whatever one thinks of the CCP, there's no doubt that China has eliminated two potentially dangerous theocracies, Tibet and Uighurstan, and at the very least introduced secular education into those cultures.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

118. Comment #195821 by autonomy54 on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 pm

To Lil Xunzian.

Speaking of blind trust what do you call following the Chinese governments propaganda about Tibet? You're falling under the spell of a common fallacy. The fallacy of selective observation. It's as if you think that the average Chinese person in 1950 was a private land owner and had full rights in China. Colonizers and and people like them, ie, Nazis, American invaders of Indian land etc. always justified their invasions by saying they were "freeing" people from their backward way of life. Funny isn't it. The Tibetans don't seem to be enjoying the "freedom" of Chinese rule that much.

The Dalai Lama did win the nobel peace prize by the way. Can't recall any Chinese person who has done this. And you speak of "dangerous theocracies" LOL! Chinese speak of Chairman Mao as if he were a God. and you're "secular education" is merely another form of authoritarianism. Reminds me of Canadian boarding schools who forced Indian children to renounce their culture and undergo the government's education.

And you are full of straw man's. Yes the Dalai Lama is not 100% peaceful but then again if someone stole your land and committed cultural genocide against your people wouldn't you be mad too?

Other Comments by autonomy54

119. Comment #196033 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 8:28 am

autonomy54,

Well, I just spent an hour typing a response to your post, but when I tried to post it, it went missing, so I'm not going to type it again. If you want me to show you where you're wrong, hit me up by email (eusticea@bc.edu) or instant messenger (gignoskein hodon). Or you could just read the previous posts more carefully. I'm using facts, not propaganda. Or you could go to a library and do the research.

I will, however, point out the most disturbing thing about your comment that I suggest you retract immediately, because it is VERY offensive.

"if someone stole your land and committed cultural genocide against your people wouldn't you be mad too?" Don't you see how you just assume that Tibet is his to rule? Like he owns it?

In brief, I argued that the Dalai Lama has no right to rule Tibet. A "free" Tibet would not be one in which he is king.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

120. Comment #196147 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 11:01 am

It also seems fairly well established by NON-Chinese sources that the suppression of Tibetan culture--language, religion, music, etc.--that took place even into the Jiang Zemin era is no longer a central issue. You can read about Beijing's attempt to expunge Tibet of its culture in a book called "The Snow Lion and the Dragon." From what I gather, Tibetans are now instructed in Tibetan as well as Mandarin in the schools. I once tried to learn Tibetan. There's an alphabet, but nothing is spelled the way it sounds. It's not even comparable to the English spelling/pronunciation mismatch. It's just preposterous. Mandarin is actually easier to learn. If it's being taught in schools, this may be the first time in Tibet's history that all Tibetans will actually speak the same dialect of Tibetan: the Lhasa dialect. For once, a Tibetan living in Lhasa might actually be able to speak fluently to a Tibetan in Qamdo IN TIBETAN.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

121. Comment #196149 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 11:08 am

I also think there's the problem of the "false dichotomy" going on here.

It's the Dalai Lama's fault, since he has sold himself as the alternative to Beijing. As the panacea to Tibet's ills. It's simply ASSUMED that if you're anti-Dalai Lama, you MUST BE pro-CCP. Of course, that's bullshit. Being anti-Dalai Lama doesn't logically entail being pro-CCP, although goofs on the other side seem to think that being anti-CCP does logically entail being pro-Dalai Lama.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

122. Comment #196155 by advocatus_diaboli on June 19, 2008 at 11:19 am

Sold himself as alternative? We are discussing the same Tenzin Gyatso who has increasingly brought democratic principles to the Tibetan refugees in Dharmsala and has stated that if Tibet regained its freedom the post of Dalai Lama should be done away with outright, right?

In his writings and lectures he consistantly makes the point that no one should take his answers as the right answers or even as the only answers. That falls a far cry short from selling himself as the alternative. His philosophy leaves much to be desired and no one is perfect, but you seem to have some sort of axe to grind.

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

123. Comment #196177 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I've read his books and seen him speak. He constantly contradicts himself. It's easy enough to SAY something. For example, it's easy enough to say "I love you," but acting in a loving fashion is another thing completely. His actions tell a different story. He rules like a theocrat, not a democratically elected leader, because he isn't a democratically elected leader. His books are full of nonsense. He talks a lot of nonsense. I wouldn't call what he does "philosophy" exactly. He doesn't practice what he preaches. If he really believed what he said, he would give his charade up in Dharamsala and implement the government he says he wants for Tibetans. It's easy enough to say those things when it's implied that you only want them for a free Tibet, and especially when you know that that's a future that is never going to materialize. Hitchens says it all when he refers to the government in exile as the Dalai Lama's "crummy little dictatorship in Dharamsala."

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

124. Comment #196180 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 12:11 pm

"We are discussing the same Tenzin Gyatso who has increasingly brought democratic principles to the Tibetan refugees in Dharmsala and has stated that if Tibet regained its freedom the post of Dalai Lama should be done away with outright, right?"

Tell that to the worshipers of the Dorje Shugden whose lives he's ruined. According to "His Holiness" the worshipers of Dorje Shugden "are wrong." Wrong? On what authority does he say that his constellation of imaginary friends are right and that theirs are wrong? Someone who truly believed in tolerance, religious freedom, and democracy wouldn't publicly marginalize a segment of the pertinent population and then use thuggery and terrorism to try intimidate them out of believing.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

125. Comment #196188 by advocatus_diaboli on June 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I've read his books and seen him speak.

Lucky you.

He constantly contradicts himself.

Such as?

It's easy enough to SAY something. For example, it's easy enough to say "I love you," but acting in a loving fashion is another thing completely.

So what you are saying is, you have a gut feeling he may not be telling the truth on a democratic Tibet despite not having any proof to the contrary?

His actions tell a different story. He rules like a theocrat, not a democratically elected leader, because he isn't a democratically elected leader.

Does he now? And what of the Assembly of Tibetan People's Deputies, they just sit their with thumbs in bums do they? He acts as the Executive Branch and is not elected, that much is a given, but he does not make the laws or rule the justice system. He separated those powers and has discussed dissolving his own position as well. The fact that he has given away some of the powers he held is a strong argument against the story you believe his actions tell.

His books are full of nonsense.

Which books, he has written on several topics. Are his thoughts on compassion nonsense? The benefits of adhering to the discoveries of science? The Tibetan pantheon in terms of psychological aspects as opposed to real beings? Just what is it you are calling nonsense as not every word the man has ever uttered is nonsense.

He talks a lot of nonsense.

See the above, wash rinse and repeat.

I wouldn't call what he does "philosophy" exactly.

I'm sorry mister Webster, I did not realize the final say over what a word does and doesn't mean fell with you. I'll keep that in mind the next time I want to promote the spxflurg is cheese movement.

He doesn't practice what he preaches.

For instance?

If he really believed what he said, he would give his charade up in Dharamsala and implement the government he says he wants for Tibetans.

You mean like a democratically elected parlimentary or democratic constitution? If so you're only over four decades too late (a decade and a half if you count the "new and improved" implementations they passed in the 90's)

It's easy enough to say those things when it's implied that you only want them for a free Tibet, and especially when you know that that's a future that is never going to materialize.

Wow, you know the future. That amazes me. You haven't been passing info to school boards by any chance have you?

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

126. Comment #196196 by advocatus_diaboli on June 19, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Tell that to the worshipers of the Dorje Shugden whose lives he's ruined. According to "His Holiness" the worshipers of Dorje Shugden "are wrong." Wrong? On what authority does he say that his constellation of imaginary friends are right and that theirs are wrong? Someone who truly believed in tolerance, religious freedom, and democracy wouldn't publicly marginalize a segment of the pertinent population and then use thuggery and terrorism to try intimidate them out of believing.

So what you are saying is that since he is a political official he no longer has a right to express an opinion? Because he advocates tolerance he must now believe everything is right? Can you show me instances of the Dalai Lama's thuggery and terrorism? Has he perhaps been hobbling his old arse over and beating young initiates with a pool cue? Telling them that if they don't listen to what he says he'll torture and kill their families? I thought not. Thuggery and terrorism are very serious claims and you simply do not have the evidence to support them.

No law has been passed against the Shugden sect. The Dalai Lama has never told people to give them hell and torment them. What he has said was

"The ones who want to keep their practice of Shugden should not attend any further events or ceremonies in which a teacher-disciple relationship is established with me. This is something each person has to decide for him/herself. Each person has to take care of this themselves. From my side, I don't want this relationship to be established if it is the case that the person is keeping up the Shugden practice. I myself would engage in contradiction to the commitments I have had towards the previous Dalai Lamas, especially toward the 5th Dalai Lama, and therefore I request that if any of you are practicing Shugden for you not to attend the initiations. I have explained the reasons why I am against the veneration of Shugden and given my sources in a very detailed manner."

So are you now going to tell me that he is at fault for the ostracism the Shugden sect has met because people knowing his personal opinions decided to ostracise them? Perhaps you can show us some hithertoo unknown actual evidence for the yellow card campaign?

Not holding my breath for any actual evidence from you.

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

127. Comment #196223 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm

I've already answered the questions you're asking. Rather, any legitimate questions you've asked I've already answered. The problem with worshipers of the Dorje Shugden is by itself enough to answer them. Of course I don't KNOW it will never happen. Sorry, I didn't realize that you were trying to pick a fight, or else I would have explicitly said what I meant without hyperbole, as if I were talking to a child, would you like that? Here: It is extremely unlikely that Tibet will gain independence, so much so that one can casually say "it's never gonna happen."

I said "full" of nonsense, which is a different claim than "100% nonsense." I don't think any human being is capable of that. He speaks of karma and reincarnation, which I would entitle nonsense.

I never denied that the present government in exile is much improved over the feudal theocracy of the good old days. The CIA wouldn't fund and India wouldn't host them if they were THAT tyrannical and wicked. He is to be commended for that.

I just said "I" wouldn't call what he does philosophy. I didn't say it ISN'T philosophy. The way I phrased it made it fairly clear that it's just my opinion.

I highly recommend you learn the English language. It will clear up your misunderstandings of the arguments being made. You will see, for example, how opinions are phrased differently than statements of fact. You will also notice how intelligent people can effectively employ rhetorical devices without being misunderstood by other intelligent people. When people take as literal something which is clearly not intended to be, we English-speaker reserve the word "idiot" for them.

You seem to completely misunderstand the argument I'm making.

It's not a gut feeling. I've already cited some reasons why doubt the sincerity of things he's said.

I am contesting what the Dalai Lama really has to add to discussions of Tibetan independence, etc.

More importantly, I am annoyed by my fellow liberal-minded Americans' tendency to accept what the Dalai Lama says uncritically. If you're not an American, perhaps you don't appreciate this point. The reason for trusting the Dalai Lama is generally of a circular nature.

"Why do you trust the Dalai Lama?"

"Because the Dalai Lama wouldn't lie."

"How do you know?"

"Because he's the Dalai Lama."

I have merely attempted to supply examples that make it crystal clear that the Dalai Lama does lie and that he has no aversion to lying. For this reason, his claims should be received skeptically and critically, something which is not done very much. For starters, simply take note of how disproportionate the ratio of sycophantic to critical interviews there are of His Holiness. Come to think of it, I've never seen the Dalai Lama interviewed by a reporter who wasn't a total sycophant. I'd love to read/watch some if you can provide any.

As far as I know, Mr. Gyatso hasn't come clean about the historical reality of Tibet's past. When someone has a history of lying, I generally don't find it helpful to just assume that they're telling the truth without being given a rational reason.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

128. Comment #196227 by advocatus_diaboli on June 19, 2008 at 1:33 pm

I've already answered the questions you're asking. Rather, any legitimate questions you've asked I've already answered. The problem with worshipers of the Dorje Shugden is by itself enough to answer them. Of course I don't KNOW it will never happen. Sorry, I didn't realize that you were trying to pick a fight, or else I would have explicitly said what I meant without hyperbole, as if I were talking to a child, would you like that? Here: It is extremely unlikely that Tibet will gain independence, so much so that one can casually say "it's never gonna happen."

I said "full" of nonsense, which is a different claim than "100% nonsense." I don't think any human being is capable of that. He speaks of karma and reincarnation, which I would entitle nonsense.

I never denied that the present government in exile is much improved over the feudal theocracy of the good old days. The CIA wouldn't fund and India wouldn't host them if they were THAT tyrannical and wicked. He is to be commended for that.

I just said "I" wouldn't call what he does philosophy. I didn't say it ISN'T philosophy. The way I phrased it made it fairly clear that it's just my opinion.

I highly recommend you learn the English language. It will clear up your misunderstandings of the arguments being made. You will see, for example, how opinions are phrased differently than statements of fact. You will also notice how intelligent people can effectively employ rhetorical devices without being misunderstood by other intelligent people. When people take as literal something which is clearly not intended to be, we English-speaker reserve the word "idiot" for them.

You seem to completely misunderstand the argument I'm making.

It's not a gut feeling. I've already cited some reasons why doubt the sincerity of things he's said.

I am contesting what the Dalai Lama really has to add to discussions of Tibetan independence, etc.

More importantly, I am annoyed by my fellow liberal-minded Americans' tendency to accept what the Dalai Lama says uncritically. If you're not an American, perhaps you don't appreciate this point. The reason for trusting the Dalai Lama is generally of a circular nature.

"Why do you trust the Dalai Lama?"

"Because the Dalai Lama wouldn't lie."

"How do you know?"

"Because he's the Dalai Lama."

I have merely attempted to supply examples that make it crystal clear that the Dalai Lama does lie and that he has no aversion to lying. For this reason, his claims should be received skeptically and critically, something which is not done very much. For starters, simply take note of how disproportionate the ratio of sycophantic to critical interviews there are of His Holiness. Come to think of it, I've never seen the Dalai Lama interviewed by a reporter who wasn't a total sycophant. I'd love to read/watch some if you can provide any.

As far as I know, Mr. Gyatso hasn't come clean about the historical reality of Tibet's past. When someone has a history of lying, I generally don't find it helpful to just assume that they're telling the truth without being given a rational reason.

All this to avoid having to provide so much as a single example?

Res ipsa loquitur

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

129. Comment #196228 by Lil_Xunzian on June 19, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I've given you examples. Get a grip. I'm no longer interested in being drafted into making claims I've never made. I don't have to baby you either. The evidence is readily available, I'm not obligated to dig it up and supply it to you in a feedbag. I've made my point. Take it or leave it. I'm not going to keep wasting my time talking to an hysterical and pugnacious nut who refuses to engage me in a way that takes account of what I've actually said, nuances and all. I'm done talking to you. Good-bye.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

130. Comment #196232 by advocatus_diaboli on June 19, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I'm no longer interested in being drafted into making claims I've never made. I don't have to baby you either. The evidence is readily available, I'm not obligated to dig it up and supply it to you in a feedbag. I've made my point. Take it or leave it. I'm not going to keep wasting my time talking to an hysterical and pugnacious nut who refuses to engage me in a way that takes account of what I've actually said, nuances and all. I'm done talking to you. Good-bye.

Read: I can't do it so I will feign dignified irritation and make no effort toward supporting my claims once they come under the magnifying glass.

Other Comments by advocatus_diaboli

131. Comment #199447 by black_fire on June 25, 2008 at 7:14 pm

The Dalai Lama is a homophobe. Says homosexuality is a sin because it says so in his scriptures. His morality is behind the zeitgeist, and he's a hypocrite for pretending to preach love and compassion.

Many schools of Buddhism have homophobia and sexism in their scriptures.

Other Comments by black_fire

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2 3