The Dalai Lama; One of the most evil men on Earth?

[peary]

I’m going to see the Dalai Lama speak in July. I’m frustrated. I want to admire him, so much. He’s a monk, he’s a social revolutionary and a prominent proponent of non-violence. There’s one problem though, he’s a Buddhist. Buddhism makes me angry, mainly because it is the only major religion that denies God. I would have so much more respect for him if he said, “Buddhism is the only way. You cannot lead a productive life or reach Nirvana unless you are a Buddhist.” He could at least side with the other religions, but instead he tells people to avoid organized religion, and insists that religion is subordinate to science. He says religion and faith are unneccesary, and don’t even get me started on his ethics. I want to love the man, but he’s basically the Pope of liberals. He represents “spirituality” with our religious obligation. “Faith? Don’t need it! Buddha? Unneccesary! Religion? Fugedabout’it! Just be nice to other people, and be happy!” Which leads me to ask the question, other atheists showed themselves as the monsters they truly were. What about this atheist? He champions secular ethics while denying God! So, does that make him even more evil than Stalin or Mao? Is he truly one of the most evil men alive?

Why take it personally? He approaches it as the true Buddhist. Appreciate him for what he does. I have always admired him, regardless of what his leanings.

 

[notself]

Dalai Lama’s much too nice–comes of being Avalokitesvara’s avatar (bodhisattva of mercy). The Mahayana sect (Zen, especially) would have said, “one can develop a good heart and a sense of responsibility without a religion…but since those are merely the sign of being in a higher level of the wheel of transmigration, so what? You gotta be a Buddhist if you want Enlightenment and salvation from suffering.”

Or in other words, one is not saved by the works of the Law.

Buddhism’s got a very Pauline, **almost Evangelical, view **of how salvation is achieved; it differs from Christianity mainly in what salvation is.

By Evangelical view do you mean each person is responsible for his or her own “salvation”, or do you mean that Buddhists prostelyzce for converts?

Buddhist believe that no one reaches Nibbana (Nirvana) through the works of another. There is no third party salvation. Of course this is directly opposite of the Christian faith. It is this concept of salvation through another that is, I think, the biggest difference between the traditions of Buddhism and Christianity.

I don’t know what you mean by the wheel of transmigration. That comment seems more Hindu than Buddist.

 

[HashemEchad]

I only knew one Buddhist years ago, whose form of the religion believed in proselytization.

She never proselytized me, because she knew she didn’t like it when people did it to her. Plus, she was a former Catholic who remembered being proselytized by Protestants when she was a kid.

Anyway, she was a Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist, and they do believe their form of Buddhism is the “superior” one. They pray to a paper scroll called a Gohonzon, and they chant twice a day, Nam Myoho Ren GKyo (not sure if I’m remembering the spelling of that right!)

I’ll tell you, she was really devoted to that…she had a roomate, and when I would go over to visit, her roomate would beg me to go have a soda with her while her friend finished praying (the chant can get annoying when you hear it enough!)

 

[peary]

This is the second time I have heard the claim Stalin was a Catholic. Communism is an atheist ideology. Communist regimes persecuted Catholics all over the globe including Russia. Russia had very very few Catohlics before the Communist revolution, the religion of Holy Russia being Orthodox. Any tolerance of religion in Russia by the officially atheist Soviet Republic was of the Orthodox. Under Stalin Catholic Churches were taken by the state and used for state purposes or given to the Orthodox. I met a man who spent 25 years in the gulags simply for refusing to renounce Catholicism.

Can you or anyone tell us where you learned Stalin was a Catholic? I do not think that is true.

As far as I know, Stalin was baptized Russian Orthodox, not Roman Catholic.

 

[notself]

I only knew one Buddhist years ago, whose form of the religion believed in proselytization.

She never proselytized me, because she knew she didn’t like it when people did it to her. Plus, she was a former Catholic who remembered being proselytized by Protestants when she was a kid.

Anyway, she was a Nichiren Shoshu Buddhist, and they do believe their form of Buddhism is the “superior” one. They pray to a paper scroll called a Gohonzon, and they chant twice a day, Nam Myoho Ren GKyo (not sure if I’m remembering the spelling of that right!)

I’ll tell you, she was really devoted to that…she had a roomate, and when I would go over to visit, her roomate would beg me to go have a soda with her while her friend finished praying (the chant can get annoying when you hear it enough!)

Yep, this is the same sect that the guy on this board said he belonged to. They actually knocked on his dorm room door and convinced him the only true Buddhism was in the Lotus Sutra. He converted to Buddhism at a young age and much later he left Buddhism and became a Catholic. This is the sect that believes that the Buddha is a God. The Lotus sutra was written 1500 years after the death of the Buddha, but supposedly the author had a vision and was told that the true Buddhism had been hidden.

The rest of Nicherin Buddhism is standard Mahayan Buddhism.

 

[Hastrman]

By Evangelical view do you mean each person is responsible for his or her own “salvation”, or do you mean that Buddhists prostelyzce for converts?

Mostly the first, although Buddhists do proseletyze for converts (as is only proper–“All are alike worthy to hear the message of salvation”; it’d be wrong, if one is a Buddhist, not to preach Buddhism to the world). But I was referring to the fact that Buddhists essentially consider morality beside the point, as do Evangelicals. You are not saved by works.

Buddhist believe that no one reaches Nibbana (Nirvana) through the works of another. There is no third party salvation. Of course this is directly opposite of the Christian faith. It is this concept of salvation through another that is, I think, the biggest difference between the traditions of Buddhism and Christianity.

No, the biggest difference is Christians think they and God both exist, and Buddhists deny that they exist. Then comes the idea of Christ’s salvation–which is a second party salvation, actually, since Christ is the God who’s offering you the salvation. We’re “Dvaita”, in other words. But Buddhists don’t believe you’re saved by your own works, either, really, since both good and evil works simply tie you into the Veil of Illusion.

I don’t know what you mean by the wheel of transmigration. That comment seems more Hindu than Buddist.

You do know Buddhism is, in its origin, a theological school from within Hinduism, right? They do, in fact, have most of the same teachings as Hinduism as regards karma/reincarnation, aka the Wheel of Transmigration, aka the Wheel of Suffering–and they do occasionally use the term. Buddhists differ from Hinduism proper in their conception of how moksha, release from that cycle, is achieved.

 

[notself]

Hastrman;3659039]Mostly the first, although Buddhists do proseletyze for converts (as is only proper–“All are alike worthy to hear the message of salvation”; it’d be wrong, if one is a Buddhist, not to preach Buddhism to the world). But I was referring to the fact that Buddhists essentially consider morality beside the point, as do Evangelicals. You are not saved by works.

Could you give me a quote or link to a Buddhist teaching that says Buddhism considers morality beside the point?

Could you give me a quote or link to a Buddhist teaching that says one is not “saved” by one’s actions?

Here are some quotes from the Dhammapada one of the oldest Buddhist scriptures and is the most commonly read of all the scriptures.

1. Better it is to live one day virtuous and meditative than to live a hundred years immoral and uncontrolled.
2. Better it is to live one day wise and meditative than to live a hundred years foolish and uncontrolled.
3. Think not lightly of evil, saying, “It will not come to me.” Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the fool, gathering it little by little, fills himself with evil.
4. Think not lightly of good, saying, “It will not come to me.” Drop by drop is the water pot filled. Likewise, the wise man, gathering it little by little, fills himself with good.
5. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another.
6. To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one’s mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

Without morality there is no path. Morality is the very ground from which enlightenment grows.

No, the biggest difference is Christians think they and God both exist, and Buddhists deny that they exist. Then comes the idea of Christ’s salvation–which is a second party salvation, actually, since Christ is the God who’s offering you the salvation. We’re “Dvaita”, in other words. But Buddhists don’t believe you’re saved by your own works, either, really, since both good and evil works simply tie you into the Veil of Illusion.

It is craving (greed and lust), aversion (hatred) and the delusion of a permanent unchanging self that tie us to samsara (the cycle of rebirth).

See the above quotes from the Dhammapada for comments on being “saved by your own works”.

What is the source of your ideas about Buddhism?

You do know Buddhism is, in its origin, a theological school from within Hinduism, right? They do, in fact, have most of the same teachings as Hinduism as regards karma/reincarnation, aka the Wheel of Transmigration, aka the Wheel of Suffering–and they do occasionally use the term. Buddhists differ from Hinduism proper in their conception of how moksha, release from that cycle, is achieved.

I am aware that Buddhism came from a religious environment that included Vedic beliefs, Jain beliefs, atheistic or nilihistic beliefs, eternalistic beliefs. It was a time of spiritual searching when many aesthetics roamed throughout the Indian subcontinent teaching various philosophies. The “Hinduism” of this time was identified with the Vedics who performed animal sacrifice and esoteric rituals and established the caste system. Siddhattha Gotama accepted people of all castes as monks and nuns, eliminated any form of sacrifice, and spoke against empty ritual.

If you wish to know more about what the Buddha actually taught, I will be glad to post some links.

 

[HashemEchad]

I have a few books by the Dalai Lama, and in them, he does not say God is of no use.

He says that even if someone is not religious, they can still be an ethical and moral person. Something I agree with.

The Dalai Lama has been witness to what atheistic communism can and has done to his people, his land and his religion. I doubt he’d be a person to say atheism is way cool!

 

[notself]

I have a few books by the Dalai Lama, and in them, he does not say God is of no use.

He says that even if someone is not religious, they can still be an ethical and moral person. Something I agree with.

The Dalai Lama has been witness to what atheistic communism can and has done to his people, his land and his religion. I doubt he’d be a person to say atheism is way cool!

I doubt he would say Communism or totalitarian regimes of any kind are cool whether they are religious or atheistic.

 

[magisterfaust]

So, any one who rejects christ is evil???

 

[grandfather]

Hi friend grandfather!

Yes, Buddha was a believer in GodAllahYHWH. Kindly read the article by accessing:

alislam.org/library/books/revelation/part_2_section_2.html

Thanks

I skimmed the very long article. It seems full of unsubstantiated claims by people with no direct knowledge.

 

[paarsurrey]

I skimmed the very long article. It seems full of unsubstantiated claims by people with no direct knowledge.

Hi

Thanks. I think it should be read intently and carefully.

Regards

 

[grandfather]

Hi

Thanks. I think it should be read intently and carefully.

Regards

I did read enough of it to realize the claims of the article are based opinions of people who lacked direct or first hand knowledge, or who might be considered reliable witnesses.
It would be unreasonable to accept them, or rather there is no reason to accept them.

This does not mean I don’t like Buddhists. I have nothing against them. I don’t believe the claims of the religion. I don’t believe we are born many times over. We are born once and die and in our lives we will find communion with God and our souls or fail. Buddhism has many beautiful sayings. I hear the claim that all religions are different ways of saying the same thing. THis is not true. There are fundamental differences. They all can not be true when fundamentally there are contradictions, such as the one mentioned above. You are either born hundreds of times until you work off all your karma, figure out nothing matters, escape this evil illusion of the wheel of incarnation by becoming desireless and dissolve into nothingness, or you are born once with an immortal soul, die and are judged to an eternal destiny. If the latter is true you need to know that truth. If the latter is true the former is false and dangerous to believe, with severe consequences to the soul. The two claims are incompatable.

I understand that Buddhism is somewhat of a syncretist religion, very tolerant of all others, saying that they all are helpful with some elements of truth, or can be helpful, I’m ok, your’e ok, it does not matter what you believe now, because eventually after a thousand go rounds you will get it figured out. It does not matter how much evil you do to create bad karma that you will have to suffer through until you work it off. This tolerance makes Buddhism appealing or harmless to many people today in an age where tolerance is the supreme virtue. Find a way to not disagree with anyone and you are ok.

Logic says truth and falsehood can’t not tolerate one another. If truth about reality is knowable then it refutes that which is false. That makes truth intolerant in the minds of those who do not know it. Syncretism is false, because it is impossible to hold two beliefs that contradict one another. We all must choose one or the other.

Today I pray for all those suffering in Mayamar a Buddhist country. If Buddhism is true all that happens there, the loss of perhaps 500,000 lives does not matter. They will all be reborn and continue on. The agony they suffer is all an illusion they are trapped in and deserve. They are working off their karma. In my job I am trying to get aid to them and have been all week. The reason I care for them, love them, is I do not believe their religion.

 

[deb1]

I have a few books by the Dalai Lama, and in them, he does not say God is of no use.

He says that even if someone is not religious, they can still be an ethical and moral person. Something I agree with.

The Dalai Lama has been witness to what atheistic communism can and has done to his people, his land and his religion. I doubt he’d be a person to say atheism is way cool!

Catholics believe that a nonreligious person can be an ethical and moral human being also.

 

[notself]

I did read enough of it to realize the claims of the article are based opinions of people who lacked direct or first hand knowledge, or who might be considered reliable witnesses.

It would be unreasonable to accept them, or rather there is no reason to accept them.

 

[grandfather]

I find this statement rather odd. Why do Christians mourn the dead if they know their loved one who died in a State of Grace will be in heaven with God? Why do you mourn the death of young children since they are with God?

 

[magisterfaust]

I did read enough of it to realize the claims of the article are based opinions of people who lacked direct or first hand knowledge, or who might be considered reliable witnesses.
It would be unreasonable to accept them, or rather there is no reason to accept them.

Couldn’t that also be said of the bible? I may be wrong.

 

[thecoach]

I did read enough of it to realize the claims of the article are based opinions of people who lacked direct or first hand knowledge, or who might be considered reliable witnesses.
It would be unreasonable to accept them, or rather there is no reason to accept them.

This does not mean I don’t like Buddhists. I have nothing against them. I don’t believe the claims of the religion. I don’t believe we are born many times over. We are born once and die and in our lives we will find communion with God and our souls or fail. Buddhism has many beautiful sayings. I hear the claim that all religions are different ways of saying the same thing. THis is not true. There are fundamental differences. They all can not be true when fundamentally there are contradictions, such as the one mentioned above. You are either born hundreds of times until you work off all your karma, figure out nothing matters, escape this evil illusion of the wheel of incarnation by becoming desireless and dissolve into nothingness, or you are born once with an immortal soul, die and are judged to an eternal destiny. If the latter is true you need to know that truth. If the latter is true the former is false and dangerous to believe, with severe consequences to the soul. The two claims are incompatable.

I understand that Buddhism is somewhat of a syncretist religion, very tolerant of all others, saying that they all are helpful with some elements of truth, or can be helpful, I’m ok, your’e ok, it does not matter what you believe now, because eventually after a thousand go rounds you will get it figured out. It does not matter how much evil you do to create bad karma that you will have to suffer through until you work it off. This tolerance makes Buddhism appealing or harmless to many people today in an age where tolerance is the supreme virtue. Find a way to not disagree with anyone and you are ok.

Logic says truth and falsehood can’t not tolerate one another. If truth about reality is knowable then it refutes that which is false. That makes truth intolerant in the minds of those who do not know it. Syncretism is false, because it is impossible to hold two beliefs that contradict one another. We all must choose one or the other.

Today I pray for all those suffering in Mayamar a Buddhist country. If Buddhism is true all that happens there, the loss of perhaps 500,000 lives does not matter. They will all be reborn and continue on. The agony they suffer is all an illusion they are trapped in and deserve. They are working off their karma. In my job I am trying to get aid to them and have been all week. The reason I care for them, love them, is I do not believe their religion./QUOTE]

That is a DISGUSTING post, fine Catholic you are…sarcasm and denegration of another’s religion in time of crisis…you best run along to your confessional now…it seems the fruit on your tree is not to good, as your post seems to reveal your true self. Go along now and receive communion and feel all good about yourself, that you are so religious, while spitting right on Jesus’ teachings. Do you feel proud of yourself? Has your religion done anything for you? I think all can see the answer is a resounding NO. Another fine RCC example.

 

[notself]

We miss being with the ones we love. We know love is more powerful than death, and love conquers death, but the pain of separation remains.

And so it is with us all. We seek comfort in our religious beliefs, you in your prayers that your loved ones are ‘reborn’ in heaven; Buddhists in our wishes that our loved ones kamma stream will result in a favorable rebirth perhaps in a heavenly realm.

My superficial understanding or misunderstanding of the precepts of Buddhism come from investigation that took place forty years ago. As I recall the concept of karma says that when we see something that seems horrible happen to others the reason for it is the karma they created for themselves in some previous life or this one. They are getting what they deserve, but it is not real, because reality is really an illusion or dream. The suffering they experience is an opportunity for them to work off their karma. We do not have to feel empathy for those who suffer, because it is progress for them on the wheel of reincarnation. We will be born again and again until we realize nothing matters, and we no longer have any attachment to this illusiary world that really does not exist. We can escape it when we reach enlightenment and our souls or being dissolves into nothingness or nirvana. If I feel empathy for those I see sufferingI create karma for myself, attachment to them, which will hold me captive here in this evil illusion. It will make me want to return here.

Is this an accurate or fairly accurate perspective of what Buddhism holds? I assume there are different versions, but there has to be some common understanding.

If there is going to be a discussion comparing Buddhist thought to Christian belief I would like to take it to another thread. I find the title of this one objectionable.

At the simple level, karma is action and the result of action. I am sure you have in your life many instances of an action you have taken that had immediate results, results that occurred in some time after the action was performed, and results that have not yet occurred from actions that were taken long ago. Contributing to a retirement account or buying an annuity would be an action that occurred in the past but does not reach fruition until much later. If you understand this then you understand the basics of Karma.

What is the sticking point for you is rebirth. If you don’t believe in rebirth then all actions taken in this life must have results in this life or immediately upon death, i.e. going to heaven or hell.

Buddhists believe that we live in a cycle of existence where karmic tendencies pass from life to life in a stream. The goal of Buddhist life is to live in such a moral way and with such purity of mind that we are freed from this cycle and ‘enter’ the unconditioned. This unconditioned state is called Nirvana.

The subject of karma is very complex and takes years of meditation and study to grasp. Even then complete understanding of the workings of karma only comes with true enlightenment. Of course this does not stop the unenlightened from discussing its workings. This is in spite of the teaching of the Buddha that speculation on what acts caused what karmic fruition is a sure way to go mad. I personally don’t spend much time thinking about karma.

Karma is also a part of a more complex interaction among the big three of Buddhism, aniccia (impermanence), anatta (no independent inherent self) and dukkha (the suffering that is part of being alive).

Buddhist do believe that they suffer because it is the result of actions from the past coming to fruition. They also believe that being born healthy and intellegent with good fortune is as a result of past actions. Catholics believe that the good in their lives comes from God and the bad in their lives is a test or a trial and they offer up their suffering to God. Both groups find comfort in their beliefs.

Buddhist do feel empathy for those who suffer. The development of empathy, compassion, loving kindness, and equanimity is the core of Buddhist practice. These are known as the Four Supreme Abidings and are absolutely necessary to reach enlightenment.

Now this all has probably bored the tears out of you and others. Let me offer my apologies for this. Buddhism is not a sound bite religion although many people love making sound bites about it. It is a religion of practice, observation, and analysis.

I don’t think we need to start another thread because I would be surprised if there is much interest in Buddhism on this forum. If you would like some links, send me a PM and I will provide some good ones.

Metta
notself.

 

[grandfather]

Yes, everything has a cause.

Contributing to a retirement account or buying an annuity would be an action that occurred in the past but does not reach fruition until much later. If you understand this then you understand the basics of Karma.

Our choices and actions and thoughts create the circumstances of our lives as well as others.

What is the sticking point for you is rebirth. If you don’t believe in rebirth then all actions taken in this life must have results in this life or immediately upon death, i.e. going to heaven or hell.

That is one sticking point.

Buddhists believe that we live in a cycle of existence where karmic tendencies pass from life to life in a stream. The goal of Buddhist life is to live in such a moral way and with such purity of mind that we are freed from this cycle and ‘enter’ the unconditioned. This unconditioned state is called Nirvana.

How do you know what is moral or pure? Who tells you? Do you know this by instinct or is it learned? If it is learned from whom do you learn it? Do you agree that our primary teachers that shape our moral senses are our families? Who taught your teacher?

The subject of karma is very complex and takes years of meditation and study to grasp. Even then complete understanding of the workings of karma only comes with true enlightenment. Of course this does not stop the unenlightened from discussing its workings. This is in spite of the teaching of the Buddha that speculation on what acts caused what karmic fruition is a sure way to go mad. I personally don’t spend much time thinking about karma.

Does mercy and the workings of mercy have a place in Buddhist thought?

Karma is also a part of a more complex interaction among the big three of Buddhism, aniccia (impermanence), anatta (no independent inherent self) and dukkha (the suffering that is part of being alive).

Impermanence is observable in this realm. Change can only exist in time. Outside time, where there is no before or after, there is no change.

We are all contingent beings. My existence depends on other. I come from others. All created beings have dependency. God is the uncaused cause. God is the supreme spirit who alone exists of Himself. Nothing is made that He has not made. He is the source of all. He is independent inherent self. I am defined by the One who gave me existence.

Buddhist do believe that they suffer because it is the result of actions from the past coming to fruition. They also believe that being born healthy and intellegent with good fortune is as a result of past actions. Catholics believe that the good in their lives comes from God and the bad in their lives is a test or a trial and they offer up their suffering to God.

This is not what Catholics believe. It would run over the word limit to explicate the theology of suffering here.

Both groups find comfort in their beliefs.

That is irrelevant.

Buddhist do feel empathy for those who suffer. The development of empathy, compassion, loving kindness, and equanimity is the core of Buddhist practice. These are known as the Four Supreme Abidings and are absolutely necessary to reach enlightenment.

Aren’t things like empathy. compassion, etc. attachements? Are they not desires that keep you attached, kind of imprisoned on the wheel that you hope to escape at some point or in some future reincarntaion?

Now this all has probably bored the tears out of you and others. Let me offer my apologies for this.

Never apologize for sharing your perspective on reality. In the end all shal be one, “et unum sint”, in spirit and mind. Now we are separated by differences, contradictions. They can not be glossed over and made believe that they do not matter or are unimportant. What is the motive you have for sharing what you believe about reality?

Buddhism is not a sound bite religion although many people love making sound bites about it. It is a religion of practice, observation, and analysis.

This is true of course about all religions, but they also all have essential precepts, as you described above for example.

God is the undivided indivisible Infinite One. That is a sound bite. But He is infinite and we can never completely comprehend what is infinite. He is infinite in all of His perfections. We can understand aspects of divine perfections, but never all. Yet it is a simple as God is one. The first principle of metaphysics is God is perfectly simple.

I don’t think we need to start another thread because I would be surprised if there is much interest in Buddhism on this forum. If you would like some links, send me a PM and I will provide some good ones.

You are probably right. I am not interested in Buddhism. I am interested in Buddhists, my fellow humans.

[/QUOTE]