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

[HashemEchad]

Your religion is different from theirs. You have a different understanding of morality. If they are right (moral) you are wrong (immoral). If they are right all those who killed thousands of Jews and Buddhists will be born again a thousand times and suffer being killed. If they are right and you kill someone under moral circumstances defending another life then your karma will require experinecing the same thing. That assumes an objective morality. If what is right for Jews is right or true for Jews and what is right for Buddhist is right for Buddhists, and morality is relative, then what? They would say you will still have karma, as everyone does and be on the wheel of reincarnations, even though all religions are good, even the ones that teach killing is ok. Do you think that maybe Jews will have one life to live and Buddhists have thousands?

This may surprise you, but Judaism also believes in the transmigration of souls; its taught in the Kabbalah. In fact this is a reason why we Jews bury our departed within 24 hours of death…so the soul understands it must “move on” and not go back into the body it just left.

We just don’t believe reincarnations happen without end, as Buddhists seem to believe. We believe people can be reincarnated to finish things they did not get to finish rectifying in their previous life.

 

[grandfather]

This may surprise you, but Judaism also believes in the transmigration of souls; its taught in the Kabbalah. In fact this is a reason why we Jews bury our departed within 24 hours of death…so the soul understands it must “move on” and not go back into the body it just left.

We just don’t believe reincarnations happen without end, as Buddhists seem to believe. We believe people can be reincarnated to finish things they did not get to finish rectifying in their previous life.

Is it a universally held belief among all Jews that souls are reincarnated and come back to this earth?

It is very interesting, the reason for the Jewish practice of 24 hour burial. Usually when humans try to prevent something from happening there is a reason, like it might have happened before and we don’t want to let it happen again. So I can see why modern Jews might be worried that the soul of one of their dead would come back and reinhabit the dead body. Do the Jews do this, because they have had a problem with it happening in the past, other than with Jesus, or is it a superstition?

 

[bobzills]

In fact this is a reason why we Jews bury our departed within 24 hours of death…so the soul understands it must “move on” and not go back into the body it just left.

Is this universally true? I thought I knew of a case, where there was a burial later than that.

 

[grandfather]

This may surprise you, but Judaism also believes in the transmigration of souls; its taught in the Kabbalah. In fact this is a reason why we Jews bury our departed within 24 hours of death…so the soul understands it must “move on” and not go back into the body it just left.

We just don’t believe reincarnations happen without end, as Buddhists seem to believe. We believe people can be reincarnated to finish things they did not get to finish rectifying in their previous life.

Please excuse my ignorance. I do not mean to be insulting. Isn’t the Kabbalah or the group that promulgates it the one that the pop singer Madonna has joined? Are they credible in mainline Judaism, or do the majority of Jews view them as a fringe group?

 

[HashemEchad]

Is it a universally held belief among all Jews that souls are reincarnated and come back to this earth?

It is very interesting, the reason for the Jewish practice of 24 hour burial. Usually when humans try to prevent something from happening there is a reason, like it might have happened before and we don’t want to let it happen again. So I can see why modern Jews might be worried that the soul of one of their dead would come back and reinhabit the dead body. Do the Jews do this, because they have had a problem with it happening in the past, other than with Jesus, or is it a superstition?

The beliefs in reincarnation is from the Kabbalah, and much of traditional Judaism reflects these teachings. In fact in the standard Orthodox Jewish prayerbook (the siddur), reference is made on Yom Kippur to sins we have committed 'in this transmigration or in another transmigration".

 

[HashemEchad]

Is this universally true? I thought I knew of a case, where there was a burial later than that.

Sometimes a later burial cannot be helped…and burials cannot take place on the Sabbath either.

But for traditional Jews, burial takes place as soon as possible. My mother was buried the next morning after she died, and I know of cases where people were buried that same day. Most people try to wait until the next day to give family a chance to arrive.

 

[HashemEchad]

Please excuse my ignorance. I do not mean to be insulting. Isn’t the Kabbalah or the group that promulgates it the one that the pop singer Madonna has joined? Are they credible in mainline Judaism, or do the majority of Jews view them as a fringe group?

A form of Kabbalah has been distorted and abused by pop celebrities; it is not the genuine article by any means! The Kabbalah of the pop celebrities is to authentic Kabbalah what Hare Krsna is to authentic Hinduism.

If you want to get a taste of genuine Kabbalah, try this website: koshertorah.com

Kabbalah is very ancient mystical Jewish wisdom, which was orally transmitted for centuries until finally set to writing in the 1st century.

 

[notself]

grandfather;

Logic says if there is an objective morality, a right and wrong for all of us, then it is either knowable or unknowable. If it is knowable and known, and no two religions agree on morality then either all religions are wrong or one is right. If the moral code is unknowable then it is impossible to act morally. We can not do the right thing unless we know what it is.

I would suggest that since there is no univerally accepted morality, then morality is not objective. This does not mean that someone cannot be moral within the code they follow. The closest to a univerally accepted moral code is the Golden Rule. It appears in almost all religions. Some religions restrict its application to ‘brothers’ or in some other subtle ways and there are contradictory teachings in many religions which over-ride the Golden Rule.

I believe that morality originates in most cases from culture and is encoded and developed through religion and philosophy.

We see people act altruistically or with kindness, so there a claim could be made that it is instinct, but are those acts learned behavior. We learn behaviors and ideas from others, by example and instruction. We also see people act cruelly. If altruism is instinctual, then what about cruelty? Are both in the genes or dna? More puzzling yet, we see both bahavios in the same person.

This subject is so large that it really should be a separate thread. There are many studies on altruism, genetics, behavior, instinct, learning. It is just to much to handle here. As for altruism, I vote that it is both hardwired and developed.

It is true that there is no universally accepted moral code, but that does not mean there is no objective moral law, or code.

What is this code and why is it not universally accepted? I am not asking why it is not universally followed, just why isn’t there a universally accepted moral code if morality has inherent existence?

It would seem that if you are right and they are wrong it would rule out the notion of knowing morality by instinct. I read today about a father and his two sons killing his daughter brutally, because she was seen talking to a British soldier. The more important observation is that if we do not know what is moral we can not do what is moral. If the suicide bomber’s moral code is false their moral code is leading them to be immoral. Their are consequences for immoral behavior whether or not you know truth about morals. If you do not believe in the law of gravity and jump of the bridge you still die. If there is no objective morality and morals are relative to a time or culture, what is right for you is right for you and what is right for me is right for me, then maybe it would be immoral for you to be a suicide bomber, but moral for a devout Sunni Muslim, or Al Quada martyr.

You give an excellent example of culture and religion over ruling instinct. It is to the genetic benefit for parents to protect the lives of their children. For a parent to kill a child for a moral infraction, requires a strong cultural and religious over-ride. It supports my point that morality is does not have objective existence.

Let’s say in tryng to stop a person intent on murdering another person is killed by a policeman tryng to stop the murderer. It is a moral act for the policeman and it would be immoral for him to allow the murder. Even though it is moral to do this it is also an evil thing. An epidemic of typhus that kills people is evil, but ammoral. When the policeman pulls the trigger to stop a murder and there is blood all over and someone falls to the ground and bleeds to death for all to see it is an evil thing, but moral.

I think I answered this in a previous post.

A few posts back you used the analogy of a retirement plan I think to explain karma. We can have monetary resources we build up to use later, but also we can have spiritual resources or treasures. I can take my monetary resources and spend them on myself travelling the world in my retirement or before. Instead of spending this on myself I can also give it to others who are in need. The same is true of spiritual treasure. Do Buddhists believe that they can transfer karma from one person to another? At any rate if you can accept this, it is the basis for understanding suffering and sacrifice

Mahayana and Vajrayana and Theravada traditions do have transfer of merit. The merit gained through good works is shared with deceased loved ones. Buddhists perform ceremonies at funerals and on the anniversary of the death of a loved one with the intent of transferring merit. This merit is not really transferred so much as shared without diminishing. The person performing meritorious deeds does not lose merit in the transfer. Merit can be transfered for the benefit of all beings. While merit does not purify another it is a way to help relieve the suffering of another.

Good works in the form of compassion, kindness are part of all Buddhist practice. There are many Buddhist NGO’s throughout the world offering charity and support to others.

Muslims who condone suicide bombings condemn drinking alcohol. Sobriety and sanity do not necessarily go together. Is a sentient being a chicken? What happens if you do sometihng wrong? Do I understand correctly that the consequences are staying on the incantation wheel longer, in a sense a longer prison sentence?

The reason for the Precept agains intoxicating drink and drugs is because they reduce mindfulness and lead behaviour one might regret. Avoiding alcohol and drugs also is a form of self restraint.

Do Buddhists ask why about anything, or just not why we exist, the big why? It seems the concept of karma is really a declaration that there is justice of some sort. It attempts to explain why there is suffereing. But why do we exist? Do we exist or is everything an illusion we need to escape?

Questions on existence cannot be answered except by faith and the answers cannot be tested. Buddhism is pragmatic in the sense it is about what is happening now. There is a sutra which asks, “If you were walking through the woods and suddenly were shot with a poisoned arrow, would you pull it out immediately or would you want to first know how the arrow was made?” You would pull out the arrow. Buddhist practice is about the effort to end the suffering now.

That is another negative. It is what it is not. Can you tell me what it is [Nirvana], not in terms of what it lacks?

I think unconditioned says it all since something being outside of space/time cannot be defined. But here are some attributes.

Unbound
Released
Unexcelled Security
Deathless
The Foremost Ease
Beyond Fear
Blissful
Without Grief

Define Heaven for me.

 

[notself]

This article just popped up on the New York Times. You may have to register to read it but registration is free. The author is a conservative Republican columnist. It is called the Neural Buddhists by David Brooks.

nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html?em&ex=1210824000&en=787e405a3a54e904&ei=5087%0A

Knock me over with a feather.

 

[Yegorbombs]

Dalai Lama is Satanic
trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm

 

[Lilyflower]

Dalai Lama is Satanic
trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm

I am afraid I must disagree with you.

So far as I can see, His Holiness the Dali Lama is second in spirituality only to our very own Pope Benedict.

Our parish priest is a great fan of His Holiness. Before Mass, we altar servers are required to pray to Christ then to acknowledge His Holiness. Our PP is also a devout follower of Budhism and a Budhist practitioner, that is he teaches the way to holiness through Budhism.

He is respected within a catchment area of some 1000 sq miles as an exponent of Budhism. Budhists from far and wide come to hear our Parish Priest teach on Budhism.

Now if our very dear Catholic Priest feels that way, as far as I am concerned it is right.

Blessings and peace

 

[Yegorbombs]

I’m not asking you to agree with me, I want you to decide for yourself. The Dalai Lama is not Buddhist in its original sense, he belongs to a different sect of Buddhism that has some very strange practices to say the least. They practice something called the “rule of reversal,” meaning they do what is considered impure by Buddhism to become complacent towards it and achieve what they call enlightenment.

Check out the link, you won’t regret it.

 

[Eucharisted]

Buddhism makes me angry, mainly because it is the only major religion that denies God.

See:

Let me add something to this.

This is a fallacy because Atheism denies that the supernatural exists. At least other religions accept the supernatural to some extent. Thus Atheism is not the safest choice, if the supernatural is a possibility. The logical law of non contradiction applies. If the supernatural IS a possibility, Atheism is not true simply because it denies the supernatural.

Now, on the side of the opposite of Atheism - which is not necessarily religion - because there are Atheistic religions like Confucianism, Unitarian Universalism, Scientology, etc. Thus, they really can’t put religion in the other 50%, because religion is 100% of the pie in this case. This is another reason the 50% fallacy doesn’t work.

And theism is not the opposite of Atheism - because of the fact there are atheistic religions too. So if supernatural is possible, that doesn’t mean theism is true. It just opens up the atheistic religions to the realm of possibility - maybe Buddhism is true, or Confucianism is true. Unfortunately, many atheists, resist accepting the possibility of the supernatural because they think that this MUST mean theism is true. This is not the case.

I see Atheism like any other religion - see my previous posts about how atheism is really a religion (I use the “looks like a duck…” reasoning) - many atheists require that belief in a god or gods is required to have a religion (which would then declare Buddhism, Confucianism, Scientology, and other religions, as non-religions - and that does not fit reality.)

 

[rossum]

Dalai Lama is Satanic
trimondi.de/SDLE/Contents.htm

The site you reference is at the level of someone quotes the Bible saying “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…” and claims that Christianity is a cannibalistic religion.

Its misunderstanding of Buddhist scriptures and of Buddhism is as bad as that.

rossum

 

[Newbie2]

“The Dalai Lama, 12th son of the Lama…flowing robes, bald…striking.”

 

[Eucharisted]

I am afraid I must disagree with you.

So far as I can see, His Holiness the Dali Lama is second in spirituality only to our very own Pope Benedict.

Our parish priest is a great fan of His Holiness. Before Mass, we altar servers are required to pray to Christ then to acknowledge His Holiness. Our PP is also a devout follower of Budhism and a Budhist practitioner, that is he teaches the way to holiness through Budhism.

He is respected within a catchment area of some 1000 sq miles as an exponent of Budhism. Budhists from far and wide come to hear our Parish Priest teach on Budhism.

Now if our very dear Catholic Priest feels that way, as far as I am concerned it is right.

Blessings and peace

Your priest is wrong. You cannot be both Catholic and Buddhist. Buddhism is an atheist religion. Christianity is a theist religion. They don’t mix - nor do their spiritualities and teachings. Please read this article for more.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism is an atheist religion. Christianity is a theist religion.

Buddhism is not atheist; there are plenty of gods in Buddhist scriptures. It is more correct to say that Buddhism is indifferent to all gods. The gods exist but they are not important to us except for minor things.

They don’t mix - nor do their spiritualities and teachings.

Some of their teachings mix perfectly well:* Love your neighbour as yourself - Jesus

• Love others as you love yourself - Buddha

All of the Five Moral Rules of Buddhism mix well with Christianity:* avoid injuring living things.

• avoid taking what is not given.
• avoid sensual misconduct.
• avoid false and malicious speech.
• avoid intoxicants.

I agree that the theologies of the two religions do not mix, but their moralities have many similarities.

rossum

 

[Yegorbombs]

The site you reference is at the level of someone quotes the Bible saying “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood…” and claims that Christianity is a cannibalistic religion.

Its misunderstanding of Buddhist scriptures and of Buddhism is as bad as that.

rossum

I’m not making a case against buddhism and neither does the e-book. I’m making a case against the Dalai Lama and his cult sect, the same argument that’s made in the book. See the claims made here: Dalai Lama belongs to a cult sect of buddhism which is not buddhism in its true form.

This thread is not about buddhism, it’s about the Dalai Lama. I reject buddhism as truth as well, but I’ll save that for a different thread. First let’s see what Dalai Lama is really all about.

 

[Veridical16]

I am afraid I must disagree with you.

So far as I can see, His Holiness the Dali Lama is second in spirituality only to our very own Pope Benedict.

Our parish priest is a great fan of His Holiness. Before Mass, we altar servers are required to pray to Christ then to acknowledge His Holiness. Our PP is also a devout follower of Budhism and a Budhist practitioner, that is he teaches the way to holiness through Budhism.

He is respected within a catchment area of some 1000 sq miles as an exponent of Budhism. Budhists from far and wide come to hear our Parish Priest teach on Budhism.

Now if our very dear Catholic Priest feels that way, as far as I am concerned it is right.

Blessings and peace

Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. One can’t believe one person can get closer to God this way (Pope Benedict), while another person gets closer to God in a way that clearly has a lot of mistruths foundationally. (He’d realize reincarnation doesn’t add up in terms of human dignity and the soul for one thing.)

Now I do think that it’s possible for the Dalai Llama to preach “some truth” and think Jesus makes it a point to not be antagonistic to figures like the Dalai Llama "whoever isn’t against us is for us."etc. However from the Llama’s quotes, I’ve only seen an outsider speaking platitudes that don’t really acknowledge a God. And his religion itself is fundamentally flawed in reference to the Catholic. So he’s not really for anyone. Not Jesus. Not God.
It’s incomplete. He and his religion are a false alternative…and ultimately a dead end. You can only get so far.

I’d put a bunch of devout Catholics and future Saints in the Church over a misguided individual who was told he was the reincarnation of a semi-deity all his life filled with an easy incomplete understanding of the truth and peace. You give the guy too much credit.

If he truly was second in spirituality to Peter’s successor, then he’d convert to Catholicism next year.

Your priest is wrong. You cannot be both Catholic and Buddhist. Buddhism is an atheist religion. Christianity is a theist religion. They don’t mix - nor do their spiritualities and teachings. Please read this article for more.

• 1

When I was younger, I had this ecumenical naive world view and not a full understanding the fullness of the faith.
It’s a little bit unsettling that even priests are capable of being stuck in that naive world view, where “nobody can be wrong and all religions are equal” BS

I don’t take the Dalai Llama seriously anymore, especially since the world isn’t threaten by him and young people think he’s okay because he’s inoffensive and neutral. It should be noted that the only world religious leader that is paid attention to is our own Holy Father in terms being a pain in the butts of the people who love the world and are of it, so that should say something about his genuine office. The Dalai Llama being hip and no threat to the evils of this world itself is enough for me not to really take him seriously in terms of being another voice for spirituality.

The Dalai llama ain’t any more spiritual than anyone else. He just has a good tight knit network of PR people and Richard Gere to make one think that it is so.

 

[Veridical16]

Some of their teachings mix perfectly well:* Love your neighbour as yourself - Jesus

• Love others as you love yourself - Buddha

All of the Five Moral Rules of Buddhism mix well with Christianity:* avoid injuring living things.

• avoid taking what is not given.
• avoid sensual misconduct.
• avoid false and malicious speech.
• avoid intoxicants.

I agree that the theologies of the two religions do not mix, but their moralities have many similarities.

rossum

Morality without the why, bugs me…

I’ve seen too many atheists who’ve fallen away who used to be Catholic but were lacking or clearly missing some sense of morality, mull about becoming Buddhists because it’s easier since they still need validation for their moral compass, but don’t quite know why they want to still do good.

I think that other poster’s priest is encouraging irresponsible behavior, and it’s kind of , too sophomoric to suggest that just because there are similarities in their moral teachings, that there is a suggestion of an either /or approach to faith.

When you start reducing or referencing other religions on the same level of our own, I think that’s opening up doors for trouble.
Rather than give credence to parts of non-Catholic religions point out that there is evidence that God’s commandments are written in the hearts of men (however obscured or misguided they are about morality [like in the case of that Buddha guy, Siddhartha Gautama ], and it is evident that we shouldn’t take for granted that we were blessed with Jesus’ church to have a full scope on how the law is written in our hearts.

It’s the “mixing of moralities” from other sources without proper perspective that bugs me. It opens up a can of worms, to the rise new age thinkers having an “in” on the debate with we’ve been having to deal with now, outside of the Church and within our Church, as evidenced by that priest.
Once a person exposed to this clouded position on what is truth, where does truth come from? They can hit a teaching from the Catholic Church that’s too hard to hear… the mixing of moralities from other religions that were given validity, offers them option to start shaping God to a burgeoning errant belief system–an option that wouldn’t have been there if they hadn’t introduced Buddhism(or whatever else) as another valid source for truth alongside Catholicism.

To suggest that an incomplete view on God from Buddhism should have equal acknowledgement to Christian morality should be discouraged because there is no middle ground, and compromise when it comes to what Jesus-the Holy Spirit and the Father offer to us very seriously.
That’s probably a reason why Jesus warns those who are in a position to teach/sheperd like that Buddhist errant priest, that they have more culpability than the ignorant sheep.
I think that is the reason why Jesus put it out there “no one can come to the father except through me” not to be intolerant, but to say to his followers and potential followers “Hey, I’m already here in the flesh telling you the truth, and giving you access to the God who is THE SOURCE of your morality , don’t insult me by not taking my words very seriously and assume that I’m just another vendor like the rest of the guys who’ve sought to understand me. I’m actually God unlike them. This IS the truth, I am the truth.” (And even I admit, I thought that John 14:6 was a tough line to understand before and still have had to ponder it in terms of salvation outside of the Church )

To somehow think one can also find it in another religion like Buddhism and say "hey, they’re kinda the same too! " , disregards what Jesus is saying there.

To go to Buddhism or another alternative religion for morality–that may very well have some truth to offer **in the short of things **in terms of similarity to some of Jesus’ sayings–is like having a Beatles album, and preferring to listen to an inferior Beatles tribute band’s version of that album instead.
It’s like choosing to watch an Elvis impersonator in 1968 at your local pizza joint, rather than going to Vegas to actually see him live.

Ultimately Buddhism’s morality is already a backhanded slap,
I take their five points as a slap in God’s face because it puts out the truth, but doesn’t give credit to THE creator nor do they even give consideration to find him and prefer to be their own saviors. One could even say that at least Islam in all its inerrant misguided misunderstandings of the Father is a step ahead of Buddhism in terms of an attempt at spirituality because at least they claim to acknowledge One God (even though I believe they don’t really have the true view of the loving father.) whereas Buddhism itself won’t go out on a limb of acknowledging our creator.
Referencing Buddhism’s 5 points of morality, is no different than picking and choosing some good things that come out of Islam.

With Christianity it’s ALL or Nothing. There is no middle ground. Let your yes be yes. Your parish priest is dabbling in new ageism and corruption of the faith by saying Buddhism’s morality can be incorporated along side our faith because at face value it sounds the same. Such a way to holiness probably ain’t a way to holiness at all.
Christianity is not just about morality. It is the meaning of life.