It Was No Shangri-la

made some really astonishing discoveries, that have shook some of my beleifs....
the dalai lama is actually quite controversial. i am not here to "dirt" his name (i mean, i have been to dharamsala twice and beleived quite a lot in him....), but... here are some facts...
- he is against oral/anal sex and comdemns homosexuality (strangely, like the pope)
- before the exile, in tibet, he lived in a 1000 room, 14 story palace.
-tibet was no shangri-la (before the exile). it was ruled by the monastic establishment, extremely rich, and a huge part of the population were lived in serfdom, tied to the land, and in the end not free. (like in medieval europe) These peasant were extremely poor. (and please, i am NOT for the chinese, i absolutly despise what they have done to tibet).
-slavery was still present in the 50's.
-there are evidence that some of those monasteries had their own private prison, and even torture and mutilation had been practiced. you could be blinded (special techniques were used to take out your eyes) and crippled for steeling sheep for instance. And visistors saw quite a lot of amputies in tibet.
-the cia helped him flee to india, and helped with a lot money to put up the new goverment in dharamsala. The dalai lama has not taken any personal gain of this, but his movement have received cia funds.
-the cia, who were fighting chinese communists, helped to train a tibetan gerilla. the brother of the dalai lama has even helped to take in weapon inside tibet (given by cia).

i dont want to live in a world of illusion, i need to know...
peace

 

HHDL is a prisoner of his office.

He also is a very good man who feel very accountable for his opinions. He has always been one of the most forthright individuals. In this world, there is not another being quite like him.

He has done more than any man could to help increase Tibetans education and health worldwide.

 

He just a leader, his path is not your own, though what he says may be of some aid and he may be a great humanitarian(which you are now saying he is not, if so it doesn't really matter), he is just a person, not a buddha. He does not tell you what to do.

He is not the pope of Buddhism after all.

 

On homosexuality;
If you look at his discussions and statements on this (look online) it seems he doesn't approve of anal sex, oral sex and so doesn't approve of homosexuality because of the fact it includes these acts. Not because people are actually homosexual though (he's also 'against' oral/anal sex within hetrosexual couples, so it's not the fact people are homosexual). He tries to explain this in interviews but is frequently misquoted and misunderstood to be outwardly against homosexuality.
More to the point this is all based on a sutta and he's recently commented on how this view may need to be revised. So at the moment it remains a grey area.
This topic is discussed to death here ; http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=5403

On Tibet pre-invasion;
What you say is true. But look on the flipside; No death penalty. Unlike civilised nations such as, um, modern-day America! Sure, if you were one of the bandits who killed, raped and stole from travelling caravans and pilgrims then you might get your hand cut off or worse (probably better than camp x-ray though eh?). But never the death penalty.

On CIA funding;
Dalai Lamas brother apparently did recieve money to train Tibetan guerillas. But then the Dalai Lama ordered them to disarm. For better or worse the Dalai Lama has maintained since that a peaceful non-violent struggle is the only way to free Tibet.
CIA probably did help set up the government in exile in Dharamsala. Why's this a bad thing? Good for the CIA (actually doing something good for once, even if they had alterior motives).

Nobodys perfect, including his holiness. Might have some seemingly dodgy views on homosexuality/anal/oral sex (So did my grandparents, but they were extremely compassionate people!), but overall comes across as a pretty damn nice person to say the least who has done a lot of good for the world...I think people are always great at pointing out the negative points about someone (especially the media, they get paid for it).

 

Probably worse by quite a margin that Guantanamo. And worse because this treatment was meted out by so-called religioius authorities.
I assume that a bandit would not be a rich man. So by cutting off his hand, you make it impossible for him to actually work or earn a living.Thus there is no attempt at rehabilitation. Not a very enlightened attitude. And possibly a death sentance by the back door in many cases - esp since no doubt many people who were thus mutilated would develop infections.

As for sex - waht do you expect from a basically anti-sex philosophy? Because in the end, that is Buddhism. Not only sex but all sense pleasure is thought of as simply entanglement in illusion and passion.

Having said that, I agree that the Lama is nice enough chap. Whether we'd see him in the same light if Tibet was still under his rule is another question.

 

so called religious authorities who were also police, doctors, nurses, educators, etc, all run by the priestly caste. Ideally, those who would care the most. Some parishes were great, some not so great. One could look to Bhutan to see how it was.

 

but why is it ok? just because it is the DL? i think that we have this feeling that buddhism is not a religion, and that it can't be bad.
some other facts about the DL:
-nazi and SS Heinrich Harrer, with the shäfer expedition went to tibet (30.s i think), he came to contact with the DL. if you see "seven years in tibet", it's the story of Harrer. there are a lot evidence that hitler and his men were looking for an arian race in tibet, measuring skulls and so on. Ernst Schäfer, one of Himmlers personal staff, had been doing 3 expeditions to tibet, the project name was: ahnenerbe, meaning: ancestral inheritance. it was thought by the nazis that tibet was the craddle of humanity.
-DL is not a big friend of bruno berger (ss and former nazi) but he is ok whith him- seen on fotos smiling together with him.
-the DLs brother said this, trying to defend the nazis: "what the chinese have done to the tibetans is worse than what the nazis have done to the jews"
-Some of the buddhist text are very aggressive, fighting demons and so on. they even mention holy wars (!)
-bieng a non semitic religion, this suited the nazis perfectly.
- is even said that some buddhist mention a holy war against islam
- tantra slaves have been reported, western woman having been sexually abused by very high ranking monks. women were seen only as "energy providers" during those sex rituals. Also: women were told to visualise themselves in a mans body for their next life, being better than a female body.

I have doing A LOT of research, trust me.
We need to be honest to ourssevles: we do really think that buddhism is flawless, because it is different than all other religion.... but we live in it, it's "live", christianity for us for instance is equal to the pope, the inquisition, "suffering" etc... and we can look at it with objective eyes
but we are so "IN" the buddhist thing.... sometimes it's good to ask yourself:
WHAT IF?

 

Maybe we should be thankful for the secularizatrion of church and state here in the US and be glad that it's a model for the world even though it's imperfect. Ever read "Years of Rice and Salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson? Or Dune, with the Buddhislamics?

 

No human institution is perfect. no spiritual/religious organization is perfect. I would suggest that we have to look at it in relative terms. Whilst no doubt there were abuses under the Tibetan sysytem, they were really minor compared to some other religions.
Anyway - in my limited view, Buddhism is a flexible thing, it is capable of adaptation, so it is up to Buddhists now to rectify the abuses of the past by their own action.
Step one is what you have already done - be honest, try to see what the flaws are, because if we think it's already perfect, there is little chance of change.

 

Yes, it's true. Step one is to acknowledge the limitations and to aspire to be better from within. This also is what many lamas have done now.

 

If being honest is good, why are so many trying to forget/not see the whole picture. I still think some stuff in buddlhism is good, but actually, i think i really like buddha... same with jesus, i mean, he might have been a really nice person. I think it is religion that CAN make it all corrupt.... and as we all know christianity is really not always spiritual (the church/vatican etc....)
so WHY couldnt buddhism as a religion be corrupt? i thonk because many of us are actully partly buddhist, or thinking, that it is not a religion. but that's is only due to ignorance (and for me ignorance is not bliss). we are all ignorant in so many ways, but sometimes there comes times/facts to you, GIVEN to you, and you reject it.... because...: "ignorance is bliss" for many. i am not judging anybody, i just want to maybe to offer an alternative view: everybody says that buddhism is peacefull. why? because that's what WE ALL KNOW! but how many of us have actually read the texts, and analysed...?
let's be humble: we are arrogant when we think how think are , because we just know.
I really thought i knew the basic stuff about buddhism, but that was before i actually read anything about it....

 

I'm getting the idea that you thoguht Buddhism was the perfect uncorrupt relgion. Well than that is wrong. But Buddhism(and religon in general) can overcome this if it's pacrtioners who are troubled by this to JUST STOP CARING about what the AUOTHRIY who runs the organization does. I'm mean come on show some independace. Your spirtuallity is your own path. No one owns it or runs it. Don't some guy in tibet ruin Buddhism for you.

 

The Dharma is not flawless, not by a long shot. It would be extremely foolish for anyone to think that. It has transmitted from generation to generation by humans, and humans are flawed, thus the buddhist teachings are imperfect. Intellectualism has very limited boundaries being founded in conceptuality, it's all about direct experience, we are always told to look within and challenge the teachings of siddhartha, experience and test it out for ourselves. At the end of the day intellectual understanding of the suttas, scriptures, and buddhist concepts mean nothing without direct experience.

Look at Buddhism today, take a look at SE asian countries; monks smoking/drinking, very little actual meditation being practiced, parents sending their kids to ordain just to get them a decent education, 'karma for sale' (the birds in cages). And also back in the west a lot of controversal groups/sects popping up ('dark zen', FBWO).
Like any other philosophy, religion or ideological concept it's subjected to being twisted, exploited or misinterpreted by humans to suit there own selfish wants and desires.

Freakon it's good that you are questioning, so why not begin to study to suttas and scriptures for yourself? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/index.html start maybe with the Pali Canon here?

Also here is a discussion about the dalai lamas views on homosexuality from e-sangha a large and thriving online buddhist community (in the Gay/Lesbian forum): http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=5403 it's a very balanced argument/discussion...

 

And this is a very good point.

People seem to forget, Siddhartha realised Buddhahood without the aid of the dharma or a sangha. He learnt from all the religions of the day, became a Sadhu (Hindu ascetic), met many great teachers, but ultimately rejected it all and answered a deep urge and calling that was inside of him. He achieved buddhahood by being spiritually independent, by being open minded but at the same time critical of all the going thoughts of the day. And most of all he was determined and couargeous enough to follow that through until his questions were answered...So I think maybe that others can do it without following one of the traditions and schools of budhism today.

Read 'Siddhartha' by Herman Hesse if you haven't already.

 

Excellent post peterness. I think it is only when we have overcome dogma and removed the cobwebs from our eyes as regards established religions that there is any chance of spiritual progress.


I'd just like to say too that I think the whole thing of inhumane punishments etc is a function of human societies at a certain stage of development - in europe such things were common place until about the time of the French Revolution. They disappeared because it is not functional to have such things in a modern society, with notions of equality and freedom. All the old 'sun-king' cultures, of whichTibet was one, had the same sort of thing.

If this line of thought is of interest check out Michel Foucault's 'Discipline and Punish'

 

So, if we should stop caring about authority, then, what is the point of worshiping and protecting the dalai lama from any form of negative discussion? we are idolising him, having pictures of him, reading his books and talking about him as "his holiness". that is not humility fo me, if i would ever have a "guru" or "helper" or "teacher", i could never in my world imagine that you would call him or her "his/her holiness". i like HUMBLE teahers.

 

So, if we should stop caring about authority, then, what is the point of worshiping and protecting the dalai lama from any form of negative discussion? we are idolising him, having pictures of him, reading his books and talking about him as "his holiness". that is not humility fo me, if i would ever have a "guru" or "helper" or "teacher", i could never in my world imagine that you would call him or her "his/her holiness". i like HUMBLE teahers.

 

So, if we should stop caring about authority, then, what is the point of worshiping and protecting the dalai lama from any form of negative discussion? we are idolising him, having pictures of him, reading his books and talking about him as "his holiness". that is not humility fo me, if i would ever have a "guru" or "helper" or "teacher", i could never in my world imagine that you would call him or her "his/her holiness". i like HUMBLE teahers.

 

i dont like authority, and having to call the dalai lama "his holiness" is not a humble move....