Non-binary Buddhism?

​

Does the 14th and current Dalai Lama believes that Buddhism is "non-binary?"

 

"Non-binary" is rather an odd term. (Mathematical pun intended, but not relevant.) The more normal translation of the Sanskrit term advaita is non-dualism (a = not; dva = dual; ita = -ness or -ism)

Non-dualism is a rather fundamental aspect of Buddhism. It is one way of relating to the world around us, a more accurate way. H.H. the Dalai Lama would certainly recognize this. However he is a pragmatist, and so recognizes that most people do not see the world as non-dual.

 

So,
It is better for Buddhists to follow,
Than consider who they are following?

Why would communists need to choose the Dalai Lama?

 

Certainly not.

Why do they do anything they do? Because they are into manipulation.

It is probably a more appropriate question on one of the political forums. The Chinese nomination for Dalai Lama, if there will be one, is unlikely to be accepted by anyone, so is of only peripheral interest to Buddhists.

 

This question is best answered by the dalai lama.

 

Then Buddhism is not non-dualistic.

Has the Dalai Lama explicitly stated if Buddhism is non-dualistic?
It isn't inferred from his contradictions on violence?

I'm sure that there are some communists who are in it for the power,
But there are some who are honest and explicit in obeying their principles.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

Not really,
Communism seems to share some Buddhist principles (equality, anti-greed,...),
How do their principles conflict?

What are the principles for identifying each Dalai Lama?

 

I do not monitor what the dalai lama says, why would one? Are you Tibetan or just into celebrity?
What contradictions on violence?

 

Semantic games.

I'm sure they are. But they aren't the ones who want to subvert a religious process for political gain.

Their objectives conflict.

The actual process is easy to google. No doubt, the Chinese government will try to mimic the process as closely as they can. What matters is the credibility of those nominating a candidate. The Chinese government has no credibility in this field. The Tibetan community in exile does.

 

Never mind, I think I answered my own question.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

 

So,
The Dalia Lama's principles,
Do not conflict with communism?

 

That last link doesnt make sense to me. What the dali lama is saying about killing others is in conflict with their belief about reincarnation of the dali lama.

Their practices can never be lost if the dali lama is re-birthed. If they practice non violence and disappeared only to have the dali lama re-incarnate to reteach the practices then how do they vanish for good. It is not possible.

 

Stop trying to put words in my mouth. It's a juvenile game.

List the communist principles you are interested in and I'll tell you if they conflict with Buddhism. I really have better things to do than to investigate a failed ideology for the purpose of playing your games.

 

Maybe the Dalia Lama will not reincarnate.

 

If the Dalai Lama is actually being non-binary (non-dualistic) when he appears to change Buddhist Traditions.
And communists (like Qiangba Puncog), believe these changes are not actually Buddhist traditions,
Then why is there a conflict between Buddhists and communists in Tibet?

 

Conflict between Buddhists and communists in Tibet is political. The communists cannot stand someone who does not share their ideology having a voice, especially if that person enjoys the respect of the population. Therefore they want/need to replace the current independent Dalai Lama with one who will say what they tell him to say.

The communists have nothing intelligent to say about Buddhism. To them it is simply the same error as Christianity or any other opiate of the masses. Obviously that is in conflict with people who believe that it offers valuable guidance.

 

You think Christianity is an opiate of the masses?

I'm not sure you understand my question regarding conflict in Tibet.
If it is Buddhist to change Buddhist traditions,
And the communists want to change Buddhist traditions,
Then why is there a conflict?

Conscientious objection has been a Buddhist tradition.
But non-dualism appears to make Buddhism a shell of its former self,
In other words, Buddhists become Buddhists in name only.
For communism, this could be a means of preventing future religious opposition.

 

No, of course not. But the communists do.

You are right. Your questions make no sense.

Is it?? Where are you getting that from?

They want to eliminate them. I guess that is a change.

This question is not logical. You are treating "change" as though it were a singular, amorphous entity. Obviously there are an infinite number of possible changes, some beneficial and some harmful. What the respective institutions think of "change" clearly depends on what change you are proposing.

How is this relevant to your question?

This is your opinion only, and it does not seem to be a well informed one. Nondualism is an inherent part of Buddhist philosophy, and has been since the beginning. Your declaration is nonsense.

More nonsense.

You sound like a shill for the Chinese government. Your insistence on declaring uninformed opinions to be truths is exactly the technique that deprives them of any claim to moral authority.

 

Thanks for finally giving me a straight answer.

Maybe my questions would be less nonsensical to you,
If you could define change for me.

 

Change is change. Your point, if you have one, does not hinge on what the definition is. Instead, it depends on illogical inferences and non-sequiturs.

Now perhaps you will give me some straight answers to my questions.

 

As much as there should be a separation of church and state there should be a separation of spirit and church in your understanding of a religion. Although the church, such as of Catholicism as well as other Christian churches have digested me, other religious institutions have as respectfully as possible tried to preserve and protect their foundation, and I do not see how the spiritual understanding of non-dualism in its real sense applies to this struggle.

I think the focus of your questioning is silly, and that you aren't grasping a true sense of non-duality as somehow it's led you to make the dualistic division between a metaphysical belief and a struggling religion. I think you're asking a question of western morality with hypocrisy in mind. However it is a non-dual reality that makes sense of apparent contradictions.