Posted on 01/16/2010 6:46:41 AM PST by cold start
Vadodara: His Holiness the Dalai Lama is known for his wisdom and witty remarks so no one was surprised when he declared on Friday that he cannot say that Buddhism is the best religion.
Speaking at International Convention on Buddhism in Vadodara, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet said, “We cannot say that one religion is best. I am a Buddhist but I can’t say Buddhism is the best religion. It depends on a person’s perception that what is best for him.”
He further added that, “We should respect all religions. India is a secular country where all the religions are equally respected.”
In a very witty remark, Dalai Lama said, “Mr Modi (Mahabodhi Society of India Patron Dr. Bhupendra Kumar Modi) told me that Indians consider me a fellow Indian. I must tell you, I am India’s son. My knowledge and my wisdom come from India and I am really proud of it.”
Adding another tongue in cheek remark, Dalai Lama said, “Though I have Tibetan parents so my flesh and blood is Tibetan. But, as a matter of fact, spiritually I am an Indian and physically I am a Tibetan.”
Praising India’s unique culture and communal harmony, Dalai Lama said, “India is unique because it follows a culture of non-violence accepted across religions coexisting in the country. There is not much difference in the cultures of Buddhists and Muslims in India as they both follow the tradition of truth and non-violence.”
He went on to add that, “Indians are ‘Guru’ and we (Tibetans) are ‘Chelas’ because Buddhism originated from India. So, when I travel to different parts of the world, I introduce myself as an Indian messenger. I propagate ‘Ahimsa’ so now my guru India, should start promoting non-violence again.
Continuing his refreshingly witty speech, Dalai Lama further added, “Chinese are the senior students of Buddhism while Tibetans are the junior students. So, whenever I give teachings to Chinese Buddhists, I jokingly tell them that the knowledge of ‘junior students’ is not bad.”
Launching a veiled attack on the Chinese atrocities in Tibet, Dalai Lama said, “The condition of Tibet is in turmoil. I want the heritage of Tibet to be given back to India as it is the only place where they will be in safe hands.”
Dalai Lama was at his spiritual best at the function. Speaking about the importance of satisfaction in life, he said, “I had a friend who was very rich but he was not happy. This shows that money and power don’t necessarily guarantee happiness. One should seek inner peace. This inner peace and spirituality can be achieved through love, compassion and affection.
He also advocated the idea of ‘Vasudhaev Kutumbkam’, saying, “The recently concluded Coopenhagen Summit was like a ray of hope for the world affected badly by global warming. The reason for the failure of the summit was that all the world leaders considered their national interest more important than the global interest. This is a wrong approach.”
Nope. If my neighbor believes something different from me, even that I'm doomed to eternal damnation, it affects me not in the least. Unless of course when I die he turns out to be right.
I can just ignore him and believe something different.
It's kind of difficult to ignore someone who is sawing your head off.
It's the difference between belief and action.
Tolerance actually, by definition, requires disagreement. If you believe that all religions are equally true, than you can't truly be tolerant.
This claim that tolerance requires acceptance and even celebration is of course exactly what is done by varioius liberal interest groups, notably the gay lobby. It's not enough to allow them to live their own lives. They insist that others not be allowed to believe otherwise or at least express their disagreement. That's hate speech, you know. Which is how "tolerance," carried to an extreme becomes utterly intolerant.
Tolerance occurs when one disagrees and equally recognizes the right of someone else to believe otherwise.
This is perhaps best expressed by Voltaire, who is reputed to have said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire actually said “I disagree” not “ I disapprove” which has the sound of being more judgmental.
Look, you clearly have a view and while you are entitled to it, it certainly is not one I find myself in agreement with. Action follows belief and the only difference in their respective levels of intolerance is whether that manifests itself only in a forum or is taken to an uglier level depending on the individual concerned. I personally prefer the use of the word “respect” instead of “tolerance” and specifically for the connotation the word carries as clearly enunciated by you.
Since you quoted Voltaire, here a few quotes attributed to him that i happen to like;
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd”
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
“Prejudice is opinion without judgement.”
Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent - Destruction of Temples
As it says in that article Buddhism had declined in the south of India but Muslim conquest virtually chased the rest out of the north and they fled to Nepal, Sikkim and Tibet or escaped to the South of the sub-continent.
Or who attacked Buddhists and Buddhism more times throughout history. Muslims.
It might make things a little simpler to look at who was native to the Indian continent. Hindus? Yes. Buddhists? Yes. Muslims? Are you kidding me?
We can also clear up more about the Mongols contact with Buddhism.
The MongolsIn 1215, Genghis Khan conquered Afghanistan and devastated the Muslim world. In 1227, after his death, his conquest was divided. Chagatai then established the Chagatai Khanate, where his son Arghun made Buddhism the state religion. At the same time, he came down harshly on Islam and demolished mosques to build many stupas.
Chagatai Khanate was Ghengis Khan's third son so this occurred during Ghengis Khan's lifetime. Given the tremendous breadth of territory that Ghengis Khan and his sons conquered, the fact that he neither prohibited nor supported the practice of any religion amongst his warriors himself and the fact that he brought the warriors of the armies he conquered into his army virtually every religion from the eastern Mediterranean to Siberia to Beijing to Bombay was represented under his rule.
No one said that they were did they? So what is your point? Even today I doubt that all Mongols practice Buddhism. Even in Tibet large numbers of Tibetans are not Buddhists or at least not serious practitioners.
But I did prove that Buddhism was very strong in Mongolia long before you claim it was. When the ruler himself becomes a Buddhist and most of the ruling class is as well and their interest becomes a major influence (all quotes from my previous source) then you can't dismiss it as insignificant much less non-existent as you claimed. I see you have changed your story about that now so as to try and maintain some veracity to your position.
We are going round and round and not getting anywhere. Somewhere back in the thread somebody gave the Mongols as an example of bloodthirst Buddhists. I never claimed there were no Buddhists among the Mongols in their great days, I merely pointed out that Buddhists were one faith among many for the Mongols at the time.
Today, OTOH, the Mongols of Mongolia, are pretty much all Buddhists, or believe they are, although their religion is mixed with a lot of shamanistic elements.
If it’s all the same with you, I’ll move on from our discussion. We don’t seem to be getting anywhere positive. :)
I wish you well with Buddhism and your life.
What is the value of a person's perception when wagered against eternity?
Gandhi once said the problem with Christianity is that few Christians behave Christ-like.
Your suspicions are incorrect. Analogies to the evolutional history of Christianity are tempting but not valid. The main differences between the five main schools of Tibetan Buddhism are not doctrinal. There are different lineages of teachings followed in each but each is in accord with the others on doctrine and there are many crossovers of lineage. The Tibetan Buddhist canon, written in English, fills several books each much bigger than the Christian Bible so I would call that a formal statement of doctrine.
Statements like "In fact, Tibetan Buddhism is a blend of Bon, a shamanistic pre-Buddhist religion and Mahayama Buddhism" are distortions. There is only a small grain of truth to that. Bon was fundamentally changed, over a long period of time, by the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet by Padmasambhava in the 8th century. Bon did influence ritual and practice in the Buddhist schools that evolved but from the start an absolute adherence to the tantric doctrine of Buddhism, brought from India at the request of the Tibetan King Tresong Detsen, has been observed to this day. The underlying principles of the Buddhist view remain intact and foundational and from what I've heard that is now true of Bon too.
What is even more troubling are your uninformed statements about Tibetan Buddhism's purity in connection with Sakymuni's original teachings. (No Buddhist I know of calls him Guatama) All schools of TB can trace an unbroken lineage of teachers to Sakymuni.
All teachings in all of these schools are in strict, unwavering accord with his teachings. The fact that other schools of Buddhism in SE Asia may say otherwise is a reflection of their lack of knowledge and understanding of tantric Buddhism not a variance in doctrine.
Sakyamuni himself predicted that an emanation of himself would come back and give his Third Basket of teachings, tantric practice, and it happened. He gave only a minimal amount of teachings on the Third Basket in his lifetime which give verification of the continuity of the teachings that came later.
The most egregious statement you made though was this IMO.
But it is certain that worship of actual deities is extremely common in Tibet itself, complete with sacrifices, even if the monks and lamas explain it away metaphirically.
There is where you stray into absolute BS. Who commanded an end to the Bon practice of animal sacrifice and when? (Even the pre-Buddhist Bon didn't do human sacrifice that I have ever heard of. You left that unclear whether intentional or not I don't know.) You don't know do you? It was Padmasambhava in the 8th century the one who established the foundation of all Buddhist practice in Tibet. There is no worship of anything or anyone in Tibetan Buddhism. Lay people may exhibit that kind of behavior but no teacher in any school on any level would agree or approve of that. Not if you conveyed an accurate understanding of what you, a westerner, mean by "worship."
Translating and getting across an accurate understanding of a word like "worship" from a western mind to a TB lama's mind, from English to Tibetan and back is not an easy thing. But I have the advantage of a relationship with an American born teacher who has had extensive relationships with several very well-respected Tibetan born lamas. His advantage is that he has achieved a level of understanding of the teachings that frees him from needing any further consultation with a teacher of his own, Tibetan or otherwise, to be clear on concepts such as worship or faith or anything else that might involve cultural or linguistic translation.
While not part and parcel of my own practice I have spent a lot of time getting clear on those things with him because I am American born and a westerner through and through so I have to filter everything I learn through a lifetime of American-western cultural thinking.
It is amazing how deeply cultural influences affect the meaning of words. Even what seem to be rather mundane words. Until you try to learn something that has originated in an entirely different culture, but at its base is not a product of any culture, that is difficult to appreciate.
Even within English speaking western culture I think there is little appreciation for the difference between 'veneration' and 'worship.' That confusion is just deepened when seeing the outward manifestations of Buddhist veneration which is quite elaborate and serious. The purpose for those kinds of ritualistic actions is very different but not readily apparent.
Knowing only a theistic mindset in the west, for that kind of behavior, I can understand that confusion. In the west those behaviors are almost exclusively associated with some kind of theistic worship. It is virtually unknown as being only a tool to train and tame the mind. The confusion is deepened because both mindsets exist in significant numbers in the east.
That statement is at complete odds with this statement...
In an odd way the Eastern religions are no more tolerant than the Abrahamic ones.
Both can't be true so you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too in your argument.
Since Buddhists nor other eastern religions do that even in the least that is nothing but an empty straw-man argument employed to bolster your weak guilt by association with gays and liberals. Now that is a liberal tactic.
I agree completely with that and if I missed it I apologize for the confusion.
We don’t seem to be getting anywhere positive. :)
I always start with an assumption that FReepers are willing if not eager to learn rather than not. Discussion and debate are not always (not often?) neat and clean but I always find it to be a positive experience. Even when I am proved wrong. ;-)
I wish you well too and in spite of my strong challenge of your positions I do respect your opinion.
There were the sohei and monto (often described as warrior monks, but monto belonged to sects that didn’t have monks in the traditional sense) of various sects in Japan, and particularly the conflicts which revolved around the Jodo Shinshu and Nichirenshu and the Ikko-Ikki are the closest thing I ever really have seen that are close to serious bloodthirsty Buddhist activities...with fortified temples, to boot. Sectarian overtones as well as social class conflict and taking sides in major political conflicts, especially in the Sengoku Jidai period.
Just a clarification since Sherman Logan was referring to my post. I never claimed that Mongols were examples of bloodthirsty Buddhists. I was actually making the point that Buddhism by itself has never been a reason for the bloodthirstiness that people who happen to be Buddhists(Japanese,Mongols)have been accused of. I was contrasting this,without actually saying so with both Islam and Christianity(to a lesser extent)where religion has sometimes been at the heart of their bloodthirstiness.
In any case, its pointless looking at what happened all those centuries ago through the glasses of 21st century morality.
Everyone has their excesses I won't deny that. The main problem with all religions, no matter how high a standard of ethics they try to maintain, is that all of the adherents are human beings.
Understood. I didn’t think you had.
Something similar has already happened.
Examples: Islam and Mormonism. Examine each closely, and each resembles a Christian heresy.
Not to mention the fact that the Jews themselves consider Christianity to be a "blasphemous adulteration" of their religion. That aside from the fact that the Catholic Church displays syncretism as it absorbed the myriad faiths of the Roman Empire.
Protestantism, by and large, is a movement to go back to what one could call "original" Christianity.
“Christ would be added to Buddha as a god or guru, and Christianity would at best become another sect of Hinduism.”
Why would that be bad? Why are so many obsessed with the repudiation of the beliefs of others rather than with the wider acceptance of their own belief? Nobody is asking those who believe in Christ as the only savior to change their belief. How would it matter if Buddhists & Hindus accept the teachings of Christ but not necessarily the contention that no other path exists? Would they not be benefitted by the teachings of Christ? Is it anyone’s argument that the teachings have no intrinsic value by themselves and serve no purpose unless it is also accompanied by the total repudiation of other beliefs? Even if that be the argument, why impose it on Buddhists & Hindus who do not share that conviction?
That statement isn't correct anyway. If Hindus made Christ a deity that would be a change to Hinduism not Christianity. Christianity would remain as it was. It might irritate some Christians with OCD but it doesn't do anything to the faith or its followers.
Well, yes. That was the argument of Christ and the early Christians, more or less. They did not (quite) say Christ's teachings had no value unless all other beliefs were rejected. But they certainly said a Christian could not continue to believe anything contrary to what Christ said and remain a Christian.
Christ himself said salvation could come only through Him. That means unless you accept Christ as the Savior, honoring his teachings as moral precepts have no value for you as an individual in the long run. In fact, if you reject him as the sole Savior, you are by definition not honoring his teachings, since you are deciding on your own authority which of his sayings are valid.
Even if that be the argument, why impose it on Buddhists & Hindus who do not share that conviction?
Where, in the last century or two, have Christians "imposed" their arguments on Buddhists and Hindus? If I believe strongly and make an argument for my opinion, is that "imposing" my views on the hearer?
Another reason why: Christ told us to. He ordered his followers to preach his Word, including most especially the part about him being the Son of God and the Savior of the world. He did not order them to go forth and devote their lives and suffer horrible deaths to promote the idea he was just another in a long line of good moral teachers. That would have been a remarkably silly thing to do, and even Monty Python couldn't really find much silly in Christ's teachings.
How would it matter if Buddhists & Hindus accept the teachings of Christ but not necessarily the contention that no other path exists?
Because the core teaching of Christianity is that no other path to God and salvation exists?
Because if that teaching is abandoned Christianity in any meaningful sense ceases to exist?
Can't argue with that (to a degree). I only have to look at myself.
But Gandhi missed the truth. Christians belong to Christ by the new birth--"You must be born again"--and quite apart from anything they do or don't do. It's the rest of the world that is under a curse—"Cursed be anyone who does not do all things written in the book of the Law."
Jesus was the perfect example and still he was rejected. God sang a dirge (John the Baptist) and played the flute (Jesus) and the naysayers refused to respond on either occasion. Sometimes He veils truth as a Judgement—"No sign will be given...except the sign of Jonah".
Bottom line: Christians exist for God's pleasure and enjoyment, not that of the nitpicking, mocking pagan world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.