Every now and then an iskconized version of Buddhism surfaces on GR or in private 'blooped devotees' (as if anyone's keeping count) snippets of conversaton.

For their benefit, here is a crash course in the Mahayana tradition.

So Bhaktavasya, you have come to educate us all in the glories of Buddhist thought! There is a long tangled and sometimes unclear history regarding Buddha, Buddhists,,,and Vaishnavism. Sometimes antagonistic, sometimes harmonious. Consider the pastime in CC of the Buddhist teacher and his followers offering impure food to Mahaprabhu and the result. Consider that two different Buddas from different Kali Yugas are mentioned in our Bhagavatam. Consider that the Buddha that is commonly known to history as the son of King Shuddhodana and Queen Maya is not the incarnation of Vishnu mentioned in Bhagavatam as the son of Anjana born in the province of Gaya (Bihar). And there is more. We do not dishonor anyone only examine their concepts from the standpoint of their relationship with, consciousness of, what they see as Divine, with Radha-Krishna and the concept we have of Them. Of course, we say the vision we are graced with is fuller. In my comments over there I was presenting a very general overview of Buddhism to accomodate Sankara's so-called Mayavada presentation (his commentary on Vedanta Sutra especially) as being very similiar to, paralel to, a predominate Buddhist philosoply, at least in his time. We compare their philosophy by our terms of definition, and our sastric conclusion is they attain 'prakriti sayuja' or merging into the subtlest material elements and consider the 'classic' Mayavadi or Brahmavadi to get the attainment of Brahma-sayuja or merging into the infinite conscious effulgence emanating from the spiritual form of Bhagavan (godhead). There is farther to go to approach Radha-Krishna, from a broad standpoint. Anyway, Bhaktavasya, thanks for presenting this. All glories to Lord Buddha, the incarnation of Vishnu!

addendum to dayalu comments: aka good buddha and bad buddha

prabhupada has warned on even breathing the same air that buddhists have breathed

i would also like to give warning to breathing the air of brahmacaris in their ashrama after a sunday love feast and extreme caution to lighting a match due to high methane levels

Please be a little charitable, Dayalu. It's not like Bhaktavasya is posting reams and reams of her own revealed understanding of Buddhism or something. She is simply providing a link to an academic, i.e. a well-researched, fact-based and relatively value-neutral presentation. Might come in handy as a reference since the history of Buddhism and Buddha himself is so tangled, as you yourself have pointed out.

SP got this wrong, Dayalu. He is the only commentator who names Buddha's mother as Anjana (with final "a" long). All other Vaishnava and non-Vaishnava commentators read a short final "a" and then Anjana becomes the name of Buddha's father. This name is confirmed by both Theravada and Mahayana traditions as being, indeed, the name of the historical Buddha's father.

SP made many such mistakes in his translation work. In this case, the SB edition from which he was working, the 1889 Murshidabad Bengali edition, has this typo in the Bengali script, a long final "a", where it should be short. The good thing about this is that researchers can find out, by SP's mistakes, which source he actually used in his work with SB 1.

PS the verse in question is SB 1.3.24.

I was just being a sarcastic 'blooped devotee' or ISCONized. Apparently these terms are equated with ignorance to her. I never really identified with either of these terms though.

I am aware some mistakes occur, especially when one is not speaking from first hand knowledge. But what is the error here? Is it in the translation? It seems to say anjana-suta, but I am not a Sanskrit expert. Or is it that this name, anjana suta, is the name both Buddist schools, Theravada and Mahayana, agree is the name of Buddha's mother? Maybe a synonym? I'm not technically schooled in Buddhist history as they claim it, only the concepts of it I have heard from the GV school and the many Buddists I have met and talked with. So Epitau, please explain this in a better way so I can know that who Bhagavatam lists within Krishna's incarnations is the same historical Buddha revered by the Theravada and Mahayana sections. It would seem to make sense. Not being particularly known as a Buddhist, I would not want to claim to a Buddhist: 'what you say is Buddha, that is not Buddha', when harmony is already there. It's there anyway.
I am presently without my computer files, so I can't look anything up, and I'd appreciate hearing the corrected version from you, Epitau, really. And the more I think about it you did that pretty well already!

Apparently you are confused; i used the term 'blooped devotee' partly in jest and partly to use iskcon lingo to identify devotees who no longer follow the rules and regs, (which includes myself obviously) but who still talk in rigid, sectarian language when speaking of other relgions or spiritual paths, parrotting what they heard in iskcon.

As for that story of the Buddhists offerring Caitanya some meat on a plate, and a huge bird picking up the plate and dropping it on the Buddhists' heads (or was it only on the chief Buddhist's head?) I rejected stories like that a long time ago as fable and useless for me in my own spiritual quest.

The same with Prabhupad's denial of the Buddha who is known throughout the Buddhist communities as one of the 10 (more well known) avatars of Vishnu. A characteristic of Vishnu, supposedly, is that he brings a major change or teaching to the world that is of great benefit.

You may agree or disagree, that the teachings of the more well known Buddha have been beneficial to millions of people on the planet.

According to Wikipedia, and other sources found through Google, the name anjana suta doesn't come up anywhere. SEE for yourself.

Thank you Bhaktivasya for the link to the outline of tenants explaining the Buddhist Mahayana tradition.

I am very grateful to Buddhist wisdom and thought, it really helped me make my transitions from Temple life to the working world that much more less troublesome at the time. ISKCON was bereft of information in those years concerning living outside the temple while still considering yourself a full time lay devotee. So much emphasis was on the missionary spirit of living in the temple, whereas living outside was accepted but not held in high esteem. Buddhist books and tapes gave me feeling that such a lifestyle was not only possible, but more advantageous to most peoples need to be independent while raising a family or following their inherent professional calling in life.

With time, it also opened up my intellectual spiritual curiosity to other spiritual traditions, and that the ISKCON version of defining them was not always very correct or complete. I learned that any one faith has a strong self-interest in defining other beliefs within the their philosophical framework by telling how incomplete or false other systems are in comparison to the wholeness of itself. These were the first cracks in my ISKCON true believer eggshell that eventually spread and fell open to losing the fear of going outside the boundaries of my ISKCON self censoring system of putting the brakes on when encountering any worldview that disagreed with my temple conditioned thinking.

All the above is one reason I am forgoing doing any work tomorrow and out of gratitude, will spend the day attending a public lecture by the Dalai Lama and other Tibetan Buddhist events after he receives the U.S. Congressional Gold Medal for his peaceful methods of fighting for a free Tibet.

It seems that anyone who is fundamentally a Christian, Muslim or Vaisnava will find all kind of faults with Buddhism for not including their beloved avatars, teachers, scriptures and worldview. History is filled with these spiritual philosophical debates containing the war of words looking for the ultimate philosophical victory of supremacy, which allows the true believer the comfort of believing that they and the like minded are in tight with the one true complete faith as opposed to all those who disagree or do things differently.

What confuses me is which part, or whatever part of what has been presented by Prabhupada and the Gaudiya line, that you can accept. Perhaps we all pick and choose as to the best parts we find usuable and universal. I don’t believe that correct view of Prabhupada’s preachings or Bhagavatam’s for that matter are rooted in sectarianism. I don’t repeat things there is no ground or reason to believe. I try to investigate all claims, so I’m not a full parrot. I am hearing what you say.

There is much to be appreciated within this pastime, particularly the sectarian attitude displayed by the Buddhist teacher and Sri Chaitanya’s mercy towards him and his disciples. The main points of the pastime, like the pastime of Ajamila, have to do with the greatness of the Holy Names of God and the attitudes and circumstances of it’s chanters. Subtle details about offensive mentalities, chanting as atonement, the stages of chanting exemplified, and the result of pure chanting, krishna-prema. I do not reject this ‘story’ simply because I don’t like it, or because it contradicts my foregone conclusions, nor do I focus on the smaller ‘faults’ of the presentation. Dandavats...


It is not only Prabhupada’s claim that Gautama Buddha, a very great soul or being, whoever he is, is not the same Buddha that Bhagavatam describes. Bhagavatam makes that statement.
“tatah kalau sampravrtte
sammohaya sura-dvisam
buddho namnañjana-sutah
kikatesu bhavisyati

tatah — thereafter; kalau — the age of Kali; sampravrtte — having ensued; sammohaya — for the purpose of deluding; sura — the theists; dvisam — those who are envious; buddhah — Lord Buddha; namna — of the name; añjana-sutah — whose mother was Añjana; kikatesu — in the province of Gaya (Bihar); bhavisyati — will take place.

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.” 1.3.24

Other acaryas of the Vaishnava lines have also made that claim and cited their detailed reasons (just looking for the truth of the matter). As far as I know, all the Vaishnavas say that. See here for an example.
That was why I was surprised to hear Epitau say that Anjana, with a short a, means Anjana, the father of the historical Buddha, and that this verse would then be in correspondence with the opinions of the Theravada and Mahayana traditions, the main Buddist traditions. The question is if these traditions do say somewhere, that Anjana is Buddha’s father, like Bhagavatam states. I didn’t know they said that and I still doubt it. Humbly...



Indeed those calling themselves ‘Buddhists’ are really good and compassionate souls, mainly sattva guna, compared to so many who are more base by quality, even me. Did we ever say Krishna didn’t love them or care about their welfare? His own parts and parcels? The Lord’s (Vishnu) ultimate purpose you may remember is to deliver one from the cycle of birth and death. Back home, back to God. It is only in the concepts of what goes on beyond death with which we (the Vaishnavas) would beg to differ from the followers of the varied kinds of Buddists in the ultimate consideration.

And thank you for bringing this historical event back to my attention (i read about it while scanning the newspaper this morning, then, like most of the news that i read in the papers, forgot about it by the evening or right after)

'Due to your Grace' i set out on a quest for more info and found this very useful reminder

i used to support a free tibet but after many years of putting "free tibet" bumper stickers on my car and noticing they quickly deteriorated after exposure to the elements, i decided tibet was not ready for independence if they could not even produce a decent bumper sticker

That's only because China won't allow them to have the proper equipment to make good bumper stickers, fearing that their cause would become more popular if their bumper stickers endured.

EpiTau is busy but I can try to answer just the part about the name.

anjana, with last "a" short, is a masculine noun. Thus as a name it would be a name of a man. Therefore, if Buddha is called anjana-suta, son of Anjana, then this Anjana would have to be his father.

anjanA (final "a" long, i.e. with a dash over) is a feminine noun. Thus it would have to be interpreted as the name of Buddha's mother. This is the spelling Prabhupada had in the Bhagavatam he was working with, so naturally he translated that Anjana was Buddha's mother.

We run into a problem, though. The historical sources list the names of Buddhas parents as Maya (mother) and Shuddhodana (father).

But, "Anjana" is confirmed by both Theravada and Mahayana traditions as another name of Shuddhodana, the historical Buddha's father. Maybe a second name or an alternative name. This is a good news, because it means that the Bhagavatam does speak of the historical Buddha the Buddhists revere, and not some other Buddha.

No Buddhist school lists Anjana as an alternative name of Queen Maya.

The examples quoted on your linked site give the opinions of only a few Vaishnavas. How does that show what "all the Vaishnavas" have to say?

The site quotes, for example, Visvanatha Cakravartin's and Sridhara Svamin's SB commentaries. But these two commentators only say that Anjana is Buddha's father, and that some editions of the Bhagavatam read "ajina" instead of "anjana". The statements of these two commentators totally agree. Both speak about the father's name, not the mother's name, as SP claims. Your site even gives the Sanskrit, a very unambigious Sanskrit so typical of Sridhara Svamin: "anjanasya sutah" the -asya eding indicates genitive singular masculine "the son of [the male person] Anjana." And then Sridhara and VCT add that "the son of [the male person] Ajina can also be found in some versions of the Bhagavatam."

This definitely does not support your assertion that "all Vaishnavas say that." These two commentators do not say that this is a different Buddha. Where do you see that Sridhara and VCT say that the Buddha mentioned in SB is not the historical Buddha? Where do they say that Anjana is the name of Buddha's mother?

They possibly thought he is the historical Buddha, since they both point out that Kikata means Gaya.

It would be more correct to say that "some Vaishnavas" believe that the Buddha mentioned in the SB is not the historical Buddha.

One important reason to try to find as much support as possible for the view that the SB-1.3.24-Buddha is not the historical one, is of course the vaticinium ex eventu problem (the prophecy made AFTER the event occurred). In order to maintain that the SB was written more than five thousand years ago, it is better to have a non-verifiable, non-historical prediction in the text.

In this regard it is funny that your site quotes the Nrisimha Purana as saying: "Lord Narayana appeared as Buddha when the age of Kali started." The past tense used here would indicate that the Nrisimha Purana was written less than five thousand years ago, which should, in principle, not be acceptable to those who cite Puranas as divine evidence.

The quote ascribed by Madhva to the Brahmanda Purana is most probably fictitious (see the work of Professor Roque Mesquita on this topic).

My earlier statement was based on Steven Rosen's (ISKCON's Satyaraja Dasa) book: "from nothingness to personhood" New York 2003. Referring to SB 1.3.24, he writes on page 20, footnote 6: "The name Anjana is masculine in the Sanskrit text--it refers to Lord Buddha's father--and all the classical commentators read it as such. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, however, writes that 'Anjana' was the mother's name, perhaps drawing on traditions that are passed down in esoteric lineages. The masculine reading would accord more with Buddhist hagiography, for there are both Theravada and Mahayana traditions saying that Anjana was the name of Queen Maya's father."

There surely are many reasons why Vaishnava ideologists would like to show that the SB-1.3.24-Buddha is not the historical Buddha. Likewise, there could be many reasons to claim the SB-1.3.24-Buddha was precisely the historical one. Like when a Vaishnava interfaith broker wanted to schmooze with the Buddhists.

I am not sure myself what the SB's author really wanted to say here, but I suspect the historical Buddha had an influence on the writer.

Yes, you are right that "all the Vaishnavas" do not say that. I should have said some. Very good!

maybe anjana got a sex change and hence the confusion, was both the father and mother

happens all the time in my brilliant country

prudmercan

congress had a good day yesterday besides recognizing the dalai lama as they also healed 92 years of pain by recognizing the armenian holocaust

steven rosen isn't a member here is he? he is so stupid, almost even a jerk. (correct me if he is) i paged through his book, gita on the green and found it so vaisnava cliche' and clearly written on the spur of the moment to capitalize on the baggar vance movie which i found also to be a rather cornball movie. there is for now, only one great golf movie ever made and that is caddyshack.

for those vaisnavas out there wanting to learn to play golf, i highly recomend, golf my way by jack nicklaus and the modern golf swing by ben hogan.

(guinness)

(guinness stout)

Yes, Steven Rosen and his fantastic speculations about "some esoteric lineages" and what they may have taught, as a way of "saving" ACBS face...

As for calling a non-member stupid, babu, your immunity from due punishment for that transgression rests on a very flimsy foundation... If a suchly insulted member or an admirer or a friend or a wife thereof joins the forum, your offence may be duly prosecuted.

You never know...

It might not be such a stupid idea to go back to "respecting all living entities." With a post-Gaudiya emphasis on "living," though. If the entity in question is dead, there may be more leeway for making judgments on their fund of intellect.

what are these esoteric lineages?

But what can expect of somebody who took a vow to write and publish one book a year?

Click to view attachment

Monks, Marble, Snipers, a Medal & the Dalai Lama
by GR Washington Correspondent, Mr. Kali Surferski

Through security and onto the South Capital lawn, underneath snipers, surveillance camera’s and the watchful eyes of the secret service, I walked under globally warmed October heat to pay homage and gratitude to the living embodiment of the Buddha, at least that is what many say.

Ahh, the effulgence of white historic marble shining off the march of monks in sandals and tennis shoes, reflecting the burgundy/orange cloth to the wind while the media and Tibetans all came by bus, train, plane and automobiles. It was rumored that some even came down from the celestial planets in order to celebrate the 14th Dalai Lama’s acceptance of the U.S. Congress highest medal of honor, but that I leave that for those who can see the finer elements I once thought was so possible to devote a life to.

They were all present, the right and the left, the minority and majority parties, even the President was in on the action as he sat next to His Holiness and even held his arm while walking to and from the Capital Rotunda. Celebrity rubbed elbows with the common man and refugee, as Tibetan Flags fluttered and kept time to those who waited patiently to see and hear the wisdom of their teacher, monarch and living hope of a tradition slowly being deconstructed under Chinese power and plunder.

It was not hard to notice that native Tibetans look a lot like the Navajo and Hopi Indians of the American western lands, who once too were overrun and endangered as a race by the same Government that is now recognizing the Dalai Lama for his compassionate peaceful approach to conflict and oppression, my oh my, times have changed, and even George Bush is applauding this man at the cost of harming relations with China…enough to make a hardened skeptic’s heart miss a beat in reflection.

Kids and musicians played while people danced and monks in robes chanted, reminiscent of Hare Krsna days and nights of yore, only there was no preaching or vibes of superiority, just gracious appreciation for hopes and dreams being recognized by the American political elite, sending a message to others that the time has come for this leader and his people to be allowed to practice their faith and culture in a land being raped by a brand of Capitalistic Communism called Chinese. No more talk of a free independent Tibet, just talk of allowing it to be culturally and spiritually free within the confines of China’s laws and constitution.

Compromise comes, compassion flows and people smile under the sun and snipers for at least one day of hope and possibilities. Aum Mani Padmi Hum….the hum and run of the wheels of spirit and politics, filled to the brim with Rinpoche’s, Pelosi’s and even a Bush. We were Richard Gere’d and Elie Wiesel’d, and that was OK, for the Dalai Lama was in town and we got to bask in his energy and vibes for a good portion of a day during a rather bad part of history—that seems ripe for change.

Click to view attachment

Thanks for the reportage, Kalisurfer, super!

I recently met a Bon Po follower who claimed Tibetan Buddhism stole the previous shamanic traditions and that Buddhism was actually not from India as claimed by the orthodox. His master, whom I cant remember who he is, is a representative of a rare lineage. This master of Bon Po, which I dont know too much about, tells his followers to be wary of Tibetan Buddhists as they are too aligned with state and organised religion? Could they be like Catholics who Christianized previous pagan traditions? They do seem to be very friendly to the Vatican and even the CIA was into a free Tibet. But I am no expert. I personally think one can see influence and borrowings as hijacking, if one looks in a certain way and anyway one can learn from that which is hijacked about the thing which was hijacked previously anyway.

Ask Steven. The phrase came from his book, as quoted n an earlier text by ePiTau in this thread:

"Steven Rosen's (ISKCON's Satyaraja Dasa) book: "from nothingness to personhood" New York 2003. Referring to SB 1.3.24, he writes on page 20, footnote 6: "The name Anjana is masculine in the Sanskrit text--it refers to Lord Buddha's father--and all the classical commentators read it as such. His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, however, writes that 'Anjana' was the mother's name, perhaps drawing on traditions that are passed down in esoteric lineages."

I am convinced "esoteric lineages" is simply a way for a dedicated Prapadman with an affinity for New Age to elegantly say: "I have no slightest clue where my Guru and Founder Acarya got this assertion [Anjana as Buddha's mother] from, as it disagrees with the tradition and makes no sense."

It's a variation on "This was true in another kalpa."

the bon po traditions weren't stolen but borrowed. tibetan buddhism doesn't claim to own the truth but simply maintains the librarastic traditions and loans out the truth. tibetan buddhism has never maintained independence from its bon po roots but what your freind is pointing out that some practioners have simply have an overdue book. and bon po takes books from the same library.

catholics are just stupid

What a dynamic pic, did you take it yourself? What did you climb up on to get this view?

No, as much as I'd love to take credit for that photo it is not mine, but one from a photographer named Andrew Edwards who shot it at an anti-war protest in San Francisco. It’s highly dedicated to our resident patriot who likes to tag things stupid.

I did shoot these photos at a Washington D.C. anti-war protest 2 years ago by going behind the lines and actually had to stand with the pro-war Christian group that was taunting and shouting at the protesters as they passed by, calling them American traitors and pro-Al Qaida. It’s really strange to stand next to people you highly disagree with and loathe, but it is the only way to get close up photos of the action taking place when there are so many people everywhere.



Click to view attachment Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Yes, well done, Kalisurfer. A bright light burning in a world of darkness and despair.

Long live the 14th Dalai Lama

Austin's Atheism Blog
From Austin Cline,

Dalai Lama: Stern, not Cuddly

For too many people in the West, the Dalai Lama is only what they make of him. Many of his actual ideas, beliefs, and teachings are ignored in favor of the creation of an image of a warm and cuddly spiritual leader who only tells us what we want to hear and who only validates what we already believe. In fact, many of those in the West who admire him might be shocked at some of the things he teaches.

The problems here extend to the Tibetan freedom movement as well. The brutal polices and recent crackdown by Chinese authorities cannot be condoned or defended, but we cannot ignore what sort of society China occupied in 1950. It wasn't a peaceful, free, democratic paradise. If Tibet were, theoretically, made completely independent from China, what sort of society would develop? If it were very much like Tibet prior to 1950, it's hard to see how it wouldn’t be worse than Tibet currently is under Chinese rule.

Patrick French wrote a couple of years ago:

"In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, he condemns homosexuality, and all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers prefer to ignore. His US publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear they would offend US readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.

When speaking to his people, the Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West. I remember a talk he gave in Dharamsala in northern India in 1990, after conflict between Tibetans and Indians there. He spoke in Tibetan, and his delivery was stern and admonitory, like a forbidding, old-fashioned father reprimanding his children. The crowd listened respectfully, and went away chastened."

(Source: The Sydney Morning Herald)

Just as offensive to Western traditions of equality and autonomy is the Buddhist teaching about karma — or at least some of the common consequences are. Tibet was a fueudal theoracy ruled by monks, with the Dalai Lama at the top of the spiritual ladder. Central to this theocracy was the teaching of karma:

" ...which taught that serfs had to accept their imprisoned station as punishment while elites deserved their glorious wealth as reward for virtues in earlier lives. Debts were often passed down for generations, limiting social mobility. The famous Drepung monastery alone owned twenty-five thousand serfs, and out of Tibet's total population of 1.2 million people, an estimated seven hundred thousand were serfs."

(Source: Free Inquiry, February/March, 2008)

Just so we are clear, "serfs" were little more than slaves. The Drepung monastery wasn't simply a stern landowner, but an owner of human beings. Tibetan, Buddhist theocracy was a system that used religion to justify owning humans. Supporters of Tibetan independence should wonder what sort of society would replace Chinese rule. Even if there were guarantees that no theocracy would be imposed on Tibetans, the beliefs which cause so much misery have not been abandoned:

"There is a soft-headed view among trendy Westerners that, while most religions have disturbing elements, Buddhism is a pure, simple, uncontaminated faith. Yet the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibetans are being punished for their "bad karma". Can this be true, Your Holiness? "Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one's karma."

" So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life? "Oh yes. Of course." Suddenly, one of his entourage - dormant until now - leaps up and speaks quickly to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan. He turns to me.

"This is for Buddhists! Only for Buddhists! Last question now, please. We must hurry." Now I glance at my watch. We are meant to have more time, but the entourage is vibrating strangely, whirling around the room, and talking in Tibetan."

(Source: Johann Hari interview with the Dalai Lama, 2004)

The Tibetan people are not having an easy time under Chinese rule, but if this is a just an appropriate punishment for past sins, why are they rebelling against it? Why should outsiders agitate for their liberation? I don't find the Dalai Lama's claim that karmic punishment is "only for Buddhists" — not even if we limit it to just the case of disabled children — to be the least bit credible. That's a bit like saying "sin" only applies to Christians. It looks much more like someone realized that the Dalai Lama made a critical public relations error by speaking the truth too clearly and unambiguously. Fortunately for him, it's a truth that doesn't get a lot of attention.

I find it very interesting, but not at all surprising, that people project into the Dalai Lama whatever it is they want to see there. Don't people do much the same with Jesus and various other religious leaders? People embark on a search for the "historical Jesus" and end up finding whatever they want to find — whatever fits in well with their religious, political, and ideological preconceptions.

Many in the West clearly perceive the Dalai Lama as a spiritual figure who won't tell you 'no' and who is the antithesis of the orthodox portrayals of stern figures from Western religious history. Just as people tend to invest both Eastern and Western religious figures with their own needs and assumptions, perhaps the real Dalai Lama has more in common with Western religious leaders than people want to acknowledge.
Monday March 31, 2008

Very interesting Thanks for posting this, Softbrain!

The Dalai Lama is a God King in effect - but I thought it was well known that he is not a cuddly figure...

I have read where he realizes this aspect of himself, in so much as he calls himself just another human who makes mistakes, gets mad and still has to practice his Buddhist spiritual techniques daily in order to find balance, while recognizing his limitations.

It does seem that followers of any spiritual teacher want to make them into perfect god like creations...so that when the truth comes out that the teacher is also human with varied emotions, that it all comes as a rather big surprise.

That aspect of the Dalai Lama, where he is rather self depreciating and humorous in looking at his celebrity status as a Kingly Spiritual leader, is rather refreshing compared to others spiritual leaders and teachers who take themselves all too seriously and buy into the illusion of being Godlike and perfect. He does seem to be able to listen to others and change his views.

The knock on Tibetan culture as being primitive with a rather ruthless history has truth to it, but to say Tibetans should appreciate the Chinese takeover, where they are considered second class citizens to the new Chinese settlers that the government is pushing into the country, where they are allowed to come in and take Tibetan land and property and claim it as their own, with Chinese Law backing the ethic Chinese over the Tibetans, is a stretch of the imagination and a total buying in of Chinese Government propaganda.

Just today in the news, the Chinese Government is laying blame on the Dalai Lama for all the violent protests that have recently taken place and are saying that he and the Tibetan extremest are forming suicide squads to blow themselves and others up at the Olympics!

Buddhism has got an increasing following in the West arguably because of the activity of the Dalai Lama, and the celebrity followers such as Richard Gere, Tina Turner, etc. I never thought much about him but recently there was a cover story on him in TIME magazine. I rolled my eyes in a bored yawn and read it, expecting it to be a same-old-same-old article about the Chinese occupation of Tibet and what the DL is trying to do about it. But it was actually quite a good article about how the DL proposes "practical" spirituality and is completely unafraid of disposing of those elements of Buddhist theology/philosophy that are inconsistent with modern science. He apparently spends a lot of time discussing science with scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists, etc., and how he incorporates all this in his political strategy and leadership. The Pope and other spiritual leaders (GBC etc) can learn something from this guy. Not everything is sweetness and light about him though.

Anyway I just wanted to mention that I caught an hour-long interview with him today on NDTV (Indian news tv channel). Here's the article about it: http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story...EWEN20080045376 for anyone who's interested.

You can watch some of it on YouTube also. Oh yes, here's the TIME article too., do yourselves a favour and read the 'Print' version to get rid of all those pesky advertisements.

I'm not totally enamoured with the DL but my estimation of him has improved a little after viewing these two separate media pieces.

True, and the whole story of "historic rights" is BS; strategically Tibet is important and large deposits of gold & uranium were found, they also rob the Tibetans of their timber etc.
But the salient points of that article were: why did the DL say that karma is only for Buddhists, and if you believe in karma why do you protest?

This is the type of thing that doesn't liberate Buddhism from the class of 'religion'. Many people (at least, many Buddhists or people with Buddhist interests that I have talked to) say that they enjoy reading about or practicing Buddhist ideas because it frees them from the guilt-trip associated with other religions such as Christianity and Islam. Because Buddhism apparently doesn't have a "god figure" that one answers to, it is supposed to be 'trendy' in some ways.

But its not theology that Buddhism needs to worry about. It still believes in silly things like karma and reincarnation.

I find it incredibly interesting that the DL would say karma exists only for Buddhists. Is that an instance of Buddhism or the DL succumbing to the type of closed-mindedness that eventually characterises every religion?

My spontaneous feeling when reading that passage was that he meant he wouldn't try to "sell" the concept of children suffering from their previous karma to non-Buddhists, considering it a hopeless undertaking. That he would only teach it to those who are already Buddhists.

I very seriously doubt he meant children of non-Buddhists suffer for any other reason than karma.

No, I think Austin was right when he thought that the "Dalai Lama made a critical public relations error by speaking the truth too clearly and unambiguously". I don't know whether you construe that as "the DL succumbing to the type of closed-mindedness that eventually characterises every religion".

Thanks Dhyana and Softbrain.


Did anyone read this article? What did you think of it?

To me, the DL seems more of a political leader than a religious one, albeit with a certain spiritual element. Methinks he fits the definition of a rajarishi...

I read some of it, but there seems nothing new. He hasn't really changed his line. Any leadership role involves politics religious or not. I think he would not have sought out his world role, but China marched into the country 50 years ago with the intent on dismantling their culture (while the world didn't seem to notice), so whats a guy to do? Tibet would have likely remained a quiet (if somewhat archaic) Himalayan country like Bhutan.

Like anybody he must be judged according to what he says and does, and this dosn't sound so bad:

I respect madhurya bhava, kaupins, and pink dhotis, but I would rather see a figure like this on the world stage than ACBS for sure

I hate to say this, but the CIA did support and arm the Tibetan resistance until 1972 when the ping-pong diplomacy of Kissinger-Nixon put an end to that. Up to 1972 the resistance was able to keep the Chinese pretty much out of the country because there was only one road in, so the East-Tibetan Khamba's (who are non-buddhists, so allowed to use violence against intruders) could break up the incoming convoys.

yes, I forgot about that, I read that recently. The CIA are busy beavers. But I was under the impression, by the autobiography of Trungpa (he fled in '59) and others, that the Chinese came in quite quickly and were more or less in total control by the early to mid-1960's. The CIA, and the rest of the goons, were more interested, and commited, in Vietnam (and surrounding environs) at that time

For real. Have you noticed how the DL is better than the Pope too? It didn't take Ratzinger long to kick up several fusses, and all this stuff about new sins being invented is all a matter of lunacy.