The Dalai Lama's "Vision of a Compassionate Future" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101701140.html)
What do you think? Visionary and inspiring? Naïve and unrealistic? Delusional and dangerous? What?

Excerpts:

Many people today agree that we need to reduce violence in our society. If we are truly serious about this, we must deal with the roots of violence, particularly those that exist within each of us. We need to embrace "inner disarmament," reducing our own emotions of suspicion, hatred and hostility toward our brothers and sisters.

Many of the problems we confront today are our own creation. I believe that one of the root causes of these manmade problems is the inability of humans to control their agitated minds and hearts -- an area in which the teachings of the world's great religions have much to offer.

I do not mean to suggest that religion is indispensable to a sound ethical way of life, or for that matter to genuine happiness. In the end, whether one is a believer or a nonbeliever, what matters is that one be a good, kind and warmhearted person. A deep sense of caring for others, based on a profound sense of interconnection, is the essence of the teachings of all great religions of the world. In my travels, I always consider my foremost mission to be the promotion of basic human qualities of goodness -- the need for and appreciation of the value of love, our natural capacity for compassion and the need for genuine fellow feeling. No matter how new the face or how different the dress and behavior, there is no significant division between us and other people.

This blue planet of ours is the most delightful habitat we know. Its life is our life, its future our future. Now Mother Nature is telling us to cooperate. In the face of such global problems as the greenhouse effect and the deterioration of the ozone layer, individual organizations and single nations are helpless. Our mother is teaching us a lesson in universal responsibility.

Large human movements spring from individual human initiatives. If you feel that you cannot have much of an effect, the next person may also become discouraged, and a great opportunity will have been lost. On the other hand, each of us can inspire others simply by working to develop our own altruistic motivations -- and engaging the world with a compassion-tempered heart and mind.

Wow... those things are something that the human society and peoples are in dire need of to learn!

Large human movements spring from individual human initiatives.Hello ordinary:

I liked that the best.

Excon

I think there have been better Buddhist thinkers than the Dali Lama . I guess you can build a following by emanating happy thoughts and New Age platitudes. Westerners just eat this stuff up .
The Dali Lama is a man who makes claims to the hereditary kingdom of Tibet ;appointed by divine right . As much as the Chinese suppress the Tibetans now, the Tibetan peasants were equally suppressed by the monarchy.

The Dalai Lama is the foremost admired spiritual leader in the world today. From what you quoted we can easily see why.

He teaches how the world can be reversed and put on the road to peace... it starts in the individual heart, primarily... if like minded folks unite, the world can be changed.

*Teaching real action to power*... I think there are those who would think this is subversive, those leaders who teach praying alone, but whose actions are violent toward everything.

Like Tom, I think that there have been better Buddhist thinkers than the Dalai Lama. That is not intended as a disrespect of him or his following. I think he's a great man and an island of peace and happiness and joy in an otherwise turbulent, violent world. But I don't necessarily see him as a great thinker.

Here's an example:

He starts the article with a very strong statement about freedom. But from there he talks about an end to violence and finding peae within ourselves.

The problem is that the two ideas of peace and freedom can sometimes be contradictory. One must often fight for freedom. Freedom costs, and the price is most often blood. The Dalai Lama seems to think that freedom can come simply from having happy thoughts like Peter Pan flying.

Peace is a very nice sentiment, but tell the Chinese Christian peasant who is suffering extreme subjegation at the hands of the Communist Chinese Government that he should be "peaceful" instead of trying to attain freedom. Tell the Rawandan laborer who is just trying to get by that he should be peaceful in the face of the violence of the warlords. Tell the Ethiopian Christian suffering genocide at the hands of Islamo-fascists that he should be peaceful in the face of genocide instead of fighting back against the killers.

Personally, I think that the Dalai Lama is being naïve in his thinking. An example of a religious leader who was a better thinker was the late Pope John Paul II. JP2 pushed the idea of uniting to fight for freedom. He pushed the idea that freedom has a cost, and every right-thinking Christian should be willing to make a sacrifice for freedom. He pushed for Christians in the Soviet Union to unite for the cause of religious freedom against the Soviet government, even if doing so results in violence. Violence for the cause of freedom was not seen by him as a bad thing, but rather as a neessary price for freedom.

So I think that the Dalai Lama is being naïve. His thinking sounds good, and has nice feelgood undertones, but it isn't reality-based thinking.

In many ways, it is similar to how I compare liberal thinking to cotton candy: it looks nice and feels good on first examination, but as you get into it more you find that it is mostly fluff and hot air, and isn't really any good for you.

Elliot

Bashing a holy man who talks of peace... BWAH HA H A HA... then, tying him to American politics. Total desperation.

Bashing a holy man who talks of peace.....BWAH HA H A HA...then, tying him to American politics. Total desperation.I saw that and had the same reaction. They are quite pathetic.

I saw that and had the same reaction. They are quite pathetic.


"Pathetic" is the inability to intelligently entertain an opposing viewpoint without necessarily accepting it.

"Pathetic" is the inability to intelligently entertain an opposing viewpoint without necessarily accepting it.
Nope: Definition of pathetic - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathetic)
I was going for the 4th meaning, specifically to the 'cotton candy' part of the post. Demeaning others is what they do all day long.

On Line Dictionary:

Pa·thet·ic /pəˈθɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-thet-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the feelings.
3. pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.


Bashing holy men is what is what pathetic men do. See aging men do nasty things like insult holy men is pathetic, i.e. invokes feelings of pity and sorrow for how low these men have sunk.

On Line Dictionary:

pa·thet·ic /pəˈθɛtɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[puh-thet-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable: a pathetic letter; a pathetic sight.
2. affecting or moving the feelings.
3. pertaining to or caused by the feelings.
4. miserably or contemptibly inadequate: In return for our investment we get a pathetic three percent interest.


Bashing holy men is what is what pathetic men do. See aging men do nasty things like insult holy men is pathetic, ie invokes feelings of pity and sorrow for how low these men have sunk.

Very nicely done.

However, I'm just curious if anyone remembers the question in the original post. It seems not, so I'll quote it here:

"What do you think? Visionary and inspiring? Naive and unrealistic? Delusional and dangerous? What?"


The question ASKED, "WHAT DO YOU THINK?" It ASKED for opinions, and possible suggestions were "naive" and "unrealistic."

In other words, it WELCOMED opposing or different opinions.

Which is more than I can say for you.

Very nicely done.

However, I'm just curious if anyone remembers the question in the original post. It seems not, so I'll quote it here:

"What do you think? Visionary and inspiring? Naive and unrealistic? Delusional and dangerous? What?"


The question ASKED, "WHAT DO YOU THINK?" It ASKED for opinions, and possible suggestions were "naive" and "unrealistic."

In other words, it WELCOMED opposing or different opinions.

Which is more than I can say for you.You are correct I apologize. The Dalai's comments are indeed inspiring unlike the megalomaniacal Bush administration and all things neo-conservative which are ruining America, its youth and its standing in the world theater..

Chou,

I didn't bash anyone. I gave my opinion of his thinking on the issue of peace. It was given with examples, and it was done respectfully. I'm curious as to why you call it "bashing".

You have not given any reason for us to think that the Dalai Lama is such a great spiritual leader. You simply stated that he is and that the reason to believe so is "self-evident". Considering that I gave perfectly good examples of why it is NOT "self-evident" I find your point to be lacking in specifics.

Needkarma,

Aside from being a cheerleader for liberalism and fuzzy thinking, is there a specific reason that you agree with Chou? A reason based in reality rather than wishful thinking?

Both of you: it is a fact that the most common state of the human race through all of history is war. There has never been a period in recorded history in which a war was not taking place SOMEWHERE. To believe that it can simply go away if we "wish" it to go away, or that bad people will stop being a threat to freedom is we simply "think happy thoughts" is to ignore history. War doesn't stop because people wish for it to stop. It never has and it never will. And pushing the idea of one side being "peaceful" while the other continues to wage war is naïve, and in fact very dangerous. That way lies genocide.

So, while I respect the Dalai Lama's ideas on how to achieve peace in a utopian, ideal environment, his advice lacks applicability to the real world where even if you decide to be peaceful, there are others who are not. War will continue until that basic fact of human nature suddenly changes. And unless people are prepared for the probability of war, they are going to get hurt.

What part of this, exactly, do you disagree with?

Elliot

You are correct I apologize. The Dalai's comments are indeed inspiring unlike the megalomaniacal Bush administration and all things neo-conservative which are ruining America, its youth and its standing in the world theater..

Uh huh... and you accuse me of bashing the Dalai Lama?

Ok, got it. You are just a critic. But I'm insulting. Right.

Whatever.

You are correct I apologize. The Dalai's comments are indeed inspiring unlike the megalomaniacal Bush administration and all things neo-conservative which are ruining America, its youth and its standing in the world theater..

Apology humbly accepted.

I DO think that his words are inspiring, and certainly set a goal for humankind to aspire to. However, I also think that the current reality cannot be changed merely by seeking inner peace and tranquility. Humans seem to be the only species with groups that are bent on self-destruction.

Having seen war, I desire nothing BUT peace. However, having seen the reality, I know that worldwide peace is unattainable by humans. Remember, peace is not merely the absence of conflict.

That said, why the turn of topic to Bush? I didn't realize that the US administration had anything to do with whether one thought the Dalai Lama's words were inspirational or not. Guess I missed that part...

That said, why the turn of topic to Bush? I didn't realize that the US administration had anything to do with whether one thought the Dalai Lama's words were inspirational or not. Guess I missed that part...Then you truly missed the whole point Choux and mine's posts.

I'll agree that DL's wishes and goals are admirable; and what human would not want inner peace, happiness and that we all just get along; but that is not the reality of human nature.



I disagree, and this is not a form of 'bashing,' with the Buddhist notion that a single human can be 'perfect' here on earth. It's like that commercial where the supposed Buddhist appearing guy rescues the butterfly, turns the turtle right side up but kills germs with an antimicrobial. Yes we should all strive to be "better." But for me, as a Christian, that means relying on God to lead me, not something I can achieve on my own.


Now this dos not mean that humans , in certain groups at certain times cannot go beyond themselves and use non-violent, loving means to achieve a goal. Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, solidairty proves this.

But what happens to justice? When, in the name of "peace, and tolerance" and the fear of pisssing someone off, no one stands up to evil?
Would civil rights made progress if white people decided not to piss off a lot of their own and stay at home?
Would solidarity have worked if they were not backed by a strong US and a determined President.
Who would have stopped Hitler in europe or Japan in the pacific if no country had the courage and will to fight and win in the name of justice and what is right ?
And then, which country helped re build Germany and Japan?


I agree that it is good to be humble, have self-control, be kind, and patient.
And this has to be each individual's choice.
No argument there.


But this has to be balanced with the reality of human nature, and the courage to do what is right and just.





Grace and Peace

Had the Pope said the same thing Choux would've been the one dismissing his comments.

I find it interesting that no one addressed the paradox I brought up .Given his historical role he would be the oppressor. In exile he is a "spiritual leader" but without the Chinese occupation he would be the feudal theocratic ruler of the nation ,an absolute ruler by hereditary right .

I think there have been better Buddhist thinkers than the Dali Lama . I guess you can build a following by emanating happy thoughts and New Age platitudes. Westerners just eat this stuff up .
The Dali Lama is a man who makes claims to the hereditary kingdom of Tibet ;appointed by divine right . As much as the Chinese suppress the Tibetans now, the Tibetan peasants were equally suppressed by the monarchy.

I saw him in Sun Valley, Idaho a couple of years back. I found him to be a sweet, warm endearing man. That was the best lesson I got from him. I did not find his words to be particularly enlightening though.
Reading between the lines of the OP however, I think he eludes to the fact that we can be everything we need to be without the dogma of religion. On that point, I agree completely. Religion is nothing more than a tool used to control the masses. Every one of us has the full potential within us to be Christlike, Budda like, Krishna like or whatever we desire. We are swayed by tribal beliefs and warmongers that want what another tribe has though... oil for instance.

Much older and wiser than the current Dalai Lama's words are the words of Ecclesiastes (Chapter 2, verses 1-8).



To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
A time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

Seems to me that the Dalai Lama is ignoring or wishes to forget that sometimes we need to be warlike in the pursuit of freedom and justice.

Elliot

ETWolverine agrees: No. He got the point. The point was clearly to take the opportunity to bash Bush in a topic that had nothing to do with Bush. Why even bring him up, other than to trash him?

Oh you mean like you did here about liberals?
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/dalai-lamas-vision-143879.html#post682079

"In many ways, it is similar to how I compare liberal thinking to cotton candy: it looks nice and feels good on first examination, but as you get into it more you find that it is mostly fluff and hot air, and isn't really any good for you."

Hello again:

You guy's are perfect for this thread. You've made it clear that we actually hate each other. At this rate, we are NOT about to work together. We don't talk - we yell. Ain't nothing going to get solved that way.

Even if the Dalai isn't particularly articulate, his solution is better than ours.

excon

Where's the insult, Needkama? I didn't insult liberals. I made a comment about liberal thinking and how the Dalai Lama's thinking is similar to liberal thinking. It wasn't insulting. Perhaps you feel insulted by it because deep down you feel that there is something about liberalism to be insulted about. That ain't my problem.

You and Chou, on the other hand, did make personal insults against a specific person. Whole different ball of wax.

Elliot

Dear Elliot,
I did not insult a specific person, I made a comment about the neo-cons and their way of thinking and the results of such. Perhaps you feel insulted by it because deep down you feel that there is something about neo-conservatism to be insulted about. That ain't my problem either.

Here kindj, let me help you out:
Definition of megalomania - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/megalomaniacal)
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

Here kindj, let me help you out:
Definition of megalomania - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/megalomaniacal)
1 : a mania for great or grandiose performance
2 : a delusional mental disorder that is marked by feelings of personal omnipotence and grandeur

Mania... mental disorder...

So one of two things is happening here. Either:

1. You know Bush and his administration personally, AND are a trained psychological evaluator, thus knowing for a fact that they all suffer from some sort of mental disorder;

-or-

2. You are making speculations and/or generalizations based solely upon them having taken actions that you do not agree with/would not have taken, when you obviously are in a position to do so, having access to all the same up-to-the-day intelligence reports, experience, and general knowledge that they have.

Pick one of those, and I'll withdraw my comment about being insulting.

It's my opinion based on his actions.

Oy vey!

Tom, You mentioned the Pope and then SPOKE FOR ME about what I would say about a man of peace. He always speaks againt waging war in the middle east and encourages Catholics like yourself to pray for peace.

Since you and your fascist neo-Con friends are bashing the Dalai Lama when he speaks for peace in the world, I have to reming you - when you make the heinous Nazi comment above - that you as a Catholic KNOW THAT POPE PIUS 12 DID **VIRTUALLY NOTHING** DURING WWII TO STOP THE HOLOCAUST.

I KNOW IT, THE JEWS KNOW IT, AND EDUCATED PEOPLE KNOW IT.

Visionary and inspiring

Kinji, The question was about the ideas The Dalai Lama wrote about in his article on PEACE.

All you and your fascist friends were able to comment on were PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSINUATIONS against The Dalai Lama and NOW AGAINST ME!

I challenge you: write about the article about peace just as the question asked. No ad hominem attacks against ANYBODY!

Visionary and inspiring :D

Choux I speak of facts . The Dalhi Lama to this day has not distanced himself from his Nazi associations !

No ad hominem attacks against ANYBODY!


I think the difference is that I know that facts do NOT equal "attacks." Let's look at REAL attacks, shall we?

"Just anothe grandiose hypocrite." (Choux, 8/4)

"We already had a President who was *NOT A MAN*....He's sitting in the White House right now with his head up his butt." (Choux, 9/20)

"I"m not a fascist like *you*…I don't need a fascist like yourself telling me…Fascists like you and your Board friends Tom and Tex." (Choux, 9/24)

"war started by a moron(Bush)… his civilian airhead neo-Cons" (Choux, 10/16)

"He [Bush] had a glow about him; a glow like a guy high on something....alcohol, pills....he was GLOWING. I saw that look many, many times on my father when he was drunk. We know the drunken glow, don't we folks….Republican-Fascist lies and hypocrisy." (Choux, 10/18)

"the Republican-Fascist candidate" (Choux, 10/24)

"you and your fascist neo-Con friends" (Choux, 10/24)

"you and your fascist friends" (Choux, 10/25)

"Glad to see you put on your tinfoil hat. Helps block the Satanic Rays controlling your thoughts, does it?" (Choux, 10/23)

There can obviously be no meaningful exchange of opposing ideas with you. You continually use GENUINE attacks and name-calling against those with whom you disagree.

So what would be the point?

kindj,
Those are also facts.

What Is Political Correctness?
Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community's safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see "On Liberty", Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion. Wikipedia

What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.

Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.

Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.

To Whom it may concern:
If I think Bush is a Moron I will tell you so. That is my right. If I think our government is Fascist, I will tell you that too. I think they are. They are in bed with the corporations. They are the corporations! DUH! That makes them fascist. If you don't like politically "uncorrect" people, then find a circle jerk more to your liking. Most of all, stop bashing people that tell it like it is-politically uncorrect folks.

kindj,
Those are also facts.

Prove them.

Nah. I don't have the free time that you do.

But here's the definition of fascism:
Definition of fascism - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist)


1: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
Many believe that fits perfectly with the actions of the current administration.

New presidential directive gives Bush dictatorial power (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20070521&articleId=5720)

The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007 declares that in the event of a “catastrophic event”, George W. Bush can become what is best described as "a dictator":

"The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government."

This directive, completely unnoticed by the media, and given no scrutiny by Congress, literally gives the White House unprecedented dictatorial power over the government and the country, bypassing the US Congress and obliterating the separation of powers. The directive also placed the Secretary of Homeland Security in charge of domestic “security”.

The full text is below. A critical analysis on the directive can be found here.

This is another step towards official martial law (see “US government fans homeland security fears”), which suggests that a new "catastrophic event" 9/11-type pretext could be in the pipeline.

It's simply the latest commentary on something that's been around since the 1800's. The potential for misuse/abuse has ALWAYS been there, long before 2000. Lincoln used it, Wilson used it, Roosevelt used it.

Bush hasn't even begun to scratch the surface of the powers that are available to him during crises. So far, he's limited himself to the military/intelligence communities. Seems to me if he were hell-bent on becoming a "dictator," he would've moved far further by now.

Here's a decent article on the subject. Still, it's just a re-hashing of the same old stuff that folks have commented on for 150 years now. Congress is still ticking (as well as they ever were) and SCOTUS is alive and well. I really don't think a dictatorship is looming.

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Presidential Powers In Times Of Emergency (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html)

Similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, their texts have been kept secret; this is the first to be made public .

You know why I know this is no big thing ? Because the MSM did not spend 6 weeks over-hyping alarmism.

Here is what the paranoid missed ( provision 2E of the directive):


“Enduring Constitutional Government,” or “ECG,” means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html)

The National Emergency Act say that the president may declare a national emergency but requires that such proclamation “shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”

Is there anything wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about the President serving as a coordinating leader of the federal government in case of emergency? He is the EXECUTIVE.

Taking notes on the OP!
Great, OG!