Cultural genocide in Tibet. Oh, and guns, too. (no spam)

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:39 pm

The da lai lama has reported what he has understood from scriptural sources within buddhism regarding homosexuality. However he is open to evaluating if those beliefs from said scriptual sources are in fact correct. I think he is acknowledging that the prohibition of homosexuality could be simply be native to one culture and time rather than a universal principle.

For more information: +++ Dalai Lama Speaks on Gay Rights +++

I don't think the da lai lama has stated that he disagrees with the buddhist scripture but he is open to dialogue to take a closer look at it.

Oh and I don't think homosexuality is considered violence unless it is rape.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:48 pm

Claudius wrote:But the da lai lama and gandai support non-violence. Quite a bit different from the Taliban!

Oh, really? I'm not gonna lecture you about Ghandi. You can figure that one out for yourself. The current Dalai Lama and his cohorts of other "lamas" has recognized Steven Seagal, a man known for classic movies like "Mercenary for Justice" and the upcoming "Pistol Whipped" (I kid you not) as a holy person. A "Tulku." Talk about the non-violent approach...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:16 pm

Moonbiter wrote:Oh, really? I'm not gonna lecture you about Ghandi. You can figure that one out for yourself. The current Dalai Lama and his cohorts of other "lamas" has recognized Steven Seagal, a man known for classic movies like "Mercenary for Justice" and the upcoming "Pistol Whipped" (I kid you not) as a holy person. A "Tulku." Talk about the non-violent approach...

I have no idea why the Dalai Lama have done that (although actors seem to end up in wierd religious positions every now and then), however I fail to understand how you can draw a conclusion about an (action movie) actors position with a stance pro/against violence as a political tool.
I simply can't see the two connected.
It isn't like Steven Segal is out using violence as a tool to change political situations in real life.
How are those two things connected?

There is in my world a huge difference between actions in a B-movie and real life events and the support of one rarely constitute a support in the other. Many people enjoy action movies, doesn't mean they support violence in real life by any mean.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:38 pm

Xandax wrote: It isn't like Steven Segal is out using violence as a tool to change political situations in real life.

Since it's Friday evening, and things are a bit out of focus, I will delay my usual Moonbiter-ish blowout regarding this statement. In the meantime, I would suggest watching a few of mister Seagal's latest flicks as research.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 pm

Moonbiter wrote:Since it's Friday evening, and things are a bit out of focus, I will delay my usual Moonbiter-ish blowout regarding this statement. In the meantime, I would suggest watching a few of mister Seagal's latest flicks as research.

Point being that the movies are still only movies. Not him running around beating up real life people to change a real life political situation.
Thus implying that the Dalai Lama supports violence because Steven Segal is an action film performer, and the two are connected via religious believes seriously needs some connecting of dots to be understandable.

Even if his movies have religious or "free Tibet" undertones or motives, then I still think it is a very large leap of deduction to say him beating up "bad guys" in a movie as an explanation that the Dalai Lama is supporting violence or at least not supporting "non-violence" when it comes to the situation in Tibet.

I just do not follow that train of thought without some explanation at least.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:08 am

:laugh: Damn, I'm glad I didn't follow up on this one last night.

I had just spent sever hours down the local boozer debating this very same issue with a bunch of clueless first-year student activists who plans on going to Tibet to support the uprising. Yeah, like that's gonna help.

I was in a bit of a huff, to put it mildly. Sorry if I sounded a little crass.

@Xan, I completely understand your point of view. The point I'm trying to make is that the picture painted by the media of the monks being poor, peaceful, lotus-eating wisemen being stomped upon by nasty, jack-booted blackguards is pretty far removed from the actual truth. It's a political movement, and even worse, a political movement based on religion. Those have a tradition of going sour, and it seems like that's happening now. The Dalai Lama has, as far as I know, been remarkably silent when it comes to speaking out against the violent anarchy, the burning and looting and general nastiness that's going on. The hypocrisy is IMHO staggering.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:44 am

Moonbiter wrote:<snip>
@Xan, I completely understand your point of view. The point I'm trying to make is that the picture painted by the media of the monks being poor, peaceful, lotus-eating wisemen being stomped upon by nasty, jack-booted blackguards is pretty far removed from the actual truth. It's a political movement, and even worse, a political movement based on religion. Those have a tradition of going sour, and it seems like that's happening now. The Dalai Lama has, as far as I know, been remarkably silent when it comes to speaking out against the violent anarchy, the burning and looting and general nastiness that's going on. The hypocrisy is IMHO staggering.

Well, I have seen reports on Danish media (television and internet) taking a public and outspoken stance against the violent rioters, and have on these media expressed that he'd leave the position of being a Dalai Lama if the violence continued to spiral out of control.
Might be spin, might not - that is of course up to interpretation.

And religious political mixture aside, then I still fail to see the connection of supporting Steven Segal and supporting violence, or any direct indication that the Dalai Lama supports the violent uprising in general other then vague innuendo and subjective interpretation of said.
I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama would like to see a independent Tibet, but as said - so far I've only seen him express himself against the violence in the current situation.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 7:58 am

Xandax wrote:Well, I have seen reports on Danish media (television and internet) taking a public and outspoken stance against the violent rioters, and have on these media expressed that he'd leave the position of being a Dalai Lama if the violence continued to spiral out of control.
Might be spin, might not - that is of course up to interpretation.

It's been all over the media. For example, here.

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:30 am

Okay, I stand humbly corrected, and apologize. Good for him. However, this has not been covered in Norwegian media at all, which underlines my point regarding media hype and "truth." the interesting thing is that the enthusiastic activists I argued with last night hadn't heard about this either.

@Xan: My initial argument was that I find it hard to understand why the leaders of a religious movement that has been hyped for ages in the public mind as the frontline for peace and harmony, ordains a person who smashes people to pulp as a sollution to every problem as a "holy person." It wasn't more complicated than that. Are those dots hard to connect? Because I think we're arguing for argument's sake here.

However, as I see the whole situation as another ridiculous, poorly planned and executed "independence at all costs" thing, which seems to be all the rage nowadays, I will refrain from further comment. Get back to me in a couple of years, and we'll see if it was worth the pain.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:32 am

Moonbiter wrote:<snip>
@Xan: My initial argument was that I find it hard to understand why the leaders of a religious movement that has been hyped for ages in the public mind as the frontline for peace and harmony, ordains a person who smashes people to pulp as a sollution to every problem as a "holy person." It wasn't more complicated than that. Are those dots hard to connect? Because I think we're arguing for argument's sake here.<snip>

Oki - wasn't sure whether it was that point you were arguing or if you had actual tangible information.

Claudius · Post by **Claudius** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:32 am

Stephen Segal is a tulku...but he has not practiced all his life and so he was not enthroned with responsibility...

Here is the statement by the one who recognized him The Action Lama - Steven Seagal

Thinking that Stephen Segal could not be a serious spiritual person because he is in action movies does not recognize the fact that you can find a person concerned with spirituality in any situation. They can be a movie star or a street sweeper. And aside from actually having a spiritual interest it is even more mysterious (unknown) who where a tulku has manifested.

Dharma and Spirituality

Another thing to realize about beings who are manifestations of other beings is that the details of that person are not the same. It is the spirit of compassion the bodhicitta that is the same...our personalities and likes and dislikes I think are influenced by karma from life to life but the basis for a spiritual being causing himself to be reborn is to help other people. Finally you can have multiple emanations of the same being at the same time! Especially Buddhas but I am wonder if this is true of tulkus too (or not).

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:23 pm

New report by amnesty: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Olympics 'worsening China rights'

Seems I might have to retract part of my earlier statement.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:15 am

Chinese Police Fire Into Crowd of Tibetan Monks--Again

A Lie Repeated: The Far Left's Flawed History of Tibet

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:43 pm

Unfortunately Joshua Michael Schrei does himself what he (rightly) lambasts other for doing; namely using a broad brush to include everyone he disagrees with. A prime example is the way he constantly in that article lumps Marxist and Maoists together as if they were one and the same thing, which they are not.

The majority of Marxists I've known have no time for Maoists and their little red books, indeed see them as reactionary and anti-Marxist. Many aspects of Maoist China has much more in common with National Socialist Germany than Marxist Socialists or Euro-Communists, as of course did Stalinist Russia.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:14 pm

galraen wrote:Unfortunately Joshua Michael Schrei does himself what he (rightly) lambasts other for doing; namely using a broad brush to include everyone he disagrees with. A prime example is the way he constantly in that article lumps Marxist and Maoists together as if they were one and the same thing, which they are not.

They aren't, but his point seems to be that proponents of both schools (and others on the "far left") are apt to apply myths to Tibet that justify China's invasion and cultural genocide. In the respect, they join hands.

galraen · Post by **galraen** » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:32 am

Well the torch wove its way through London today amid much protest. A heavy police presence prevented too many incidents, but some protesters did get through. The sight of the torch bearer being almost totally hidden by police and Chinese security guards told it's own story though. A shame Gordon Brown had to disgrace the country again by participating, that guy is coming across as being even more of a fascist than Tony Blair!

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 6:04 pm

What They're Really Fighting for in Tibet.

Pretty much on the money, in my opinion.

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:47 pm

Too bad there isn't any oil in Tibet or anything.