Religion

The Dalai Lama is Still a Marxist, Looks Forward to Next Reincarnation in Form That is Slightly Less Stupid Than Current One.

|

If you've got the Beastie Boys' and Richard Gere's emails, please make sure they see this.

"Still I am a Marxist," the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said in New York, where he arrived today with an entourage of robed monks and a heavy security detail to give a series of paid public lectures.

"(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits," the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

However, he credited China's embrace of market economics for breaking communism's grip over the world's most populous country and forcing the ruling Communist Party to "represent all sorts of classes".

"(Capitalism) brought a lot of positive to China. Millions of people's living standards improved," he said.

More here.

Can I suggest this sort of dumb statement—Marxism has "moral" ethics yet drives down everyone's standard of living; capitalism has no ethics, yet makes everyone life better?—is yet one more sign that the Dalai Lama is not a serious thinker or observer of life?

There is no question that communist (!) China (not capitalist China) invaded his country wrongly, robbing him of his right to an antiquated throne based on a system of beliefs far more fanciful than anything Jimmy Swaggart, say, ever trotted out. The communists shouldn't have done that and they have visited horrors not just of Tibet but on all of China and elsewhere.

Yet this sort of confusion of the Dalai Lama's part is completely of a piece with his pronouncements on gay sex ("From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct") and reincarnation. Which is to say they are the products of a fanciful religion, not any sort of great wisdom that is particularly worth listening to when it comes to politics, ideology, or even ethics.

One final question: Based upon his own religion, isn't the Dalai Lama getting exactly what he deserves in this life?

Beware of maya. And beware of George Harrison songs called "Beware of Darkness."

NEXT: Fact-Checking Obama's Fundraising-Letter Claims About Wall Street "Special Interests"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits,” the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

    STFU

  2. I heard the Dalai Lama stays at the Waldorf Astoria. I wonder who pays for that.

    1. If you read the article he speaks of making not money for his appearances, and how it all goes to charity. It reminds me of Catholic bishops, and such, claiming that they are “poor” because they don’t have legal possession of the things they use. All because the money made by the church goes to charity i.e. the church.

      1. Chuck, a lot of shit happens in my name.

      2. Vow of poverty. You can HAVE anything. You just can’t OWN it.

        1. Oh, you’ve looked at the books of the average Catholic parish, have you?

          Catholic churches tend not to have nearly the collection revenue that Protestant ones do, and they have to pay for Catholic schools and Catholic hospitals that lose money hand over fist. Plus the lion’s share of that money goes to fund ministries which make absolutely no money and benefit the pastor very little.

      3. Is it kind of like they’re “married” to the church, and therefore they don’t have sex (with women)… (but do have sex with little boys)?

  3. It makes sense that a religious guru would claim to be a Marxist. Marxism only works if everyone is transformed into a new man who values the greater good over his own. I am sure the Dali Lama would love us all to reach enlightenment and no longer care for worldly pleasures or possessions. And if we all did, Marxism would work quite well. But since we are not and will never be anything like that, Marxism will always be a monstrous evil wherever practiced.

    1. You not only have to no longer care for worldly posessions and pleasures, you have to work just as hard as if you did, which doesn’t leave a lot of time for transcedental meditation.

      1. add to the list that you need to magically know supply and demand in real time without price signals

      2. Orare est laborare, laborare est “orare.”

  4. The Dalai Lama’s political musings are about as deep as your typical highschool leftist’s.

  5. LOL, I think the Dalai Lama is smoking something myself!

    Lou
    http://www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

    1. “the Dalai Lama is smoking something myself”

      Is the bot the Dalai Lama or a zen riddler?

  6. “(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits,”

    Even apart from the flaws pointed out above, this is completely ass-backwards. Marxism (unlike some other variants of socialism) has nothing to do with morality, it is a deeply materialist system based on historical laws and dialectical processes. This fails even as sophomoric pseudo-philosophy.

    1. But if you are hanging out with your Hollywood buddies scoring the desperate actor wannabe sloppy second ass they send your way, you have to say trite shit like that to blend in.

  7. Nice to know that he cares more about a system that claims to care about the quality of life for everyone, than a system that has proven time and again that it does more to actually improve the lives of everyone.

    I’ll take reality over religion please.

  8. He always describes himself as “a simple monk”. So.

    1. A simple monk who gets driven around in limos and stays at the Waldorf Astoria?

      I want to be a monk!

  9. “(Marxism has) moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits,” the Dalai Lama, 74, said.

    Marxian Moral Ethics such as taking what doesn’t belong to you by bayonet point and making people do things they don’t want to do. And things to that effect.

  10. What do you expect from The Golden Child? And where is Eddie Murphy to protect him from his own stupidity?

    1. Marxism is the opiate of the people.

      1. I always thought it was the opiate of the dingbat . . .

        . . . and I don’t mean the printer ornaments

        1. It numbs the mind and the body, that’s all.

  11. I find in general the Buddhists to be pretty libertarian leaning as a matter of theology and the Dalai Lama to be a pretty cool guy – if you want to try throwing peace and civil rights leaders under the libertarian purity bus you’ll have to start with Ghandi, MLKJr. Mandela, Desmond Tutu. Dalai Lama –

    1. And to add to this – I am a libertarian FWIW

      1. Sure, he’s better than that list, but what makes it particularly depressing is that DL (Dalai Lama, not Duckworth Lewis) has, unlike the others on the list, suffered under an (at least ostensibly) Marxist regime, and he still doesn’t get it.

        1. This is what gets me. How fucking stupid do you have to be to see the brutality that occurs under “moral” Marxism, and still be one?

          Also see: Soros, George.

          1. To be fair, BP, Soros is a left-liberal, and is definitely not a Marxist.

            1. True, he’s not a communist.

              But the fact that he’s a multi-billionaire who pisses on the system that made him rich makes me dislike him all the more. He’s got his, and now he wants to shut down freedom so that others can’t become wealthy. Reminds me of the Kennedys and the Rockerfellers. Assholes.

        2. No – those people I listed are all pretty cool and have done cool things from a libertarian POV – they and there accomplishments should be respected and we should be greatful for it regardless of what ideology they are moaning on about…

          1. They all did awesome things, but none of them were perfect, and they each went down some dodgy ideological paths, unfortunately.

    2. Re: Duckworth Lewis,

      if you want to try throwing peace and civil rights leaders under the libertarian purity bus you’ll have to start with Ghandi, MLKJr. Mandela, Desmond Tutu[…]

      Let’s start then. For instance, Mandela and Tutu are hardly libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

      1. Gandhi is easy.

        This is Gandhi’s advice to Britain, when it was, alone, facing down Nazi Germany:

        You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans. The only difference is that perhaps yours are not as thorough as the Germans … I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way, worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or … with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island, with your many beautiful buildings. You will give all these but neither your souls, nor your minds. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them … I am telling His Excellency the Viceroy that my services are at the disposal of His Majesty’s Government, should they consider them of any practical use in advancing the object of my appeal.

        Gandhi on the Holocaust:

        Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

        On Hitler:

        I do not want to see the allies defeated. But I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed.

        Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/M…..and_Gandhi

        1. WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT?

        2. Maybe he was just holding a grudge against the English, while he had a soft spot for Hitler’s use of the swastika.

          Serously, though, if you read very far at all into the writings of any lionized international figure, something apalling will leap off the page before long.

          1. True, but Gandhi’s comments really put the weaknesses of pacifism and the ahimsa philosophy into focus. These are not incidental, but are central to Gandhi’s legacy.

          2. It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain’t about you, Gandhi. It’s about what they need.

        3. Gandhi’s methods are only truly effective if the opponent’s leadership have a conscience. Gandhu was forunate the 20th century Brit’s were the colonial power he was up against.

          1. An empire with a conscience? Hmmm, that’s a new one to me.

    3. Can we do Mother Teresa instead?

      1. Jesus, you’re a sick fuck, Episiarch. But if corpses of 80-year old nuns are your thing, have at it. She’s certainly not going to complain at this point.

        1. Dude, I am the king of necrophilia. I’ve seen Nekromantik, Kissed, and many more (I’d list them but they only allow two links).

          1. Can’t you fuck Warty, instead?

      2. You want to do Mother Teresa?

        1. I hate when I don’t refresh the page before posting.

      3. Mother Teresa did more for Indians than Gandhi ever did.

    4. From which part of the commenwealth do you hail?

  12. He has problems (alt text) with ring around the collar? Too bad he doesn’t know an ancient Chinese secret.

    1. Great Buddha, do you know nothing? Ring around the collar is solved by Wisk, and it is Calgon that is based upon an ancient Chinese secret. Egad.

      1. You watched too much TV back in the day…

        I watched too much TV back in the day, considering I understood your references quite so readily!

        1. I remember my childhood TV with distressing clarity.

          1. Back in the day you could hawk your wares using racial stereotyping and it was memorable, and in a good way.

            But these days you just try marketing your used Cadillac as “comfortably seating six adults or twenty Mexicans” and see how many people call me a racist.

  13. Big hitter, the Lama.

    1. “and on your deathbed…

      “…you will receive total consciousness.”

      1. Gunga Galunga

        1. So I got that going for me.

  14. The Dalai Lama may be naive, at least to me, but he considers the communist regimes, such as the USSR and China, to have been/be totalitarian, and not what Marxism should be.

    He says, “…I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.

    The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism….” http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

    1. What else do people expect from a “dictatorship of the proletariat?”

    2. I think he’s pretty close to jumping libertarian actually. Just have to explain that compassion has no place in government.

  15. Right after he made this statement he told the reporter. “Gunga galunga. Gunga gunga da gunga.” So at least the reporter has that going for him.

  16. Far be it from me to interpret the words of His Holiness, but remember that he is both the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and the political leader of Tibet. I would chalk this up to more of a political statement than a religious one. He wants to look non-threatening to the PRC government.

    If there’s a Tibetan translation of The Teory of Moral Sentitments and Wealth of Nations, I’d put it on his Christmas list.

    1. That’s actually the reaction I had when I heard about this. He’s got his own axe to grind with the Chinese and isn’t going to start waxing libertarian. Not that I think he’s remotely libertarian or even politically sophisticated.

      1. “Not that I think he’s remotely libertarian or even politically sophisticated.”

        But he sure likes the cameras.

    2. …he is both the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and the political leader of Tibet.

      uh, political leader in exile, maybe. Still, point taken.

  17. When you are sent to the death camp, you will be relieved of false consciousness. Gulag-galunga.

  18. “Can I suggest this sort of dumb statement – Marxism has “moral” ethics yet drives down everyone’s standard of living; capitalism has no ethics, yet makes everyone life better? – is yet one more sign that the Dalai Lama is not a serious thinker or observer of life?”

    except that’s not what he said. so, who is the serious thinker? he did not say, nor is it true that capitalism makes “everyone(s) life better”

    i’m a huge fan of capitalism and i think marxism and socialism SUCK, but he didn’t claim, nor would anybody who understands economic freedom claim, that capitalism makes EVERYONE’s life better.

    capitalism is about OPPORTUNITY, fwiw.

    in the aggregate, it is a net benefit to society to put it mildly, but no system will make EVERYONE’s life better

    if you can’t even respond to what the dalai lama ACTUALLY said, who is the “serious thinker?”

  19. Marxism has a very simplistic moral ethics, which is focused pretty much entirely on ends to the exclusion of means. Just equalize wealth …. if you get there by violence, by violations of the rights of wealthier or more productive individuals, so what?

    In practice however, Marxism is highly UNethical precisely because of it’s disregard for individual rights. In order to implement it, you have to treat individuals as slaves to society. You have to force them to work for others with no thought for themselves. You have to take the product of their labor and “redistribute” it, and you have to deny them the right to say or do anything about it.

    You could get into why it doesn’t work economically, but even before that, you can’t even put it into practice at step one without gross ethical wrongdoing.

    1. marxism doesn’t care about individual rights, that is correct. individual rights are merely “eggs” to be broken. what’s a few broken eggs, when you are making an omelette?

  20. I’m so tired of the “capitalism has no morality” screed. A free market is the ONLY truly moral system because it’s the only one where people are free to make transactions based entirely on their own desires and choices. As libertarians we need to keep beating that drum.

    1. I’d also strongly emphasize the fact we believe in a minimalist state not because the market will solve everyone’s problems, but because “equal justice” requires the state to be a neutral referee which does not bias outcomes in favor of any individuals or groups. true justice doesn’t come from the government redistributing wealth in favor of farmers or elderly retirees. It comes from the government uniformly enforcing clear set of simple rules and letting the chips fall where they may.

  21. ummm wasn’t it Marxists who invaded Tibet?

    1. yea, but those were “bad marxists”

      everytime marxism/socialism fails, the leftist excuse is that THOSE marxist/socialists etc. were either

      1) bad/corrupted
      2) forced into it by the capitalist/imperialist west

      but the SYSTEM of course isn’t criticized. because it is SO much better than capitalism in their eyes. no # of failures will invade that belief

  22. So imagine, this crazy cult goes around and picks out a child at random. And it is completely fuckin random, no matter what the the reincanationists say. Take the child away to be razed a sexless weirdo and then we’re supposed to listen him like he has some special insight to offer. Fuck that.

    1. Buddhism has always seemed the most theologically and philosophically bankrupt of religions to me, no wonder its a favorite choice of Westerns idiots who want something trendy and exotic.

      IMO, Taoism is the brand of thought that is easily the most compatible with libertarian principles and is most attractive of all eastern thought.

      1. I’m with you on Taoism, but you must know Buddhism comes in many forms and usually when people abuse Buddhism they pick something almost completely irrelevant to the principles of compassion and transcending suffering and then form some conclusion about Buddhism as a whole. Such hate filled words merely bounce off any Buddhist or non-Buddhist who values compassion and the quest for transcending suffering. Taoism has no ethics really, since it can help you attain power over the self and others by learning that action should always follow understanding, I personally like it as much as Buddhism since it is reflected in reality so accurately. What I find amusing is what people reveal about themselves in the way they choose to attack that which also belongs to them.

        The Dalai Lama’s statements are obviously a little political – I think he realises that there is a need for Tibet to have a form of governance beyond their traditions as, being a Buddhist he cares little for any system that values any person’s life above another. All those that attack him without even trying to reconcile that he does believe this will be arguing amongst themselves with no credibility.
        95% of the comments here appear to be wasted effort and are only useful to help understand the mindset of the poster.

  23. Of course, it was Marx who more or less “invented” capitalism, as an “ism.” We’re a highly social species, don ‘t forget. I suspect that libertarianism has the same underlying flaw as Communism…both “isms” do not play well with others.

    1. one critical difference is that capitalist societies do not (have to) hold their citizens HOSTAGE

      i am not aware of any capitalist country that ever prohibited citizens from saying “screw you guys, i’m leaving”

      pretty much EVERY socialist/marxist society has to put guards at the gate to keep their subject from escaping.

      that pretty much says it all

      1. And what are so many of our own people agitating for our government to do now? I wonder if they are aware that the Berlin Wall was originally sold as keeping the riff-raff OUT?

    2. The same underlying flaw?

      If you really think the “underlying flaw” in communism is that it “doesn’t play well with others” I’d say you have a pretty fundamental lack of understanding. What the hell does “not play well with others” even mean in any serious consideration of the issue? You’re letting a cute turn of a phrase replace even the remotest semblance of actual thought and analysis.

      1. I think it was Lewis Black who said the fundamental flaw of Communism was that there wasn’t any money in it.

  24. I do not understand that desire of elevating people into almost gods — like Mother Theresa, Dalai Lama, and others, when in fact there may not be anything remarkable about them.
    A great thinker, in my opinion, Dalay Lama is not. He is hardly even a thinker. Capitalism is not about how to make profit it is about liberty in economic sphere of existence, or freedom to earn your own success. Prosperity is a fortunate byproduct. Liberty — is definitly a moral concept.

    Marxism in all its forms is a system of enforcement where natural human earnings are subjugated to the power of few bureaucrats at the top of food chain who make decisions for everyone else. Any other system but free markets are by definition not free, they require enforcement by the state.

    1. Which is why your definition of “morality” is important. If you define freedom as the highest moral plane, you get Libertarianism. If you value equality as the highest moral achievement, you get Marxism/socialism. And if you value image over substance, you get crappy Starbucks coffee.

    2. How did Mother Teresa get in the same boat with the Lama again? Their careers have nothing, absolutely nothing in common. How many shit, blood and pus filled bedpans has Dalai Lama cleaned out again?

    3. Only thing wrong about this —

      I do not understand that desire of elevating people into almost gods — like Mother Theresa

      I kind of vividly remember the week she died.

      Though I’ve come around to thinking Hitchens may have had a few things right about her.

  25. Best article headline I’ve seen in a long, long time!

  26. As some philosopher once pointed out. “Liberty to wolves is death to sheep.” Not that humans are either, but…

    1. but… what? More substitution of rhetoric for thought I presume.

      1. BUT they may tend to take on the characteristics of either animal given sufficient impetus in either direction.

    2. As some philosopher once pointed out. “Liberty to wolves is death to sheep.” Not that humans are either, but…

      As long as the sheep are willing participants what is the problem? Trespassing against others is not an element of liberty.

    3. That philosopher was a crank. Liberty to wolves is death to slow and weak sheep.

    4. If all that exists are wolves and sheep, the wolves will have liberty regardless; the only question is whether the sheep will be deluded into accepting control by them.

      That statement presumes the existence of shepherds who are capable of controlling the wolves and not oppressing the sheep. Such does not exist in the real world.

    5. Wolves and sheep are two different species. One is a wild animal of high intelligence, the other is a domesticated herd animal bred by humans for food.

      Is this really an analogy you want to make?

  27. It should be noted that the Dalai Lama takes the first year liberal arts undergrad position by claiming that no examples of “true” Marxism have ever existed.

    http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html#marxism

    1. I take it that the Dalai Lama has never met any Scotsmen, either.

  28. The “…” was to goad you into thinking of something to complete the sentence.

  29. One could say that no “true” capitalist system has ever existed as well. “Capitalism,” after all, was a Marxist economic model…sort of like a model airplane in a wind tunnel.

  30. My God, I just had a horrible thought: Could Mayor Emperor Daley become. . . The Daley Lama?

    1. The Lame-o Daley, you mean.

  31. It was Isaiah Berlin who said, “Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.”

    1. Right but that ignores the benefit of repeated experience. One or two dead sheep and someone’s going to do something about it.

    2. The old African saying is that the Cheeta gets up every morning knowing he as to be faster than the slowest Gazelle or starve. Every Gazelle gets up in the morning knowing he has to be faster than the Cheeta or be eaten. Everyone gets up knowing they better get moving.

    3. If I had to choose between being a wolf or a sheep, I would be a wolf. People who consent to becoming domesticated farm animals deserve to be eaten.

    4. Never fear, The lamb of God is here!

      As soon as I get out of this costume we can start eating.

  32. Always liked the Dalia Lama, but his understanding of economics and politics is that of a 5 year old. I have heard him talk a lot about being a Marxist. I really do think it is just him trying to appease China for obvious reasons.

  33. “I find in general the Buddhists to be pretty libertarian leaning as a matter of theology and the Dalai Lama to be a pretty cool guy … ”

    The Dalai Lama is a tyrant. He is not in any sense of the phrase a civil rights leader. He wants to have his throne restored so he can re-enslave his subjects. If freedom and social mobility improve immeasurably when the fucking Chinese remove a monarch, it’s safe to say he’s an asshole of the first order.

    1. buddhists also do not tend to be particularly libertarian. AMERICAN buddhists may tend to be, but that’s because of the people in america who tend to select buddhism.

      a pretty fair %age are outcasts from, or unsatisfied with, other religious traditions in the US. they seek buddhism as an “alternative” religion, with all the trappings that entails. to paraphrase pj orourke, there’s no such thing as tantric catholicism

      buddhism, as practiced in many asian countries, is quite different in many respects than your “richard gere” style. and i’m sure you’d see a noticeable difference.

      1. Taoism is where its at.

        1. Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism’s in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.” Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I’d still have to bum rides off people.

        2. Which translation most faithfully preserves Taoism’s libertarianism?

          1. Nice link!

            I read a classic penguin translation, done by D.C. Lau which isn’t actually on the list

            Taoism kicks ass

  34. So, I tell them I’m a pro jock, and who do you think they give me?
    The Dalai Lama, himself.
    Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald… striking.

    So, I’m on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one – big hitter, the Lama – long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says?

    “Gunga galunga… gunga, gunga-lagunga”.

    So we finish the eighteenth and he’s gonna stiff me. And I say, “Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.” And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.”

    So I got that goin’ for me,
    which is nice.

    1. I like to think that Bill Murray–not the character, I mean the brother of Brian Murray (the Doyle is just one of those Hollywood can’t-have-the-same-name-as-another-actor thingees)–really did caddy for the Dalai Lama.

  35. What the Dalai Lama would have been had the Chinese not invaded, is one thing. What he is because the Chinese had invaded Tibet, is another thing. He isn’t a tyrant, if for no other reason, because he can’t be one. Which may be the same reason I’m not a tyrant…except maybe to the houseplants.

    1. You know who isn’t a tyrant either. Because he’s dead. What’s your point?

  36. A flute with no holes is not a flute…

    1. Non, c’est une pipe.

  37. Gunga Galunga!

  38. A free market is the ONLY truly moral system […]. As libertarians we need to keep beating that drum.

    Good luck with that, Teabagger.

  39. >>”Still I am a Marxist,” the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader said

    So he is a Buddhist and a materialist? I’m guessing he doesn’t understand at least one of those two concepts.

  40. I’m not even quite sure why certain Americans are attracted to the whole Tibet/Buddhism stuff. It can’t be a freedom thing–they don’t give a shit about all the other territories (and peoples) China grabbed for itself. I’ve heard there’s a kernel of truth to China’s otherwise vicious propaganda concerning Tibet (i.e. that is was a theocratic hellhole in the olde days).

    1. There’s a lot more than a kernel of truth.

    2. Did the prevent people from leaving that “theocratic hellhole” in the olde days?

  41. Penn: Since coming to power, the Chinese government have introduced to Tibet electricity, running water, secular education, and better health standards, so maybe life is better on the ground there. Of course they also have thrown millions in labor camps and prisons, stomped out as much free speech as possible, have death squads run amok throughout the country, and they have that whole fucked up Communist bullshit. But if you ask the Dalai Lama, His Holiness will tell you that he must return to power for the good of his people. In this case, “good” may translate into his people living in squalor and his government condoning slavery. Remember, the lesser of two evils? is still evil

    1. How could such a happy guy condone slavery? That doesn’t make much sense.

    2. He wants to return to be leader, but he just wants the status of the Region changed. In other words, he wants to keep the money and be king.

    3. I think the Dalai Lama is a loathsome turd myself, but in his defense, most of Asia had none of those things either when the Chinese invaded Tibet.

  42. The Dalai Lama refers to ethics and principle in his statement, not practical application. Isn’t it possible for him to concur with principles of Marxism and/or capitalism, and still disagree with the popular execution of both? Justly or unjustly, right or wrong, in any political system and any religion, there is usually a disconenct between the principles of the faith or the system, and the way those things play out in the real world…

    1. “there is usually a disconenct between the principles of the faith or the system, and the way those things play out in the real world…”

      It doesn’t help when the religious leader is also the monarch.

  43. Odd that you are calling someone stupid, when the central assumption of your argument seems to be “If not 100% capitalism, then 100% pure Marxism”, as if there lies nothing in between.

    You know what? Neither capitalism or communism works in the extreme, and the answer does indeed lie somewhere in the middle. His Holiness is simply stating he believes that it lies closer to one end than the other, which a boat-load more intelligent of a statement than libertarian dreams of Libertopia.

    1. Still I am a Marxist

      You view this as a statement showing some level of moderation? I guess only to the Daily Kos Krowd.

      1. Though if you think the central argument of Gillespie’s piece is “If not 100% capitalism, then 100% pure Marxism”, then I’m really just wasting my time responding to you. Never mind.

        1. Saying one is a “Marxist” does not necessarily mean being any further left than saying one is a “capitalist” means being to the right. Indeed, the vast majority around here are further right than the Dalia Lama is left.

          Libertarians always try to use the USSR or DPPK as “proof” that not only communism is bad, but anything to the left of libertarianism is bad. This is just as logical as pointing how how anarchy fails as well, and therefore anything right of Marxism is bad.

          In reality, both extremes fail, and there is a lot of perfectly viable room in the middle.

    2. Chad – very true:
      ‘Neither capitalism or communism works in the extreme, and the answer does indeed lie somewhere in the middle. His Holiness is simply stating he believes that it lies closer to one end than the other, which a boat-load more intelligent of a statement than libertarian dreams of Libertopia.’

      That’s the Buddhists’ ‘middle way’.

  44. Do you think that the Tibetans will finally beat back the Fire Nation?

  45. the Dalai Lama is not a serious thinker or observer of life

    Just finding that out? Wow.

  46. Having a genetic disease…I sometimes have more sympathy towards lambs than wolves.

    Rooting for the underdog is an American tradition. The problems sometimes start when an underdog becomes an overlord.

    Nepal was sort of in the same shape as Tibet was in the late Fifties when the Dalai Lama fled Tibet…and that was similar to some areas of the United States, for that matter. How things were then, doesn’t necessarily reflect how things would be now, had “X” not happened. That the Dalai Lama expresses concern and compassion for the poor and oppressed…might suggest that thing would indeed have changed in Tibet towards greater civil liberties. But, that’s unprovable, of course. Of course, it makes me nervous to have civil rights for all, dependent upon the few, instead of being a cornerstone of a society.

  47. spare me your rubbish. regardless of how the proposed berlin wall was marketed, once it was built, it was used to keep people IN.

    west berliners actually found it relatively easy to enter east berlin.

    sorry, but that’s a dumb analogy.

    if you want to leave the US (or any capitalist country i can think of), nobody in the US will stop you.

  48. Of course, not being Cheetahs, we can hunt gazelles together, not as individuals. We’ve not evolved for bursts of high speed sprints, either, but short, but for long distance endurance.

    A gazelle is very capable of running away from us humans, but can run only so far so fast before it has to stop and recharge itself. But, as a small group of smart hunters who can track it if we loose sight of it, we can just jog along at a fairly comfortable human pace, and push a gazelle into a state of complete exhaustion. After awhile, it will just stand there, as that’s all that it can do and do no more, and therefore become our lunch.

    So, if we want to eat, we really need each other, as well as “institutional memory” so to speak. Where people have seen gazelles at other times, and how to track them if we loose sight of them.

    We are individuals, but we can’t be individuals without being intensely social creatures simultaneously…even when we’re out hunting alone. My rifle and knowledge of gazelles didn’t just appear out of the blue, after all.

    We’re also omnivorous, generalists, not confined to narrow, individual niche as are cheetahs. Also, while humans can prey on humans, and have, the Golden Rule suggests that it’s not something that one should encourage. If we don’t want to be treated as prey, we shouldn’t treat people as prey.

  49. It’s true, capitalism knows only how to make profits…because, you know, it’s an arrangement of ECONOMIC affairs and not a guide for life. Ethical norms come from somewhere else. Bemoaning capitalism’s lack of ethical guidance is like looking at the market price of gold and expecting it to tell you whether to support gay marriage.

    And, of course, the entire Marxist idea is a bit of projecting. Bemoaning capitalism’s supposed creation of morality from bare economic relations, the Marxist in fact is the only one saying that the material conditions of existence along should dictate morality. The capitalist gets his ethics from whatever other source he wants – the Marxist is the crass materialist!

    What an intellectually bankrupt, blood-soaked ideology.

  50. …is yet one more sign that the Dalai Lama is not a serious thinker or observer of life?

    By the time he’s 84, the Dalie Lama will be able tell us if his belly-button in an insy or outsy.

  51. Generally true, but not always. Some people are not allowed to leave the country for various reasons. I once innocently bumped into the accused after his alleged crime, and was not allowed to go about my business until after his trial, at least without becoming a criminal myself. That was expensive to me, but what could I do? Society’s pursuit of justice sometimes has a price to an innocent individual.

    1. well yes, greg. there are exceptions. just like you are not allowed to leave the country if you are currently incarcerated.

      i didn’t think i needed to point those exceptions out.

      it’s a pretty strong distinction. we simply don’t hold our CITIZENS hostage.

      socialist/communist countries almost always (there is probably an exception somewhere do).

      this is also something that leftist defenders of castro et al can’t address. if those societies are so great, then why do people clamor to leave?

      (wikipedia on the emigration prior to the building of the berlin wall)
      “The emigrants tended to be young and well-educated, leading to the “brain drain” feared by officials in East Germany.[18] Yuri Andropov, then the CPSU Director on Relations with Communist and Workers Parties of Socialist Countries, wrote an urgent letter on August 28, 1958, to the Central Committee about the significant 50% increase in the number of East German intelligentsia among the refugees.[31] Andropov reported that, while the East German leadership stated that they were leaving for economic reasons, testimony from refugees indicated that the reasons were more political than material.[31] He stated “the flight of the intelligentsia has reached a particularly critical phase.”[31]

      By 1960, the combination of World War II and the massive emigration westward left East Germany with only 61% of its population of working age, compared to 70.5% before the war.[30] The loss was disproportionately heavy among professionals: engineers, technicians, physicians, teachers, lawyers and skilled workers.[30] The direct cost of manpower losses has been estimated at $7 billion to $9 billion, with East German party leader Walter Ulbricht later claiming that West Germany owed him $17 billion in compensation, including reparations as well as manpower losses.[30] In addition, the drain of East Germany’s young population potentially cost it over 22.5 billion marks in lost educational investment.[32] The brain drain of professionals had become so damaging to the political credibility and economic viability of East Germany that the re-securing of the German communist frontier was imperative.”

  52. You’re right. We always need to wonder if the greener looking grass on the other side of the fence, isn’t really crabgrass and stickers up close.

  53. Sometimes even look to heaven religion has a touch of “crass materialism.” Give us this day, our daily bread…

    Personally, as we now know that “material” is essentially gelled energy, more or less, and that the Marxist materialist dialectic disappears at very small scales, I would think that the foundation of classical Marxism has been undermined. That’s not to say, however, that it’s model of capitalism can be completely disregarded. As an economic model, capitalism was invented by Marx and Engels, after all.

  54. Once in some Eastern European capital, a young Buddhist adept asked Dalai Lama a very sophisticated theoretical question loaded with about a dozen of Sanskrit and Pali words. It was obvious that an answer from such an authority was very important to that young man.

    Upon listening to him absent-mindedly, Dalai Lama replied:

    – Why not, if that makes you happier?

    I’d say Dalai Lama is a relativist, and rather cynical one. Sometimes, he even reminds me of Monty Python. 🙂

    Contrary to popular wisdom, riddles and paradoxes are not peculiar to Zen, but are used in other branches of Buddhism as well. Sometimes it seems the whole purpose of Buddhism is to make people as confused as possible.

    That might be not that bad thing after all. Lots of shit are perpetrated by people who are so sure about everything.

  55. Duckworth Lewis|5.24.10 @ 3:28PM|#

    I find in general the Buddhists to be pretty libertarian leaning as a matter of theology and the Dalai Lama to be a pretty cool guy – if you want to try throwing peace and civil rights leaders under the libertarian purity bus you’ll have to start with Ghandi, MLKJr. Mandela, Desmond Tutu. Dalai Lama

    I think the last quality in the world I would want in a religious leader if I was inclined to find one who was persuasive would be that he is a ‘pretty cool guy.’

    Not looking for a youth minister to keep me on the straight and narrow, looking for someone who can explain that given chronological time set to infinity going forward and going backwards cannot exist in the same since that numeral infinity exist or we would never have come to exist, than what the fuck is it that we are perceiving? Give me a good explanation for that, and I might shave my head and wear a white robe in your honor.

    1. Alan, I don’t think I completely understand your question, but you might want to look at modern Physics ideas and how they relate to Buddhist thought. One seriously considered concept in Tibetan Buddhism is that one can transcend linear time and ‘go beyond’ the limitations of this ‘illusory’ world (that is, it is constantly changing or moving – just as scientists have proven – as is our relationship to it, not to mention the possibility that the basis of matter may be movement itself). Some think that everything (past, present and future) is happening at the same time in this very moment…but that is perhaps more mysticism than religion. Still, physicists and Tibetan Buddhists discuss that sort of thing. The difference is that Buddhists tend to experience other states of being through meditation, which scientists sometimes experience as a result of strenuous intellectual effort, while physicists try to prove such concepts mathematically and materially. Consider how molecules behave and you may find answers for your questions, perhaps. I don’t know and can’t tell you myself!

  56. A spiritualist is capitalist first and a communist later.

  57. I get so fed up with all this bashing of Buddhists and other high-minded people who aim for civilised, compassionate behaviour in a corrupt world, due to journalists’ use of three-second soundbites that explain absolutely nothing – no real truth anywhere. Western people who are serious about Buddhism and follow its precepts are generally people seeking something better than the accepted norm of society and the ‘survival of the fittest’ regime we’re living under. THAT mentality is what the Dalai Lama is constantly referring to as being ‘not good’ for human beings. People who don’t know what Buddhism is, nor what it teaches, need to look a little deeper before making pronouncements about it. Regarding the Dalai Lama’s intelligence or lack of, he is a religious leader, as he always always claims – NOT a politician, much as he has been forced into that latter role. He wants the Chinese to let Tibetan Buddhists live freely in their own home country, which China refuses to allow. Whatever he says in 3-second soundbites is meant to encourage the Chinese to stop killing and controlling his country’s people. Re his own place as Tibet’s exiled leader, his whole life spent roaming the world seeking help for his people should be enough of a statement about his compassionate convictions. Why don’t you critics of him go after the REAL bad guys of the situation? NOT the good guys?

  58. Nice to know even Buddism has its Al Sharpton.

    Humanity is nothing more than biology rolled into thought. We like sex. We like money. We have toys. It’s our nature. But, we have thought – and those imprisoned by the likes of this clown are truly, truly the most remarkable creatures on Earth….with the minds of monkeys amassed with a human soul.

    Find YOUR message….there is a thought!

  59. Ah a libertarian circle jerk. Nice to know that there is a philosophy for those that can’t live with the idea of being selfish for the hell of it.

  60. “the Dalai Lama is not a serious thinker or observer of life”

    yeah man, totally. and hundreds of /b/tards posting on a different website, with capitalistic, Ameri-Christian ideals beat into them by their parents, totally know what life is about, much more than a revered and honored spiritual leader of millions. Yep.

    This whole thread is just Glen Beck masturbating onto the minds of all of you. I hope, some day, you are not wealthy, so that some day, you will understand the downfalls of the “free enterprise” and the “choices” you have about which abandoned building to squat in will surely comfort you.

    Haves love a system that favors the haves, and the havenots will always we portrayed as crazy and evil.

    Read.

  61. Comunismul este iubire, iubirea este Dumnezeu, Comunismul este Dumnezeu

  62. The Dalai Lamas political views aside, just wanted to point out that plenty of scientific research has been done on reincarnation. It is plausible. A large portion of Europeans believe in reincarnation.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.