Dalai Lama announces to Chinese Students...I am a Marxist, but not a Leninist

[Selene]

When one student asked if this didn't contradict the Dalai Lama's philosophy, he replied:

Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class. He also provided an interesting anecdote about his experience with Mao. He said that Mao had felt that the Dalai Lama's mind was very logical, implying that Buddhist education and training help sharpens the mind. He said he met with Mao several times, and that once, during a meeting in Beijing, the Chinese leader called him in and announced: "Your mind is scientific!" -- an assessment that was followed by the famous line, "religion is poison."

Full Article Here

It always fascinates me that folks cannot see the repeated connection between Marxism and gulags, mass exterminations, chains and death.

Adam

Dalai Lama is still a great man

[Rich Engle]

If you read the Dali's most recent books, it gives you a better perspective. His unique position.

There are so many, but I like this one a great deal:

The Universe in a Single Atom

His anecdotes alone are worth the read.

Blessings,

rde

[Selene]

If you read the Dali's most recent books, it gives you a better perspective. His unique position.

There are so many, but I like this one a great deal:

The Universe in a Single Atom

His anecdotes alone are worth the read.

Blessings,

rde

Yep, great book. Some weird Rand loving musician from Florida recommended that I read it!

Thanks again. Rich.

By the way, the Roku box with Netflix is phenomenal!!!

Adam

[Xray]

When one student asked if this didn't contradict the Dalai Lama's philosophy, he replied:

Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class.

But is that statement consistent with reality, i. e. does it really represent Marx's opinion?

Doubts arise on that because Marx verbatim called religion as such [

not

merely religious institutions] the 'opium of the people' ("Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes") (Marx)

From the Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.[1]

Edited June 11, 2011 by Xray

[Jerry Biggers]

The Dalai Lama is "a great man?" How so? Yes, he opposed the Chi-Coms' reconquest of Tibet, which is laudable.

But, contrary to the MSM myth of a free, independent Tibet, prior to the People's Republic of China, Tibet has been either a province or at best a "protectorate" of China (as a glance through an historical world atlas will show). It was definitely not an independent nation in the period prior to the Chi-Com conquest of China, but due to the weakness of China's governments for most of the 20th century, Tibet was largely left alone.

In any case, Tibet before the Chi-Coms' brutal invasion was not a version of either "Shangri-La" or anything resembling a free, live-and-let-live country. It was, in fact, run as a theocracy that used whatever force its leaders had to enforce their socio-politico-religious beliefs on its citizens.

So, as a "symbol" of resistance to the Chi-Coms, the Dalai Lama deserves some (qualified) credit. It is however, no accident that the MSM (especially its Hollywood division) gush over the Dalai Lama, since his books sound like something issued by "Ramtha," Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and other new age-ish types.

Recently, the Dalai Lama has issued a number of statements (not just the ones referenced at the top of this thread) that appear to be an attempt to cozy-up with the current Chi-Com leaders, including a near wholesale endorsement of Marxism, an explicit rejection of Western-style political democracy, and of course, capitalism (for - you guessed it - its appeal to "selfishness").

The Dalai Lama is no more a "fighter for freedom," than was the deposed Ethiopian Emperor, Hailie Selassie, when Mussolini conquered his country prior to World War II. A symbol of resistance, yes.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[caroljane]

Certainly Tibet was a theocracy but it was also a rich, autonomous, irreplaceable culture, whose deliberate destruction is a crime by the Chinese, as it would have been by any other invader.

[9thdoctor]

The Dalai Lama is "a great man?" How so?

Hey, quit picking on the Lama!

[Jerry Biggers]

Certainly Tibet was a theocracy but it was also a rich, autonomous, irreplaceable culture, whose deliberate destruction is a crime by the Chinese, as it would have been by any other invader.

Of course. It was a crime for the Chi-Coms to invade and forcibly suppress Tibet. But your comment would equally apply in a number of other historical events. Instead of "Tibet," and "China," substitute Incan Empire and Spain; or the Aztecs and Spain. How about the North American Indian cultures ravaged by colonial powers England, France,and the United States? Or Ancient Egypt conquered by Rome? The Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire dismantled by the Allied powers after WW I? And look what the allies did to the Ottoman Empire, carving it up into such never-previously existing states as Iraq and Trans-Jordan, not to mention a really wonderful solution for the Jews and Arab populations in "Palestine." That worked out really well for all concerned.

You get my point. All these examples, and many more, "were rich, autonomous, irreplaceable" cultures destroyed by their conquerors. But consider this, the underlying premise in this view of history requires that the destroyed culture be viewed as a collective. This also assumes that all of those residing there (let's say, Tibet) are in agreement with having their native culture (and political system) imposed on the rest of the populace. But surely, this is not likely the case. The interests of the individual are completely ignored in this view. What if some wish to live lives not in agreement with that "rich, irreplaceable culture?" Would they be allowed to, or would they be forced to comply?

Obviously, this does not excuse the actions of the Chi-Coms in Tibet. But it also does not absolve the pre-communist leaders of Tibet (or any other culture) for forcibly suppressing dissent to their rule.

To cite a more graphic example, I doubt that the peoples conquered by the Aztecs, forced into slavery and sacrificed (literally) on their religious alters, would have had much positive to say about Moctezuma's reign, or about the richness of Aztec culture.

As I said, the Dalai Lama may serve as a symbol for a "free" Tibet, but based on his own statements and actions, he is not an advocate for the freedom of the individual. Any more than the deposed Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie was.

[caroljane]

Certainly Tibet was a theocracy but it was also a rich, autonomous, irreplaceable culture, whose deliberate destruction is a crime by the Chinese, as it would have been by any other invader.

Of course. It was a crime for the Chi-Coms to invade and forcibly suppress Tibet. But your comment would equally apply in a number of other historical events. Instead of "Tibet," and "China," substitute Incan Empire and Spain; or the Aztecs and Spain. How about the North American Indian cultures ravaged by colonial powers England, France,and the United States? Or Ancient Egypt conquered by Rome? The Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire dismantled by the Allied powers after WW I? And look what the allies did to the Ottoman Empire, carving it up into such never-previously existing states as Iraq and Trans-Jordan, not to mention a really wonderful solution for the Jews and Arab populations in "Palestine." That worked out really well for all concerned.

You get my point. All these examples, and many more, "were rich, autonomous, irreplaceable" cultures destroyed by their conquerors. But consider this, the underlying premise in this view of history requires that the destroyed culture be viewed as a collective. This also assumes that all of those residing there (let's say, Tibet) are in agreement with having their native culture (and political system) imposed on the rest of the populace. But surely, this is not likely the case. The interests of the individual are completely ignored in this view. What if some wish to live lives not in agreement with that "rich, irreplaceable culture?" Would they be allowed to, or would they be forced to comply?

Obviously, this does not excuse the actions of the Chi-Coms in Tibet. But it also does not absolve the pre-communist leaders of Tibet (or any other culture) for forcibly suppressing dissent to their rule.

To cite a more graphic example, I doubt that the peoples conquered by the Aztecs, forced into slavery and sacrificed (literally) on their religious alters, would have had much positive to say about Moctezuma's reign, or about the richness of Aztec culture.

As I said, the Dalai Lama may serve as a symbol for a "free" Tibet, but based on his own statements and actions, he is not an advocate for the freedom of the individual. Any more than the deposed Ethiopian Emperor, Haile Selassie was.

I was not thinking of the relative advantages for the individual, when the culture in which he lives is destroyed and another is imposed. I was thinking of the individual Tibetans I know, actually.

But in your examples you have apples and oranges. The Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires were not indigenous, unique cultures. They were empires, full of diverse sullen subjugated cultures, rotten-ripe for falling. Rome did not conquer ancient Egypt, it had long ceased to be ancient and had been already conquered by Macedon.

As to what the Allies did, and are still doing, the story is still being told.

[Jerry Biggers]

The Dalai Lama is "a great man?" How so?

Hey, quit picking on the Lama!

Absolutely right!! I should have left it to Penn & Teller! Perfect. One of their best!

[Rich Engle]

If you read the Dali's most recent books, it gives you a better perspective. His unique position.

There are so many, but I like this one a great deal:

The Universe in a Single Atom

His anecdotes alone are worth the read.

Blessings,

rde

Yep, great book. Some weird Rand loving musician from Florida recommended that I read it!

Thanks again. Rich.

By the way, the Roku box with Netflix is phenomenal!!!

Adam

Oh yeah, she gets it done.

r

[Rich Engle]

You never experience the universe unless it flows through your body. And you have to notice when that happens.

So, pricky Objectivists, go be miserable. Be miserable bastards, by trade.

rde

[Xray]

Recently, the Dalai Lama has issued a number of statements (not just the ones referenced at the top of this thread) that appear to be an attempt to cozy-up with the current Chi-Com leaders, including a near wholesale endorsement of Marxism,

That explains a lot.

Dalai Lama:

Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2011/06/dalai-lama-china-marx-communism/1

This is downright false. Marx was of course against religion.

You never experience the universe unless it flows through your body. And you have to notice when that happens.

To experience this feeling, one neither needs Buddhism nor any other religion.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Dalai lama:

Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class.

http://content.usato...arx-communism/1

This is downright false. Marx was of course against religion.

Angela:

Might you provide a direct statement by Marx to support your assertion.

As I read the reference in the article, the Dalai lama draws a distinction between "religious institutions" and religion, per se, when he states:

"Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class."

Now, the lama could be incorrect in drawing that distinction, or, he may have been misquoted, or, Marx may not have said anything close to the conclusion that the lama asserts.

However, I would like to see what you have to support your strong assertion.

Thanks.

Adam

Not allowed to use bright red underlining because Carol will get upset!

[Xray]

Angela:

Might you provide a direct statement by Marx to support your assertion.

As I read the reference in the article, the Dalai lama draws a distinction between "religious institutions" and religion, per se, when he states:

"Marx was not against religion or religious philosophy per se but against religious institutions that were allied, during Marx's time, with the European ruling class."

Now, the lama could be incorrect in drawing that distinction, or, he may have been misquoted, or, Marx may not have said anything close to the conclusion that the lama asserts.

However, I would like to see what you have to support your strong assertion.

Thanks.

Adam

Not allowed to use bright red underlining because Carol will get upset!

Adam:

I already provided direct quotes from Marx on that in my # 4 post:

From the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia....m_of_the_people

The quotation, in context, reads as follows (emphasis added):

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Not allowed to use bright red underlining because Carol will get upset!

Why will Carol get upset if you use bright red underlining?

Edited June 11, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Angela:

I actually did not read that part of your post, my apologies.

However, it seems that a number of folks have disputed the overuse of the Marx quote about religion.

From example, Austin Cline, a commentator/blogger stated:

I think that this in turn is due to not entirely understanding Marx’s general theories on economics and society. Marx actually said very little about religion directly; in all of his writings, he hardly ever addresses religion in a systematic fashion, even though he touches on it frequently in books, speeches and pamphlets.The reason is that his critique of religion forms simply one piece of his overall theory of society — thus, understanding his critique of religion requires some understanding of his critique of society in general. According to Marx, religion is an expression of material realities and economic injustice. Thus, problems in religion are ultimately problems in society. Religion is not the disease, but merely a symptom. It is used by oppressors to make people feel better about the distress they experience due to being poor and exploited. This is the origin of his comment that religion is the “opium of the masses” — but as shall see, his thoughts are much more complex than commonly portrayed.

source here

According to Marx, religion is one of those social institutions which are dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history but is instead the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.”

I have always understood Marx's view of religion as "structural" and representative of his structural societal critique. Apparently, as Cyril Smith points out here, I am not alone:

The Paris Manuscripts, penned in 1844, returns to this theme.

Since the

real existence

of man and nature has become evident in practice, through sense experience, because man has thus become evident for man as the being of nature, and nature for man as the being of man, the question about an

alien

being, about a being above nature and man -- a question which implies admission of the unreality of nature and of man -- has become impossible in practice.

Atheism

, as a

negation of God

, has no longer any meaning, and postulates the

existence of man

through this negation; but socialism as socialism no longer stands in any need of such a mediation. (MECW, Vol. 3, p. 306.)

At this time, in 1843-4, Marx thought of himself as a follower of Feuerbach. But even this thinker, beloved of atheists, was not one of them. His target was not so much religion but theology, the formal study of God, ‘the worst enemy of the awakened spirit’.

Continuing, Cyril concludes:

But his treatment of this notion in Capital is not the same as that we have seen in the other extracts.

The religious reflections of the real world can, in any case, vanish only when the practical relations of everyday life between man and man, and man and nature, generally present themselves to him in a transparent and rational form. The veil is not removed from the countenance of the social life-process, i.e. the process of material production, until it becomes production by freely associated men, and stands under their conscious and planned control. This, however, requires that society possess a material foundation, or a series of material conditions of existence, which in their turn are the natural and spontaneous product of a long and tormented historical development. (

Capital

, p. 173.)

Here, Marx brings together his views on religion and his historical view of the communist revolution and the growth of production generally. He relates religion to the effort to unite human beings without really understanding the sweeping historical forces which have separated them."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, I am thinking that this is the way the Dalai lame was making the reference.

Adam

[Selene]

American Thinker chimed in on the Dalai lama revealation here:

This isn't the first time the Lama indicated that his soul is as red as the robes he wears. During a lecture in NYC on May 19, the Tibetan leader credited "capitalism" with bringing new freedoms to China but then

said

, "Still I am a Marxist"; he then explained that Marxism has "moral ethics, whereas capitalism is only how to make profits." That's some deep thinking right there.

Clearly, the author of this article, Selwyn Duke** is not too pleased with this pronouncement from the Dalai lama:

As for the Lama's mind, it doesn't seem as if he has to worry much about a slight misstep landing him in insanity's realm. A few years ago he was asked if he took exception to a highly sexualized image on a magazine cover, and he dodged the question politician-like, saying (I'm paraphrasing), "This world isn't real, anyway."

Really?

Then why is he concerned about what the Chinese are doing in Tibet? What does it matter if the Chicomms oppress its people and quash its culture? Hey, if the Lama and some fellow Buddhist monks are hauled off to a Chinese concentration camp, they can just mediate on how it's all an illusion.

The real illusion is the Lama's image. A man of authentic faith seeks Truth and doesn't deny reality, either the moral variety or the physical ("Am I a man who dreamt he was a worm or a worm dreaming he is a man?!"). The reality here, though, is that the Dalai Lama is, like Gandhi (about whom I recently

wrote

), just another overrated Eastern spiritual leader whom elites glom onto because he is quite liberal and not Western. He should stick to

with Bill Murray on the bag.

**Selwyn Duke is a columnist, public speaker and Internet entrepreneur whose work has been published widely online and also in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, has a regular column in Christian Music Perspective Magazine and does commentary on the award-winning Michael Savage Show.

Adam

[Selene]

Idiot Newsman Trys Pizza Joke on the Dalai lame

TV Anchor’s Dalai Lama Joke Goes Wrong

Matt Cherette — Recently on Australia's version of the Today show, anchor Karl Stefanovic sat down for an interview with the Dalai Lama, during which he attempted a joke about the religious leader going into a pizza shop. That's when things got really awkward. [via Reddit]

[Selene]

Guess the Dalai lama is a different kind of marxist from O'biwan. Or, maybe the boy prince is just an afraid of the Yellow Peril type of marxism.

Top US lawmakers plan Thursday to welcome the Dalai Lama in a show of support as China stepped up pressure on President Barack Obama not to hold his own meeting with Tibet's exiled spiritual leader.

Members of the House of Representatives plan to put aside briefly a bitter debate on taming the US debt for talks with the Dalai Lama, a rare figure embraced by both sides of the political spectrum in the United States.

House Speaker John Boehner, the third highest-ranking US official under the Constitution, invited the Dalai Lama to the Capitol. Former speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House leader of Obama's Democratic Party and longtime supporter of the Dalai Lama, will join the talks along with other senior lawmakers.

here

Edited July 7, 2011 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

The Dalai Lama has a new book, Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World.

Transcending the mere "religion wars", he outlines a system of secular ethics that gives tolerant respect to religion, but, with the highest level of spiritual and intellectual authority, makes a claim for what the Dalai Lama calls a third way. This is a universal code of ethics that transcends religion boundaries, that recognizes our common humanity and advocates for a global human community based on understanding and mutual respect.

I haven't read it, and haven't developed a real first hand opinion of the Dalai Lama. I'm pointing this book out, mainly, because through December 20th you can get the audiobook version of it for free from Audible.com. At that price point, how bad can it be?

http://www.audible.c...23714284&sr=1_1

I don't know if you need to be an Audible member or not; I am, so it's definitely free for me.

[john42t]

[Removed, didn't read the thread before commenting...]

[9thdoctor]

I haven't read it, and haven't developed a real first hand opinion of the Dalai Lama. I'm pointing this book out, mainly, because through December 20th you can get the audiobook version of it for free from Audible.com. At that price point, how bad can it be?

Oh geez. Alright, it's still a bit early, but this thing is just so freakin' trite. Shallow. Dull. And Martin Sheen, the reader, goes sssssslllllllllllllooooooooowwwwwww. On my player I have the option to make things go double speed. It doesn't make him sound like a chimpmunk though, it's cool, it mainly takes out the spaces between words. Anyway, even with that on, this has me bored to tears. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was thrilling compared to it.

[Selene]

I haven't read it, and haven't developed a real first hand opinion of the Dalai Lama. I'm pointing this book out, mainly, because through December 20th you can get the audiobook version of it for free from Audible.com. At that price point, how bad can it be?

Oh geez. Alright, it's still a bit early, but this thing is just so freakin' trite. Shallow. Dull. And Martin Sheen, the reader, goes sssssslllllllllllllooooooooowwwwwww. On my player I have the option to make things go double speed. It doesn't make him sound like a chimpmunk though, it's cool, it mainly takes out the spaces between words. Anyway, even with that on, this has me bored to tears. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance was thrilling compared to it.

Well, Dennis...

you could pour lighter fluid on it and virtually immolate it in solidarity with the folks over in Tibet.

It is almost Hanukka/Chanukah, get a head start on the Festival of Lights.

Adam

Edited December 13, 2011 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

you could pour lighter fluid on it and virtually immolate it in solidarity with the folks over in Tibet.

It is almost Hanukka/Chanukah, get a head start on the Festival of Lights.

It's on the computer, getting rid of it is as easy as pressing delete. Which reminds me, there was an idea circulating back when there was that stupid "Burn a Koran" day, that people could just download the Koran, and then delete it. Y'know, that'll teach 'em!

Anyway, I was pretty much recommending this book before, and who knows? I might put it on again to get to sleep tonight, I expect it will serve for that purpose. But I was thinking it could lead to an interesting conversation if other OLers gave it a try too, but nope; I was speaking in spite of a lack of evidence and knowledge of the topic at hand. Like Phil on a day of the week ending in "y".