“The planet does not need more ‘successful people’. The planet desperately needs more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers of all kinds.” ~H.H.The Dalai Lama

Sorry, to seem like the atheist/anti-religious asshole but I call bullshit, The Dalai Lama is very successful, so what he states is a clear contradiction.

Then in a weird way, I do kind of agree we don’t need him. He had control the Tibetan Government in exile, which receives many donations which pays for his traveling around the world and his security detail. The very successful Dalai Lama has 111 books you can count them: http://www.dalailama.com/biography/books/20

With 111 books to his name, I would say he is very successful, so how can he judge. When you say healers you don’t mean doctor’s right, you mean ”spiritual” healers like faith magic, which is ridiculous and disproven superstitions and how absurd to say we need more storytellers as a way to help the world…

How about more education, more science and more critical thinking, rather than ridiculous beliefs in faith magic?

But who cares right if the Dalai Lama expresses empty platitudes, he is just an ordinary MAN (Lhamo Dondrub) not a 14 time reincarnated unique anything. Lhamo Dondrub the Dalai Lama’s birth name reminds us he is just a man nothing special and it is absurd to think otherwise, just like all others who are claimed to be holy (I am thinking of you pope).

Lhamo Dondrub, when you say lovers, you don’t mean homosexuals right, not that you don’t go beyond the standard view of Buddhism; which has viewed homosexuality as falling under its rules of “sexual misconduct”. Lhamo Dondrub, is in one way ok with love, just not for sexual intercourse when it serves no other purpose other than to satisfy an urge. Therefore, any sex that is not trying to reproduce (ie. gay sex), though, let’s not forget he does not claim to hate of homosexuals, that is until they want to have sex, then it would seem he is against that, so again he’s absurd.

Lhamo Dondrub’s stance on homosexuality bothered me, so I decided to look into it more for myself. In his 1996 book Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses, he said that homosexuality was wrong. He later clarified that homosexuality was wrong because it involved the use of the mouth, rectum and/or hands as opposed to only using genitalia. He added that the use of the mouth, rectum, and hands are also proscribed in heterosexual encounters. So, I think we can kind of discount the “lovers of all kinds” statement right?

The primary issue in Buddhism and with Lhamo Dondrub’s stance on homosexuality it would seem is whether an sexual act between lovers is “sexual misconduct.” The problem is that “sexual misconduct” was not defined by Buddha. An article published on the World Tibet Network News website of a transcript between an interviewer and the Dalai Lama, he explains that sexual activity, and therefore sexual misconduct, has to be separated into different categories. The first category is for those who are in religious communities–nuns and monks. The second category is for those who are not celibate–everyday Buddhists. In the first instance, any form of sexual activity, including masturbation would be wrong, because there would be ejaculate (he obviously had men in mind). However, the same could not be said of masturbation for someone not in a religious community. But still homophobia is homophobia even if you think you can say sometimes it is not.

In actuality, there is a third category: non-Buddhists. Although he viewed homosexuality as “sexual misconduct” for Buddhists, Lhamo Dondrub’s stance on homosexuality was that it was “non-harmful” for non-Buddhists.

Asking someone to defend who or how they are or choose to be or love, is like saying “I have the right to challenge your rights to wellbeing just because I am superior to you, ie. “have more rights or better rights then you” , so again he’s absurd.

I try to always stay open to evaluate ideas. I feel we need to work more on thinking together instead of only trying to prove we are right. Nevertheless, sometimes we must expose lies and thinking that is wrong. It is in the place of open reason, that we can reach shared truth not just one-sided opinions.

I value the right to choose beliefs and the right to not have to defend that right. However, if asked I will explain what and why I think. My goal is less a desire to change your mind as to be an assisting catalyst in opening your mind to new possibilities.

Nevertheless, Lhamo Dondrub the Dalai Lama said “homosexuality was wrong” but supports “lovers of all kinds” thus to me he is not being equal or contradicting himself thus it is he that is wrong. You cannot say, I half love justice and half love injustice and still be for justice, if that seems reasonable to others I think that too is absurd.

We confine ourselves when we try to fit ourselves to religious thinking this is not true when we start analyzing all the thinking in religious dogma. We can always find and excuse if we want to keep belief not matter what flawed dogma we realize.

However, if we seek truth than dogma will fall short, the question is not is there a way to see flawed dogma as ok; the question is do we want to live free thinking or caged thinking, only sticking too or aiming to prove outdated religious thinking others created long ago. I see holding on to this bigotry and myths as absurd in an age scientific understanding. We must free are selves from charlatans and not be trapped in a galaxy full of fear driven religious slaves who try to make nature in to magic to give meaning to things they do not understand. Instead, we must move past controlling dogma and live in the real wisdom built on the scientific truth of today.

I choose truth, not mystic hopes we not know are just not real.

Coverage accorded to the Dalai Lama in the Western media has been excessively favorable and uncritical, just as the media coverage in China of the Dalai Lama is appallingly biased only towards the negative.

It is clear, ethnic Tibetans have been killed by the Chinese military. However, it is also clear that ethnic Chinese have been murdered by ethnic Tibetans in racially based attacks. This has not been made as clear in the Western media. And yet, the Western media were rightly appalled in 1998 when ethnic Chinese were raped and murdered in Jakarta for similar reasons- perceived excessive economic control at the expense of non-Chinese locals.

In Lhasa, the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region, four Chinese girls and one Tibetan girl were burned alive when a clothing store in which they worked was set alight by Tibetan protesters. But the rampage against the Chinese was not as simple as an attack on Han Chinese. Ethnic Chinese Muslim traders were also rounded on. Muslim traders have a centuries-old presence in Lhasa, a legacy of the ancient Silk Road. But in the unrest two weeks ago, the main mosque in Lhasa’s old quarter was also burned down.

Beyond China, there are many vested interests wanting a stake in the future of Tibetan rule.

No mere spiritual leader but head of Tibet’s government why not hold him accountable as a political figure?

Tibet’s government was not that “clean” was a state apparatus run by aristocratic, nepotistic monks that collected taxes, jailed and tortured dissenters and engaged in all the usual political intrigues. (The Dalai Lama’s own father was almost certainly murdered in 1946, the consequence of a coup plot.)

The government set up in exile in India and, at least until the 1970s, received $US1.7 million a year from the CIA.

The money was to pay for guerilla operations against the Chinese, notwithstanding the Dalai Lama’s public stance in support of non-violence, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989.

The Dalai Lama himself was on the CIA’s payroll from the late 1950s until 1974, reportedly receiving $US15,000 a month ($US180,000 a year).

The funds were paid to him personally, but he used all or most of them for Tibetan government-in-exile activities, principally to fund offices in New York and Geneva, and to lobby internationally.

Details of the government-in-exile’s funding today are far from clear. Structurally, it comprises seven departments and several other special offices. There have also been charitable trusts, a publishing company, hotels in India and Nepal, and a handicrafts distribution company in the US and in Australia, all grouped under the government-in-exile’s Department of Finance. The government was involved in running 24 businesses in all, but decided in 2003 that it would withdraw from these because such commercial involvement was not appropriate. Dalai Lama at one time received $500,000 for guerrilla fighters and $400,000 for a training center in America all from the CIA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNQpCACYim8&feature=youtu.be

The unluckiest Dalai Lama?

The Dalai Lama seeks sympathy by proclaiming that he is “the unluckiest Dalai Lama” because he is not able to live in Tibet. Based on 300 years of the 14 Dalai Lamas, his bad luck is the good luck of the Tibetan people. Their rule was a theological dictatorship complete with a serf-based culture that kept 95% or the population illiterate and in involuntary servitude. Slave sales were the order of the day as was torture and execution for dissenters. Sitting at the head of this abomination was the Dalai Lama, who resided in a sumptuous palace offering the theological rationalization of karma. Karma says we are where we are because of how we lived in a prior life. For the Dalai Lama Karma is easy to believe in when you’re the one who was in the palace ruling everyone else in a theological dictatorship. http://www.browardbeat.com/the-dalai-lama-is-a-big-phony/

Dalai Lama the Selfish Jerk?

None of the Dalai Lama’s raised hundreds of millions of dollars benefit Tibetan citizens in the slightest. He gives most of it to unrelated charities, and that’s a fine thing; but his only prerogative in Tibet is to get himself back into Power. The rest of the money he raises go to his pet project: metaphysical spirituality. In many ways, he’s no different from Deepak Chopra; except that instead of misstating quantum physics, he allows his donors to misperceive his mission. The Dalai Lama is a highly successful self-help and metaphysical author. https://skeptoid.com/blog/2012/05/14/dalai-lama-savior-or-selfish-jerk/

Dalai Lama is a pretty nasty piece of work: http://www.examiner.com/article/is-the-dalai-lama-a-monumental-fraud

The Dalai Lama Deserves Criticism, Not Adulation: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/james-snell/dalai-lama-criticism_b_4421553.html

Dalai Lama Lying: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ppkwtvc_ms&feature=youtu.be

Buddhists Who Hate the Dalai Lama: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/13/buddhists_hate_dalai_lama_china/

Dalai Lama is a Fraud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlWrpR1tBXA&feature=youtu.be

Dalai Lama: slave owner of Tibet (to Dalai and his followers, “Free Tibet” means free for them to own slaves again): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWTD2MjCg0g

Penn And Teller – Dalai Lama the slave owner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7t2Ztb92mE

A theocratic serfdom, which Tibet effectively was, is very much a society of slavery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

Dalai Lama owned 6,000 serfs: http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t13141.htm

Lords and Lamas Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth (by Michael Parenti)

The Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.” A reading of Tibet’s history suggests a somewhat different picture. “Religious conflict was commonplace in old Tibet,” writes one western Buddhist practitioner. “History belies the Shangri-La image of Tibetan lamas and their followers living together in mutual tolerance and nonviolent goodwill. Indeed, the situation was quite different. Old Tibet was much more like Europe during the religious wars of the Counterreformation.” In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. His two previous lama “incarnations” were then retroactively recognized as his predecessors, thereby transforming the 1st Dalai Lama into the 3rd Dalai Lama. This 1st (or 3rd) Dalai Lama seized monasteries that did not belong to his sect, and is believed to have destroyed Buddhist writings that conflicted with his claim to divinity. The Dalai Lama who succeeded him pursued a sybaritic life, enjoying many mistresses, partying with friends, and acting in other ways deemed unfitting for an incarnate deity. For these transgressions he was murdered by his priests. Within 170 years, despite their recognized divine status, five Dalai Lamas were killed by their high priests or other courtiers. For hundreds of years competing Tibetan Buddhist sects engaged in bitterly violent clashes and summary executions. In 1660, the 5th Dalai Lama was faced with a rebellion in Tsang province, the stronghold of the rival Kagyu sect with its high lama known as the Karmapa. The 5th Dalai Lama called for harsh retribution against the rebels, directing the Mongol army to obliterate the male and female lines, and the offspring too “like eggs smashed against rocks…. In short, annihilate any traces of them, even their names.” In 1792, many Kagyu monasteries were confiscated and their monks were forcibly converted to the Gelug sect (the Dalai Lama’s denomination). The Gelug school, known also as the “Yellow Hats,” showed little tolerance or willingness to mix their teachings with other Buddhist sects. In the words of one of their traditional prayers: “Praise to you, violent god of the Yellow Hat teachings/who reduces to particles of dust/ great beings, high officials and ordinary people/ who pollute and corrupt the Gelug doctrine.” 8 An eighteenth-century memoir of a Tibetan general depicts sectarian strife among Buddhists that is as brutal and bloody as any religious conflict might be. This grim history remains largely unvisited by present-day followers of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. Religions have had a close relationship not only with violence but with economic exploitation. Indeed, it is often the economic exploitation that necessitates the violence. Such was the case with the Tibetan theocracy. Until 1959, when the Dalai Lama last presided over Tibet, most of the arable land was still organized into manorial estates worked by serfs. These estates were owned by two social groups: the rich secular landlords and the rich theocratic lamas. Even a writer sympathetic to the old order allows that “a great deal of real estate belonged to the monasteries, and most of them amassed great riches.” Much of the wealth was accumulated “through active participation in trade, commerce, and money lending.” Drepung monastery was one of the biggest landowners in the world, with its 185 manors, 25,000 serfs, 300 great pastures, and 16,000 herdsmen. The wealth of the monasteries rested in the hands of small numbers of high-ranking lamas. Most ordinary monks lived modestly and had no direct access to great wealth. The Dalai Lama himself “lived richly in the 1000-room, 14-story Potala Palace.” Secular leaders also did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, a member of the Dalai Lama’s lay Cabinet, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. Old Tibet has been misrepresented by some Western admirers as “a nation that required no police force because its people voluntarily observed the laws of karma.” In fact. it had a professional army, albeit a small one, that served mainly as a gendarmerie for the landlords to keep order, protect their property, and hunt down runaway serfs. Young Tibetan boys were regularly taken from their peasant families and brought into the monasteries to be trained as monks. Once there, they were bonded for life. Tashì-Tsering, a monk, reports that it was common for peasant children to be sexually mistreated in the monasteries. He himself was a victim of repeated rape, beginning at age nine. The monastic estates also conscripted children for lifelong servitude as domestics, dance performers, and soldiers. In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery. The majority of the rural population were serfs. Treated little better than slaves, the serfs went without schooling or medical care, They were under a lifetime bond to work the lord’s land–or the monastery’s land–without pay, to repair the lord’s houses, transport his crops, and collect his firewood. They were also expected to provide carrying animals and transportation on demand. Their masters told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. And they might easily be separated from their families should their owners lease them out to work in a distant location. As in a free labor system and unlike slavery, the overlords had no responsibility for the serf’s maintenance and no direct interest in his or her survival as an expensive piece of property. The serfs had to support themselves. Yet as in a slave system, they were bound to their masters, guaranteeing a fixed and permanent workforce that could neither organize nor strike nor freely depart as might laborers in a market context. The overlords had the best of both worlds. One 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf, reports: “Pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished”; they “were just slaves without rights.” Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture those who tried to flee. One 24-year old runaway welcomed the Chinese intervention as a “liberation.” He testified that under serfdom he was subjected to incessant toil, hunger, and cold. After his third failed escape, he was merciless beaten by the landlord’s men until blood poured from his nose and mouth. They then poured alcohol and caustic soda on his wounds to increase the pain, he claimed. The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax. When people could not pay, the monasteries lent them money at 20 to 50 percent interest. Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being cast into slavery. The theocracy’s religious teachings buttressed its class order. The poor and afflicted were taught that they had brought their troubles upon themselves because of their wicked ways in previous lives. Hence they had to accept the misery of their present existence as a karmic atonement and in anticipation that their lot would improve in their next lifetime. The rich and powerful treated their good fortune as a reward for, and tangible evidence of, virtue in past and present lives. The Tibetan serfs were something more than superstitious victims, blind to their own oppression. As we have seen, some ran away; others openly resisted, sometimes suffering dire consequences. In feudal Tibet, torture and mutilation–including eye gouging, the pulling out of tongues, hamstringing, and amputation–were favored punishments inflicted upon thieves, and runaway or resistant serfs. Journeying through Tibet in the 1960s, Stuart and Roma Gelder interviewed a former serf, Tsereh Wang Tuei, who had stolen two sheep belonging to a monastery. For this he had both his eyes gouged out and his hand mutilated beyond use. He explains that he no longer is a Buddhist: “When a holy lama told them to blind me I thought there was no good in religion.” Since it was against Buddhist teachings to take human life, some offenders were severely lashed and then “left to God” in the freezing night to die. “The parallels between Tibet and medieval Europe are striking,” concludes Tom Grunfeld in his book on Tibet. In 1959, Anna Louise Strong visited an exhibition of torture equipment that had been used by the Tibetan overlords. There were handcuffs of all sizes, including small ones for children, and instruments for cutting off noses and ears, gouging out eyes, breaking off hands, and hamstringing legs. There were hot brands, whips, and special implements for disemboweling. The exhibition presented photographs and testimonies of victims who had been blinded or crippled or suffered amputations for thievery. There was the shepherd whose master owed him a reimbursement in yuan and wheat but refused to pay. So he took one of the master’s cows; for this he had his hands severed. Another herdsman, who opposed having his wife taken from him by his lord, had his hands broken off. There were pictures of Communist activists with noses and upper lips cut off, and a woman who was raped and then had her nose sliced away. Earlier visitors to Tibet commented on the theocratic despotism. In 1895, an Englishman, Dr. A. L. Waddell, wrote that the populace was under the “intolerable tyranny of monks” and the devil superstitions they had fashioned to terrorize the people. In 1904 Perceval Landon described the Dalai Lama’s rule as “an engine of oppression.” At about that time, another English traveler, Captain W.F.T. O’Connor, observed that “the great landowners and the priests… exercise each in their own dominion a despotic power from which there is no appeal,” while the people are “oppressed by the most monstrous growth of monasticism and priest-craft.” Tibetan rulers “invented degrading legends and stimulated a spirit of superstition” among the common people. In 1937, another visitor, Spencer Chapman, wrote, “The Lamaist monk does not spend his time in ministering to the people or educating them. . . . The beggar beside the road is nothing to the monk. Knowledge is the jealously guarded prerogative of the monasteries and is used to increase their influence and wealth.” As much as we might wish otherwise, feudal theocratic Tibet was a far cry from the romanticized Shangri La so enthusiastically nurtured by Buddhism’s western proselytes. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html