The Dalai Lama is the worst enemy of the Tibetan people because of his
blatant prostitution of their freedom, their well being, and their
future in exchange for his acceptance by the powers-that-be of the
West and because of his inexcusable failure to forge solidarity with
the oppressed people around the world.
His desire for 25% of the land from China, including Qinghai, Sichuan,
Gansu, and Yuannan in which Tibetans are only a minority, also fully
contradicts the fundamental teaching of Buddha which rejects desire of
all worldly kinds.
Post by Peter TerpstraThe Tibetan High Priest speaks with a forked tongue: Violence
committed by the ``right person'' is Nonviolence - absolving GWBush
and encouraging ignorant followers to commit violence Re: Dalai
Lama sees long-term hope for Tibet.
You are free to believe what you like mister lo yeeOn, believe does
not necessary give any faith.
It is hardly a question of what I believe. Rather, it is what I see
to be the inconsistency between the Dalai Lama's one spoken sentence
against another. It is the exact behavior that gave rise to the
forked tongue characterization of a hypocrite, which the Dalai Lama
is. I don't have to believe anything extra. His image as a hypocrite
is drawn entirely by himself. The biggest problem is you cannot argue
against my analysis and try to cloud and confuse the issue with big
words like faith just like the Dalai Lama himself, without a trace of
reflection.
Post by Peter TerpstraIf you stay on the Communistic view side you will never find any
understanding larger than digging trenches and throwing handgrenades,
i guess.
You are now mouthing off propaganda that shows utter ignorance on the
part of the person professing it. In other words, you've only drawn
on the cliche' about what communism is, which hardly describes me
because I have practiced nonviolence all my life and consistently
condemned and opposed the Iraq war from 2002, before George Bush
actually attacked the country and its innocent people. In fact, where
were you all this time? I have never seen you denounce the Iraq war
but rather you spend everyday denouncing the ``evil and criminal
CCP''. So, it is clear that you are working for some NGO or
CIA-funded organization to spread lies about the People's Republic of
China.
In fact, I practice sharing at home with my family.
Now see this for yourself about communism and see that there is no
hint of any ``digging trenches and throwing handgrenades'' (and so you
``guessed'' wrong, having given no thought to it):
From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04179a.htm (a catholic entity)
Communism in the strict sense is also distinguished from socialism by
the fact that it usually connotes a greater degree of common life. In
the words of the Rev. W.D.P. Bliss, "socialism puts its emphasis on
common production and distribution; communism, on life in common"
("Handbook of Socialism", p. 12). Communism aims, therefore, at a
greater measure of equality than socialism. It would obtain more
uniformity in the matter of marriage, education, food, clothing,
dwellings, and the general life of the community. Hence the various
attempts that have been made by small groups of persons living a
common life to establish common ownership of industry and common
enjoyment of its products, have generally been described as
experiments in communism. In fact socialism, in its proper sense of
ownership and operation of capital-instruments by the entire
democratic State, has never been tried anywhere. This calls tomind the
further distinction that communism, even as a present-day ideal,
implies the organization of industry and life by small federated
communities, rather than by a centralized State. William Morris thus
distinguishes them, and hopes that socialism will finally develop into
communism ("Modern Socialism", edited by R.C.K. Ensor,
p. 88). Combining all these notes into a formal definition, we might
say that complete communism means the common ownership of both
industry and its products by small federated communities, living a
common life.
Notice that real communism, according to the author of the above
writing, has never been tried in modern times.
In fact, early Christians practiced communism by sharing everything
when they were under extreme persecution. The idea of Kibbutz in
Israel is also the same.
Only the rich who are afraid to share, because they love their money
and possessions more than they love God, have decided to institute in
countries like the US the kind of propaganda against communism like
what you spouted and spent billions of their countries' money to wage
wars to control the world, in the name of defeating communism. The
rich are taking advantage of the naive and the uneducated. And so far
they have been pretty successful.
Communism just means the belief in sharing, among the people who live
in the same community. The word came from the Latin word communis.
Those who believe in sharing join the community and those who don't,
leave it. The communities are in fact called communes. Ideally,
there are no further requirements. No violence and no coercion are
involved. If coercion is involved, at least on a substantial scale,
it won't work.
In the Acts of the Apostles in the Christian New Testament Bible,
Ananias and Sapphira were condemned for putting the self ahead of the
community. (This interpretation is consistent with the message of
Achan described in the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament. Achan was
accused of stealing from the Lord and stoned to death for it. There
are other interpretations suggesting, e.g., deceit. But the sentiment
of the Acts carries a message much grander than the discouragement of
lying, in fact a mere act of keeping quiet of what you have which you
have legitimately earned. That grand message is simply the importance
of sharing among a group of people the last bit of what each might
have at a time when they are facing a life-and-death crisis together
and all for the same unjust reason. Also, the New Testament is about
Jesus's teachings. The most distinguished ones include the sanctity
of life, the need for forgiveness and tolerance for others, the duty
to help the weak and the despised, and the renunciation of personal
wealth. Now if every Christian is to be cursed to death like Ananias
and Saphara, how can that be consistent with Jesus's sacrifice and
redemption for everybody? On the other hand, if everyone is to
withhold a portion of his or her capital assets, it might indeed
jeopardize the functioning of the commune, the survival of which
directly affects the survivals of all. So, it makes sense for us to
interpret the message as a warning for the short-sighted individuals
who want the protection of the community but are unwilling to make
their contribution. The story therefore indeed serves as a necessary
insurance policy for the survival of a whole community, of which an
individual is merely a part - a part which can be missed.)
I personally believe the world would be much better off if we all
share, instead of just practicing charity as some kind of virtue.
But due to the high degree of self-discipline required, in order for
communism to work, there must be a high level of consciousness within
each person who practices the ideal. Education is the first step.
You can see that the Dalai Lama is very afraid of sharing because he
knows his capitalist backers don't like to share. They're more
inclined to make tax-deductible charity and make gifts to colleges so
that buildings will be named after them. They even change the word
love to charity in the New Testament in modern English translations.
And the Dalai Lama and his followers certainly do not like to share
Tibet with the Han Chinese. In their 5-point plan for negotiating
with the Chinese government, they want the influx of Han Chinese
stopped allegedly to avoid more interracial marriages and the further
``dilution'' of the Tibetan culture. What a xenophobic and in fact
racist attitude! It runs against the universal wisdom of the freedom
of choice for the individuals so vigorously championed in the West
today. If the EU countries are paying attention to the numerous
discrepancies between the Dalai Lama's ``compassion'' talks and the
written policies his followers have published, they ought to see the
true face of the Dalai Lama. And any nicety they would display toward
him would be merely empty political gestures shown just to appease the
US which support him and his agenda for reasons other than the welfare
of the Tibetans. (And that's why I think that the Dalai Lama is a
curse to the well-being and future of the Tibetan people.)
And by the way who would be so stupid as to throw grenades and dig
trenches anyway when the typical aggressor drops mega-bombs from high
altitudes and shoots missiles from unmanned drones? Your cardboard
attempt to smear me is so old!
Post by Peter TerpstraOr are you also paid by the Chinese government just like mister Lee
and can not afford to show a human face?
_I_ am ``paid by the Chinese government''? _I_ ``cannot afford to
show a human face''?
Don't be ludicrous. Again, where is your human face when millions of
Iraqis are killed or made orphaned in the past so many years? I've
not been paid a penny to post on the newsgroups, by the CIA or by the
CCP. On the other hand, I have spoken here in the various newsgroups
with great consistency about the evil of war and oppression.
lo yeeOn
========
For context, I'm attaching my original post for reference.
"Violence and non-violence depend on the person's motivation. If a
person uses appropriate measures to help another person, this is
non-violence.", said the Dalai Lama.
[And] President Obama's top Asia adviser Jeff Bader said:
China should see the Dalai Lama as ``part of the solution'' on Tibet
instead of trying to isolate him . . .
Post by Peter TerpstraBut [according to the article cited below] Beijing brands the Dalai
Lama a separatist and has stepped up pressure on world leaders,
including Obama, not to meet with him. The Buddhist leader fled to
India 50 years ago as China crushed an abortive uprising in Tibet.
The Dalai Lama, an advocate of non-violence, says he is only seeking
greater rights for Tibetans under Chinese rule.
However, he told CNN that his vision of a Tibetan homeland took in
parts of five Chinese provinces lying beyond what Beijing styles as
the Tibet Autonomous Region.
``All in part they are Tibetan there,'' he said. ``My definition of
Tibet are those people who speak Tibetan, who practice Tibetan
culture.''
The guy is surely greedy, isn't he?
Since when have the followers of Buddha get the idea that to be a
buddhist you need to amass vast amount of land in order to gain
enlightenment and personal salvation?
And all those poor Chinese who happen to have lived and worked all
their lives in Qinghai, Gansu, Xichuan, etc, would at best have to
live under a tibetan buddhist theocracy or be evicted entirely!
But maybe it is Karma which has driven the Dalai Lama and ``his
people'' into exile, if there is such a thing as karma, a notion the
Tibetan Buddhists just happen to espouse. And I'm talking about the
fact that the current Dalai Lama's predecessor, the number thirteen,
actually expelled all the Chinese residents from Tibet when he was
able to hold court:
Thubten Gyatso issued a Declaration of Independence from China in the
summer of 1912, and standardized the Tibetan flag in its present
form.[11] He deported all Chinese residents in the country including
the Ambans, and instituted many measures to modernise Tibet.[12]
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalai_Lama]
Furthermore, where does the guy think he or his largely illiterate
followers find the means to manage such a vast piece of land?
American advisors? French advisors? Israeli advisors? Experts whose
governments have been actively supporting the Dalai Lama's sophist's
struggle with the Chinese government?
Now it should, however, be clear by now what the Dalai Lama means when
he calls himself an advocate of non-violence, a subject I want to
discuss in this post.
In the article at
http://www.dalailama.com/news.34.htm
the Dalai Lama was quoted (in 20 February 2006 by Andrew Friedman,
Ynetnews of Jerusalem) as saying
``Violence and non-violence depend on the person's motivation. If a
person uses appropriate measures to help another person, this is
non-violence.''
How sharp the serpent's forked tongue is when he pontificates thus:
``If a person uses appropriate measures to help another person, this
is non-violence.''
``Violence and non-violence depend on the person's motivation.''
We all know there is no mistake in what the Dalai Lama was trying to
say.
From a report I have repeatedly quoted:
#Gateway Pundit - Atom Gateway Pundit - RSS Gateway Pundit - Atom
IFRAME:
http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=8852689&blogName=Gateway+P
undit&publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&navbarType=BLUE&layoutType=CLAS
SIC&homepageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.blogspot.com%2F&searchRoot=h
ttp%3A%2F%2Fgatewaypundit.blogspot.com%2Fsearch
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Dalai Lama Stuns Audience... Admits: "I Love George Bush"
Beeqube and ROP reported:
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday
candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the
principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the
Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia
Memorial Lecture here.
He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not
carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and
educated.
"They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong
ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama
said.
He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.
The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience
stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to
add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their
first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close
ties.
The loopy peaceniks in the audience must have loved that.
posted by Gateway Pundit at 1/18/2009 05:48:00 PM |
In other words, the Dalai Lama while pretending that he is an adherent
of Buddhism which advocates nonviolence preaches that violence is not
violence, but rather nonviolence if the person who committed violence
was motivated by a ``good cause''.
So what constitutes a ``good cause''? He didn't say. But he said he
and George Bush the mass murderer of this century became instant
buddies and he loved him. (The Dalai Lama also declared that he would
not pass judgment on the aggression against Iraq. Of course not!
understandably, the NGOs under Bush gave the priest a lot of money to
speak on the neoconservatives' behalf and speak glowingly about their
aggressions.)
By his definition, a Tibetan who threw firebombs into a shop in Lhasa,
murdered the shop operator and his wife, and destroyed the property,
might not have committed violence because his motivation was to take
Tibet out of China's control. The Dalai Lama has described life in
Tibet under China as hell for the ``Tibetans''.
But of course, he was just saying what the Bin Laden has been saying
about kicking the US military out of Saudi Arabia and other parts of
the Middle East, though he wanted to pretend that he himself was no
Bin Laden because he advocated nonviolence while every Western host he
pays a visit to has branded Bin Laden a most-wanted terrorist.
While the jihadists in the Middle East have been honest about their
goal and justify their jihad as self-defense, an act allowed by Islam,
the Dalai Lama resorts to ugly sophistry to justify his disgusting
relationship with George Bush and to continue to incite his followers
in Tibet to commit violence.
So, we now can be absolutely sure that the Dalai Lama's ``Third Way''
is in actuality his idea of wanting both ways: wanting violence
against others but refuse to accept the judgment that he is a real
advocate of violence.
And so, no wonder why the Chinese government (of which I am not a fan)
doesn't want to negotiate with him.
Who would want to negotiate with someone with a forked tongue whose
words do not mean anything?
And that's why I've been saying that the Dalai Lama ill-serves the
Tibetan people as their spokesman and self-appointed leader. The
longer he is fooling-around by consorting with mass-murderers in the
West, the longer the Tibetan people have to suffer. For example, the
Autonomous Region of Inner Mongolia has many colleges and universities
since the Communists took over China and invested in the region, Tibet
continues to be largely illiterate because the Dalai Lama encourages
the people to be isolationists, ignoring the necessity for education
for the sake of survival.
The Dalai Lama no doubt earns 6 figure honoraria spending a week here
and a week there in the US (the hosts couldn't possibly be paying him
anything less than they would pay Al Gore for example, could they?)
So the Dalai Lama is willing to prostitute the interests of ``his
people'' in exchange for the dollars. How sad!
lo yeeOn
========
Speaking in English, he [the Dalai Lama] said the vast majority of
Tibetans were ``very unhappy'' as they saw their ``cultural heritage
passing through something like a death sentence.'' ``And then on the
other hand, the Tibetan spirit inside Tibet is wonderful.''
The Dalai Lama loves to have things both ways, doesn't he? That's his
``Third Way''.
Post by Peter TerpstraDalai Lama sees long-term hope for Tibet
WASHINGTON, US, 10 May 2009 (AFP)
heritage
Post by Peter Terpstrabut stressed the future looked brighter for his people as China itself
modernises.
In a CNN interview broadcast Sunday, the 73-year-old spiritual leader of
Chinese hardliners were guilty of
communist rulers look to flood his homeland with ethnic-Chinese settlers and
dilute its Buddhist culture.
public support for Tibet in Europe and North America.
The Dalai Lama has frequently said he wants to retire but has kept up a
frenetic travel schedule. The Nobel Peace laureate is currently touring the
United States, but he does not plan to visit Washington.
He is expected to return to the United States in October, when he hopes to
meet with President Barack Obama.
said on 1 May.
But Beijing brands the Dalai Lama a separatist and has stepped up
pressure on world leaders, including Obama, not to meet with him. The
Buddhist leader fled to India 50 years ago as China crushed an
abortive uprising in Tibet.
The Dalai Lama, an advocate of non-violence, says he is only seeking
greater rights for Tibetans under Chinese rule.
However, he told CNN that his vision of a Tibetan homeland took in
parts of five Chinese provinces lying beyond what Beijing styles as
the Tibet Autonomous Region.
Tibet are those people who speak Tibetan, who practice Tibetan
http://tinyurl.com/pm8sgt
--
Human kind is like a couple chickens, fighting about a few grains, unknowing
they will be slaughtered within a couple hour.
--Thich Nhat Hanh