this post was submitted on
1,295 points (55% like it)
6,677 up votes 5,382 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,121,565 readers

3,272 users here now

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Ljohnson72 72 points73 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Though I enjoy this passage, the Dalai Lama did NOT say this.

[–]TBizzcuit 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who did?

[–]blueone11 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As i've said on my other reply, i'm pretty sure it was Confucius who said this, not Dalai Lama

[–][deleted] ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]qrios 40 points41 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Excuse me. I believe you meant to write "you're* all pretentious douche bags."

[–]faqbastard 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He was talking about all your gold plated, snobby douche nozzles. He only uses plastic, non-pretentious douche nozzles.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can't tell if you're a troll or not. Pretentious: affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. "The twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo..." Wow, so around 900 years ago some chick in Tibet didn't like the Dalai Lama then? Wow, that is SO relevant to the current Dalai Lama!!! You are so smart~! He is a fucking nut case why? Buddhism is more of a philosophy, and though Tibetan buddhism is more of a religion it is generally considered a CULTURE. And you dare bring up IDIOCRACY into this? You are bashing a cultural icon based on the opinion of a lone tulku 800 years ago. Oh my fucking god. You are such a fucking idiot. Please die.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also, your name comes from Indian Religions. I hate you.

[–]qrios 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To be fair, this particular Dalai Lama is a pretty cool dude.

[–]beauty_contest 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://youtu.be/fYEOSCIOnrs

hmm, he seems like a nice good guy.[/sarcasm]

[–]qrios 3 points4 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Like I said. Pretty cool dude. If you were head of a country, and someone gave you money to defend your country from another country, you wouldn't take that money?

Beside that, the video is unfair. It's taking historical Tibetan ruling structure and projecting it onto the practices of a Lama who barely had any time to rule of reform. Supposedly, the Lama is pro democracy. And, sure, it's possible that he could be lying to get back into power, but 52 years is an awfully long time to try to get back to power using the same exact method.

[–]Ensvey 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed. The argument that previous rulers of a society were less than just means that future rulers of a society will be similarly unjust doesn't hold much water. If the only damning bit of evidence they could dig up is a couple checks from the CIA, then the Dalai Lama's track record is probably the cleanest of any leader on Earth.

[–]YourLogicAgainstYou 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle."

That's cute coming from China.

[–]calicopaisley 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It really seriously sucks that China displaced the Tibetans, but that doesn't change the fact that Tibetan peons truly did live like this. And yes, I am a disillusioned American.

[–]bedintruder 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And yes, I am a disillusioned American.

Then it might be hard for you to admit this is somewhat the case in America today. Obviously not not generally, but many cattle and horses are treated far better and have much easier lives then some lower class citizens. (Again, though not generally)

We have 2 horses and their lives consist of waking up, getting fed, getting turned out to a 10 acre field for them to run and graze all day, then they get brought in, get fed again, sleep and repeat the next day. If one of them produces offspring, we'll be feeding and caring for that one too. If one of them gets sick, we pay for medical care.

Its a pretty relaxed and easy life compared to someone working 3 dead end, minimum wage jobs to support a family of 6 living in a 700 sq foot apartment.

[–]redwing66 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Quoted in Xinhua? So the mouthpiece of the government of China is slandering the Dalai Lama--no surprise there. The communist government of China has long pursued a campaign of repression and exploitation against the people of Tibet, and have particularly targeted the Dalai Lama and his followers with slander, persecution, murder, and political intrigue.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your shocked that Atheists can respect intelligence even when it comes from a Religous figure? Thats pretty weak.

[–]disharmonia 168 points169 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama still makes me sad with his stance on gays and lesbians, though. I think he's a rad dude over all, and I at least appreciate that his stance is tolerant instead of violent, but he still thinks we're using our sexual organs 'improperly.'

I mean, I still give credit that he accepts that his views are not the world's views, and he does admit that there is a difference between religious beliefs and how the secular world should treat something. Which, obviously I want to give props for that.

Still. Sad lesbian is sad.

[–]landstander1432 123 points124 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama has no real problem with teh gays in particular, just with recreational sex in general; straight or gay. He has even gone so far as to say that while he disagrees with it (the recreational sex, not the gayness), he does not feel that he nor Buddhism has any right to mandate what people do.

[–]Deetoria 84 points85 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is how all religious people should do and as an atheist, I respect the Dalai Lama because if this kind of stance. I have listened to him speak live. He is a smart, wise and entertaining man and I think much of what he speaks of are things that transcend religion, ethnicity, etc...

He is not perfect, by any means, but if we had more of him and less of judgmental fundies in the world. It would be a better place.

[–]brainburger 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I might be a touch cynical, but the Dalai Lama's status is given by birth privilege. He would have been an absolute religious oligarch were if not for the intervention of China. As Westerners we can bemoan the fate of the Tibetan monasteries, but we didn't have to live under their rule. I doubt that the typical Tibetan only gained from them. While the Dalai Lama is exiled from Tibet he enjoys an interesting lifestyle. I wonder how it is funded?

[–]jf_ftw 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Is that last question retorical? Its from donations. Having been to Dharamsala, India myself (his place of residence in exile) his temple (monastery) isn't exactly ornate or extravigant. Its run down compared to every church I've been to in America, and doesn't even hold a candle to the vatican. This man is definately the least appaling religous leader I've ever seen

[–]BluMoon 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you think your god will send people to hell for doing what they are doong, then no, you shouldnt keep it to yourself. but then you should also be open to the idea that you're wrong.

[–]Deetoria 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Agreed. I think mentioning it is ok. Forcing it on others and being mean about it is not ok.

[–]Play4Blood 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If your god says that two consenting adults having sex is grounds for eternal damnation, you need a new god. Or, even better, the ability to think for yourself.

And, yes. You should keep it to yourself.

The Dalai Lama, otoh, comes at the matter from a place of logic. I pretty much agree with him there.

[–]carolined1 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is especially when one has such arbitrary ideas that one should keep it to themselves. The notion of heaven and hell although real to some, does not exist for others. It is unwise and unkind to make assumptions about what others believe. We all create our own 'heaven or hell' by our actions and their consequences, this is a personal experience by which we learn,directly or not.

[–]PapaLeo 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

As a devout, progressive Catholic, I applaud your comment.

Here: have all my upvotes for today.

[–]redditproblems 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This comment made my day.

[–]spermracewinner 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that's reasonable. That's what Buddhism is about, isn't it? Moderation?

[–]enterence 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

they also consider sexual energy an important energy source which is not to be wasted.

[–]ForgettableUsername 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, that's very generous of him. Standing back and letting people decide whether they want to have sex or not. Truly a man for all seasons.

[–]enterence 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

its not so much the recreational sex but rather the importance of recreational sex which eastern phillosophy considers useless. more importance is to be given to mediation and seeking peace within than getting off, you know what I mean.

[–]kurtgustavwilckens 79 points80 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it's foolish to deny that the purpose of a cock is to go into a vagina, and that the purpose of a vagina is to take cock and spit babies.

That being said, I think that the Dalai's ideology and belief go for ascetism and minimalism IN GENERAL, in all of life's situations, and in that sense, masturbation and recreational (non-reproductive) sex do not fit in a generally ascetic lifestyle.

In the same sense, I'm pretty sure the Dalai is strongly against ALL of the shit that we own and don't need, and that he would oppose as strongly to our general recreational, light minded, big spender lifestyle as he would our recreational, light minded, big spender approach to sexuality.

All in all, I think if the Dalai took a look at each of our lives, he would profoundly dissaprove of at least one aspect of it, and it does not need to relate to sexuality specifically.

I think that the key element is that he just tells you that he thinks its wrong, and tries to speak his mind about it with no constrains and honesty, and he has no interest of imposing his mindset on you if you're not interested.

I would personally be more worried if he would take a benevolent stance to homosexuality and recreational sexuality in general just to be politically correct. I can respect a man that walks the hard line of having a very strong belief and not imposing it to people.

[–]Atario 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

big spender approach to sexuality

In fact, forget the blackjack!

[–][deleted] ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]carolined1 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Actually I have been to Dharamsala and found that where he lives and works is quite modest. Not sure what his personal net worth is but then again not sure that you really know either. It is safe to say however that the Buddhists have not amassed vast wealth and real estate as some other religions have. In fact they are completely displaced from their homeland and living in India. They also have not gone all over the world trying to convince or force people to join them, no inquisitions, witch hunts or molesting of children. Buddhism is a holistic way of living that in fact uses none of the tactics you mention. It is embraced by people because it is wise.

[–]rockfountain29 23 points24 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Tibetan Buddhism is one branch of many schools. I'm not sure how you think the Dalai Lama is deserving of being chastised for 'controlling populations of people' as a refugee from his homeland that is currently occupied by China and undergoing cultural genocide. His entire life has been devoted to reversing this. Your post doesn't really have anything resembling a fact or a statement at all.

[–]oarabbus 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You appear to be horribly misinformed about the life of the pope, dalai lama, or likely both.

[–]Hillmanian 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understand your frustrations (in that leaders/figureheads seem to live by different rules than people who are not leaders/figureheads), but they also confuse me. What is "wise" about helping the poor or living in a cave? You state agreeing with much of Buddhist philosophy but I don't understand the philosophical message being portrayed. Perhaps the quotes indicate that you don't necessarily believe they are wise or even monks, but I can't be certain. It does seem you are saying that the Dalai Lama is false.

[–]TyPower 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was at a "talk" he gave in UCLA once.

The guy's handlers were monks but were total assholes. No enlightenment on display anywhere. They treated everyone like dirt and potential terrorists.

It cost twenty bucks to see the Dalai Lama (this was in '95) and the guy showed up for about 15 minutes, read some stuff off a piece of paper and bailed with an auditorium full of cash 'for Tibet'.

The Dalai Lama is just like any religious figure... they always need more money.

If you need other people to tell you what god or the universe is, then you've made yourself a slave.

[–]frontpagesucks 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sad lesbian is misunderstanding... His position is basically that gay sex is exactly as problematic at hetero oral or masturbation, any sort of fingering, etc. Basically sex for simple non-biologically-necessary fun. This is not a moralistic position like in christianity, it's not "evil," it's just not as conducive to mental training as chastity.

[–]PopeFool 14 points15 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

To grossly oversimplify the Buddhist perspective on this; sex for pleasure leads to attachment, and attachment leads to suffering. Since Buddhism is really all about the elimination of suffering, and sex for purposes other than procreation leads to suffering, he's against it. It's not that he's against LBGT individuals per se, but rather he advocates asceticism in general.

[–][deleted] 23 points24 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I dunno, from a mechanical point of view, it technically is "improper". Not that there's anything wrong with that...

e: lol jesus i make a lame joke before i go to bed and wake up to a big dumb debate

[–]moarroidsplz 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Improper compared to what? Everything that exists is natural by the nature of the word.

[–]chonglibloodsport 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From a purely survival point of view, human hands are for hunting, gathering, self-defense and tool-making (all of which are in service of survival). Is it then technically "improper" to play the piano?

[–]istara 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If playing the piano damaged or affected our fingers in such a way that they were no longer useful for tearing the flesh off bones to feed ourselves, then maybe.

But of course it doesn't really do that (in the vast vast majority of cases).

I think it's interesting to consider how "useful" cultural phenomena - such as art, music, poetry - are, and how much they are just a byproduct of evolution that tickles our whimsical brains. Many fables and storytellings are of course about communicating specific factual information (eg Aboriginal rock art - it depicts where waterholes and things are) but when they become elevated to "just a pleasant feeling", like classical music, that's when it gets fascinating.

[–]derpologist 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Poor analogy. The only reason genitals exist (biologically) is for reproduction (perpetuation of the gene). Hands exist because they allow us to manipulate the world, enhancing survival to reproduction (perpetuation of the gene).

Piano playing could possibly enhance the chances of survival. Culture definitely does.

[–]nesatt 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No, genitals not only exist for reproduction. They got repurposed as a mean of conflict resolution by bonobos, for example.

[–]youj3an 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Your analogy is a bit different from the point cumcollector is trying to make.

[–]rabbitspade 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Then it's improper to put glasses in front of our eyes, or use breathing aparatus to dive far under the ocean, or to use planes to fly far up into the sky. We do a whole lot of stuff that our bodies weren't apparently evolved towards "properly" doing.

[–]ShootThisMessenger 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

you're being downvoted for no reason, you're right. it's stupid to impose silly restrictions because of his warped homophobic views. animals fuck eachother - there are social aspects to sex for humans that are completely unrelated to reproduction. our organs have evolved to give us pleasure, as such we suck them, manipulate them with our hands, stick them in holes, stick things up them... i could go on.

[–]ForgettableUsername 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

What is proper? From a strictly mechanical point of view, making tools and temporary shelters is probably an 'improper' use of our forepaws... but, as it turns out, nature has never given a toss what is or isn't proper.

[–]bako 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think it is a biologically bad adaptation to have sex with men instead of women because it impairs your ability to pass on your gene. But this is the case with condoms, diaphragms and pills too, they literally prevent you to reproduce. So it is misinformed to equate the biologically advantageous to the moral or good.

[–]ForgettableUsername 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The notion of exclusive homosexuality is actually fairly modern. Throughout most of recorded history, having sex with men was not a significant impairment to also having sex with women.

Although, yes, it is important to note that the biologically advantageous is not synonymous with the moral.

[–]krangksh -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That is an ignorant view of the issue though, because the "proper" use of our genitalia in the context of humanity is not mechanical.

[–]sonnyclips 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He is pretty bad about it.

[–]IAmNotAPerson6 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's also the whole horribly treated Tibet thing.

The go-to Penn and Teller video and essay for whenever the topic of this guy comes up.

[–]JoNeum42 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

His stance on gays and lesbians is that it is perfectly acceptable in the lay community but it is unacceptable in the monastic community where there are vows against sex.

[–]joe935120 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If you take it as him meaning evolutionarily it should be male and female. He is correct. However, socially it doesn't really matter. Humans have separated sexual desire from reproduction. We like to have sex for the enjoyment of it. There is nothing wrong from a social standpoint, however if looking at it with evolution in consideration, it is not right for reproduction. -- I support the LGBT community if anyone doesn't understand what i meant. I'm in no way saying its wrong to be gay.

[–]brainburger 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I googled this a bit and found this fascinating article on the subject.

[–]Superguy2876 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Being a Christian, I don't understand why so much of my fellow Christians feel that they have to force themselves onto other people. I also recognize that "wisdom" may come from many places, this particular quote I have heard before and it is one of my favorites and one that i try to live my life by. Another Buddhist teaching that I like is "before enlightenment I chopped wood and carried water, after enlightenment I chopped wood and carried water." I see this as say that just because I believe something different from other people, it does not make me better than those people, i'm still equal just different, same as everybody is different from each other.

[–]Tonksm 13 points14 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Attended the Lama speaking at UW a few years back, he is incredibly down to earth.

Some girl asked him a long winded question about how he thinks we should stop AIDS from spreading in Africa. His one word answer: Condoms.

[–]blueone11 16 points17 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This quote is actually from Confucius.

[–]LightSwarm 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

sauce?

[–]Keldrath 42 points43 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"The Dalai Lama, for example, is entirely and easily recognizable to a secularist. In exactly the same way as a medieval princeling, he makes the claim not just that Tibet should be independent of Chinese hegemony--a "perfectly good" demand, if I may render it into everyday English--but that he himself is a hereditary king appointed by heaven itself. How convenient! Dissenting sects within his faith are persecuted; his one-man rule in an Indian enclave is absolute; he makes absurd pronouncements about sex and diet and, when on his trips to Hollywood fund-raisers, anoints major donors like Steven Segal and Richard Gere as holy. (Indeed, even Mr. Gere was moved to whine a bit when Mr. Segal was invested as a tulku, or person of high enlightenment. It must be annoying to be outbid at such a spiritual auction.) I will admit the current "Dalai" or supreme lama is a man of some charm and presence, as will I admit that the present queen of England is a person of more integrity than most of her predecessors, but this does not invalidate the critique of hereditary monarchy, and the first foreign visitors to Tibet were downright appalled at the feudal domination, and hideous punishments, that kept the population in permanent serfdom to a parasitic monastic elite." -Christopher Hitchens from Chapter 14 of his book "God is not great, how religion poisons everything."

[–]magnusmclintock 208 points209 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Lama class aspires to basically enslave the poor. He's not that great of a guy.

[–]FrostyM288 52 points53 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So I know nothing about dalai lama. Mind explaning a bit?

[–]kzielinski 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The summary would be. THe third dalai lama seized power in a bloody civil war, and posthumously had his two predecesors declared as the 1st and 2nd Dalai Lama. Since assuming power his sect has persecuted other smaller sects.

Through all this time Tibet was a fudal state with power shared by the temples loyal to the Dalai Lama and a small group of secular nobility. The rest of the population being owned by one of the other, and essentially had no rights to speak of. Both freqntly took children away from their parents and made them into monks or domestic servants and concubines (in the case of the secular nobility).

[–]ayesee 45 points46 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Penn and Teller can explain it fairly well.

FEATURING: Bonus iconoclasm against Mother Theresa and Ghandi, as well as special guest: the late Christopher Hitchens.

Just make sure you watch all three parts-- can't remember in which part the Lama is discussed. Either way, you won't be disappointed.

EDIT: If you're only interested in seeing the section about the Lama, it starts right on the dot with part 3.

[–]Dave_Davidson_ 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And for all the lazy redditors out there, here's the whole episode in one video.

[–]avsa 39 points40 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Notice that the video is about the Dalai Llama class, it doesn't reflect the view of the current 14th Lama. It's like dismissing Queen Elizabeth's opinions because of what the English kings did in the 17th century

[–]Kevtron 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]gayblackjesus 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Umm no, red herring anyone?

Lisa did not claim to be the reincarnation of previous rulers of England. Lisa did not seek to live and rule and continue exactly as her predecessors.

Admit it, if Seagal didn't get off rubbing that bald head you'd never think twice about handing the Lama a country to enslave.

Or, I suppose for fucks-sake, we could just give him the country back, on the off chance that he brings prosperity greater than Chinese food and clean water.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]

[–]bitcloud 20 points21 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I take Penn and Teller with a grain of salt after realising that they're members of CATO, and then realising that their episode list reads like a CATO todo list...

edit: plus they're fuckheads. "greeting card philosophy". Way to put yourself above thousands of years of philosophical development and introspection Penn.

[–]tbotcotw 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's not an acronym, it's Cato.

[–]bitcloud 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was yelling :)

[–]tbotcotw 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I was being pedantic.

[–]JCelsius 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Penn has lost touch with reality. I enjoy his magic and some of what he has to say about atheism, but his Libertarian ideals are just oblivious. He says he's a Libertarian because he "doesn't know" what's best for someone else and insults people for acting like they do know. Not to get into a huge rant on the subject, but he is absolutely ridiculous sometimes.

[–]tehallie 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"greeting card philosophy". Way to put yourself above thousands of years of philosophical development and introspection Penn.

One could say the same thing about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Whilst I can find fewer "problems" with Buddhism that with the aforementioned faiths, it still derives it's authority from divine inspiration.

[–]VerlorenesMetallgeld 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Way to put yourself above thousands of years of philosophical development and introspection Penn.

Argument from antiquity? In the atheism subreddit?

[–]rpaggio 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Penn and Teller are terrible. Penn is basically the proto-redditor

[–]Downpaymentblues 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Interesting, but the narrators are fucking annoying.

Why do you need such ridiculous presentation methods in American TV shows? I know what X amount of dollars looks like and I how to balance two deeds committed by different entities. The narrators can never articulate themselves effectively and always use catch phrases to make their points. "Remember the lesser of two evils is still evil!, my enemies enemy is not my friend". All I can imagine when I see these shows is people shouting "FREEEEDOM, AMERICAAAA". Its insulting to the American population who clearly are not dumbed down sub-human imbeciles. How do you deal with this?!

[–]dracovich 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

They've talked about it before, that they are basically targeting a demographic that is bored and not interested by slow methodical and logical teardown of an arguement.

I immensely prefer seeing Dawkins tear something down, but that's just not what catches the attention of a large part of America, and so they set out to try and give the same or similar arguements to a different demographic.

[–]joeymcflow 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I actually like the way they present their shows. Sure, they are incredibly biased, but you've got to have that in mind while watching the show. I find it to be good comedy, coupled with useful information.

[–]avsa 53 points54 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This isn't true, just something some redditors like to spew over their hatred to all religious leaders.

While its true that the previous Tibetan regime was mostly a theocratic feudalism, this isn't the 14th Dalai Lama position. In fact he has drafted and signed many constitutions of the free Tibet movement as far back as 1963 that promote a free Tibet with full respect for human rights, religious freedom and a secular government. This isn't just a charter of intentions, this is te reason he had the backing of the UN and many international organizations.

Since then he has taken a more pragmatic approach defending Tibet as an autonomous region inside the government of china. One that has liberties most citizens in china currently don't have.

source

TLDR: this is bullshit.

[–]brainburger 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Thanks for the link - that document dates from 4 years after his departure from Tibet, so we have only his word that he would have changed the situation there, had he not needed to curry favour from the UN and West.

Edit: I have found a couple of interesting links about the current funding arrangements for the Dalai Lama.
http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-money-addendum/ http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/behind-dalai-lamas-holy-cloak/2007/05/22/1179601410290.html

[–]bigcooter 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's easy to take that approach when you know China isn't going to come close to allowing you to return to your position of God King and isn't going to allow your clergy to rule the people with an Iron fist again.

[–]lobsterGun 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]KorgRue 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think you need to do a bit more research on this topic.

[–]TacticalMoniker 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

From my understanding, the Lama class wants to return Tibet to how it was before Chinese Imperialism, but back then they were pretty much in charge of everything and everyone else were there servants. probably not the best explination.

[–]jayzen 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]ImADouchebag 48 points49 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is pretty biased though. He makes it seem like China is a harmonious utopia.

[–]jayzen 22 points23 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think the point he is trying to make is that China is better than slavery and serfdom under Dalai Lama's rule instead of "China is a harmonious utopia"

[–]ImADouchebag 24 points25 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If that was the only thing he'd have talked about I'd agree. But that's not all he talks about in the video. Visit his website, he is a regular China fanboy. His life revolves around making movies glorifying China.

[–]tommij 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The lesser of two evils is still evil, but still to be preferred to the greater evil.

[–]sTiKyt 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There's no lesser of two evils here. The Tibetan people deserve democracy, nothing less. Not theocracy, not occupation.

"In the mid-1970s Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, told a Polish newspaper that he thought he would be the last Dalai Lama. In a later interview published in the English language press he stated "The Dalai Lama office was an institution created to benefit others. It is possible that it will soon have outlived its usefulness."

[–]ImADouchebag 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And water is wet.

[–]6Sungods 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Source?

[–]i_fuck_kids 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

And you're a douchebag

[–]Dave_Davidson_ 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i_fuck_kids is criticizing other people's reddit handles?

[–]heslaotian 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Highly doubt that was a criticism

[–]Downpaymentblues 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've played C&C Generals, China will work harder for me.

[–]Cipher004 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I hear they have big plans.

[–]uselessdegree 17 points18 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think that glosses over China's culpability in 20th century war crimes against its own people. The same centralized government that rolled through and equalized Tibet by kicking out a despotic caste regime would not too long after embrace totalitarianism in its own right.

I agree fully that China for ages got the short end of the stick, and it's pretty damn exciting to watch them pull it together today, but no one is served by completely demonizing or sanctifying anyone.

That all being said: nifty 10 minute snapshot of the problems with western Lama idealism. Thanks for sharing!

[–]arrowheadt 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Nice try, Chinese government official.

[–]DrPhilly 10 points11 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

*aspired. He says that if he were to regain control of Tibet, he would not return to the same regime that was there before.

[–]tommij 12 points13 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

No regime comes into power promising that they will be a brutal and oppressive regime.

He has a lot of explaining to do in regards to "returning Tibet to their former system" before I will assume that it will be "the former system"

[–]JoNeum42 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama has removed from his office any political power and has stated that he wishes to see a democratic China and Tibet. He preaches secularism and humanism and denounces the old feudal ways of Tibet's past. Visit his site for more statements regarding it, but he really is that great of a guy.

[–]Good-Timez 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Source or info about this?

[–]wd111111 12 points13 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]jayzen 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]jayzen 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Upvote for truth.

[–]feureau 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Another thing is that, I think I first saw the quote over at r/trees. At the time, I googled it out, and it traced back only to the r/trees. Then there's so many reposts with the text superimposed to a lot of shit, and I still can't source this to a proper quotation source to credit the Dalai Llama. I wonder if this quote is even real. It sounds a bit too nihilistic for the kind of crap the Lama class would spew out on regular basis.

[–]heartjaedong 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This x1000. Its surprising how few people in the west know about Tibet's gruesome pre-PRC history.

[–]dfrehil 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

See now that right there conflicts with the admittedly low amount of knowledge I have on Buddhism.

I mean the general 'don't be a dick' feel of the philosophy. Enslaving people is a dick move.

[–]AngryMogambo 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I must say though he is very observant.

[–]carmentosca 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Sweet visor, bro.

[–]cleversoap 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Glad I'm not the only one that saw this.

[–]Oriumpor 19 points20 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” Just don't kill the sucka. --Dalai Lama

[–]feureau 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But the question is, when you see someone with a light saber trying to kill you over dinner, do you shoot first, or let the other guy shoot you first under the table?

[–]iama_brick 18 points19 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For fucks sake, stop reposting this quote

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I heard that!

[–]Hanguo 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I wonder how many times this quote gets posted in a week...

[–]usernamecharlie 11 points12 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu is worth listening too, as well. He has some very insightful things to say and doesn't really try to bring religion into the picture.

[–]herpinlederp 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I went to a speech he did at the Tacoma Dome in Wash. State... It was pretty much self-righteous Christianity obscured by a peace sign. He makes some good points sometimes... But I wouldn't say he doesn't really try to bring religion into the picture. That doesn't mean he isn't a good person, however. Very intelligent and peaceloving man for the most part.

[–]spundred 16 points17 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I think in general as atheists, we need to get over the assumption that spirituality as a whole is devoid of value.

Mythology aside, the practice of contemplation and reflection is worthwhile.

[–]sinndogg 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly, but only so long as you use it to enhance your understanding of reality, not distance yourself from it.

[–]bitcloud 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Because agnosticism (scientific rationalism) provides no spiritual enlightenment, emotional fulfillment, guidance or support for people in their time of need, people turn to religion.

One day there will be a church of agnosticism where people come together from all walks of life and share their spiritual beliefs. There's no certainty here. The bible is a wiki. When that day comes, dogma will be defeated.

[–]Kryten_2X4B_523P 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama is no rational humanitarian, but he does say some profoundly important things from time to time.

When the message become the person instead of the message, the message is lost.

(Note the banner of this subreddit.)

[–]TheEternalUnrest 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm not the kind of guy to push religion.....but if you like this you should check out Buddhism.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Buddhism is still as sexist, homophobic, and ethically misguided as the Catholic Church. Though it is slightly less detestable, it is still a tactless faith. See Nietzsche's Der Antichrist for more information on the relation between Buddhism and Christianity.

[–]lanepryce 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

There is no reliable source for the origin of this quote. All of the blogs that post this quote link to one another as sources; this quote in particular shows up in many different forms, attributed to many different speakers.

Here is a blog entry going a little more in-depth about the deception.

[–]platypusmusic 2 points3 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

How do think did his sect gain power? Friendly talks with the supporters of the bön religion and the red hat sect or by brutal wars?

Do you like GOD KINGS, that rule a state of slaves? C'mon this guy talks about work, but actually has worked in his life.

[–]pillage 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I like how you can basically say anything that amounts to the "folly of man" and be considered deep.

[–]kimchifart 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This is rather banal Buddhism 101 really. Yes, yes, attachments, blah blah, living in the present blah blah. All has truth to it, but let's not give credit to the Dalai Lama for these concepts.

It's also rather ironic that I see a picture of the Dalai Lama with a picture of Christopher Hitchens' head above it (Hitchens was a critic of Dalai Lama.)

[–]mjs77 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[–]tombone66 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This comment thread is far too serious. So he walks into a pizza shop

[–]CoachCarter 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

what about Qui-Gon Jinn?

[–]crackedup1979 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'll get down voted to hell for pointing it out but he did own slaves. Old Tibet was also a feudal system wherein most people were serfs. He's not a guy you should look up to.

[–]liverpoop 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Not this stupid shit again.

[–]meta_elephants 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This guy rocks. He also believe that if science and religion contradict, go with science.

[–]sinndogg 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, he said, IIRC, that if a confirmed scientific finding contradicts the Buddha, then the Buddha's own words on the matter must be discounted.

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah I went from straight gangster atheist to Zen Buddhist, because they are the masters of not giving a fuck. My giving a fuck meter was pegged and now a few months later I'm chillin not givin a fuck. thats str8 up anicdotal evedence upon that ass!

Gassho and Metta

[–]riddlingdark 15 points16 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

get down with your bad non-self!

[–]Mr_Philosopher 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Learn to both give and not-give a fuck... sometimes simultaneously, sometimes at different times.

[–]BmDragon 5 points6 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

You and I share the same sentiment my good man. I too went from straight rapscalian atheist to Zen.

[–]Mr_Philosopher 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Makes me smile that I'm not the only one. I suggest Hinduism as well. it's a beautiful philosophy.

[–]downvotes_mke_me_cum 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

yeah let's worship some shitty stone carvings of bitches with 100 arms

[–]HospitableJohnDoe 7 points8 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yes, I would listen to him too. I mean someone who was raised to be a god on earth, travels the world meeting with celebrities being venerated by complete strangers is the kind of authority I listen to.

Leading a simple enlightened life is a piece of cake if your the reincarnation of a Lama.

[–]fireburt 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I can respect some of the stuff he does, but does this strike anyone else as simple bullshit dressed up to sound nice?

  • I may have sacrificed my health in terms of being stressed to make money, but that's about it. Of course I sacrifice money to get healthier because what the fuck else am I supposed to do? He phrases these two to sound like you make x money and lose y health then spend x money to get back y health. That's not even close to what's happening.

  • Yes, I do look towards the future as does every other living thing. Does it also strike him as odd that squirrels store up nuts for the winter? Maybe he thinks they should just enjoy their time in the fall and worry about the winter when it comes around.

  • If you're living as if you'll never die, it's not fucking possible to have never lived. Fuck him if wants to tell me what really living is.

So we have a bunch of self-contradicting bullshit dressed up like poetry and everyone accepts it because he is supposed to be a profound man. If anyone thinks I'm misreading this, please explain.

[–]TortoiseT 8 points9 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm sure there are others that can explain this much better then I will but here it is: The core idea of meditation is a return to the present moment. This does not mean that one should completely ignore the future, nor does it mean that one should ignore the past. It simply means that the focal point is the present. Speaking within the terms of the metaphor. The problem is not the storing up on nuts, but the way we go about doing that. We're stressing about the storing, we're constantly chasing more nuts, we're hurrying from one nut to another nut and often do that in a way that's keeping us from living the present moment to it's fullest potential.

Think about it this way: you can take a shower and while showering think about all the million things that could happen during the day or you can take that same shower and while showering just focus on the simple sensation of the hot water running across your body. Both serve the exact same purpose and both essentially lead to the same end yet I can almost guarantee the second kind of showering will lead to less stress and a more fullfilling showering experience.

To reiterate: the problem is not the storing of nuts. The problem is that while we're carrying one nut back to our nest, we're already focusing on the next nut, and the one after that, and the one after that, and the impending winter. All at the same time. You could just carry the nut back to your home, and focus on you carrying that one nut. It's simpler and it might lead to a more enjoyable experience.

We're living in a world that's incredibly complex and is constantly bombarding us with a plethora of different stimuli. It's just very easy to lose track of the present. We've all been there but in the end which is better: sex in which you're completely into the moment, or sex while you're stressing about a big meeting in the morning?

In a way, all your comments relate back to this confusion about buddhism. A focus on the present does not preclude thoughts about the future. It's just a reminder to return the present, and not live in the future indefinitly. Whether this is deep and profound is another question, but there is not really a contradiction.

[–]and_of_four 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In regards to that bit about the future, it's important to make a distinction between planning for the future and feeling worried or anxious about the future. You're only ever in the present, so there's no sense in getting preoccupied with something that may or may not happen to that point that it causes you stress. Plan accordingly, but keep the focus of your attention in the here and now.

[–]VodkaGimlet -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This was precisely my reaction to the quote, and I'm glad to see someone say it amid all the lama love here.

[–]kouei 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'll just leave this here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5sOm-uQH9Y

[–]sydneygamer 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I've always liked buddhism because it's the least religious religion around.

[–]Jackstick 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Women, on the other hand...

[–]GenuineWolf 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

All of his supreme insight and depth of wisdom is undermined by the red fucking visor he is clutching.

[–]nomadz 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well, he may not sound as bad as christian fundamentalists... But don't be mistaken, Buddhism as an organized religion is not really different from other religions. In my experience in most countries in South-East Asia, the clergy lives well thanks to charity and donations from people who are often extremely poor, but still have an awful lot of "traditionnal" obligations and duties towards buddhist clerics ; a lot of monks join the clergy because they see it as a good career path, and they are a wealthy, privileged cast, prospering through a form of legal parasitism. Most buddhist countries have at some point lived under some kind of theocracy, and only when modern nations emerged did the clergy lose part of its power. The philosophy of Buddhism is certainly interesting in itself, but has been long institutionalized and turned into an instrument of control and power (as many other oriental philosophies have).

[–]mlockup 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Religious AND leader? If you find something of value in Dalai Lama's words, you'll find the whole world in Lao Tzu's or Jiddu Krishnamurti's words - both NOT leaders but profoundly religious.

[–]bitcloud 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion...

Some have definitely "dogmatised" it, but by and large it's the canon of eastern philosophy.

[–]soporific16 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

But why still listen to people who explain the world by themselves and believe in things that wouldn't exist the moment they stopped believing in them??

But i can see the allure from the quote, it's very good in that it expresses the reality of wage-slavery robbing people of the time they need to live, let alone to develop themselves as human beings.

Someone once said: "The duty of all human beings is to become human". That is, we are only born with the potential to lead rich and fulfilling lives we sorta need the time in order to do this. The problem is the quote blames the victims of our insane economic arrangement without even a nod to the fact that wage-slavery exists. If he's really a Marxist, he could be expressing that a whole lot better ;)

[–]TBizzcuit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

That title is kind of arrogant. You don't have to follow a religious leader's religion to get something out of his/her message. For example, just because one is not Christian does not mean that he or she has to ignore Jesus' teachings about how to treat people.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He made 25 grand of the speech he said that in though right?

[–]painperdu 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

"Sacrifice health in order to make money"

How true is this? It seems to me that the richest people in the world are the healthiest.

[–]beauty_contest 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/ntjld/now_if_ratheism_can_get_over_the_massive_circle/

Didn't want to have to resort to this, but I made a post to shine some light on the the dalai lama as well as question the validity of the quote. I hope the atheists, skeptics and critical thinkers alike can help educate people on who the dalai lama and open the floor to some interesting conversation. As it stands i'm being downvoted into oblivion.

[–]OatSharpener 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

So the only religious leader you listen to sometimes is a man who took money off the CIA to sponsor terrorist attacks in China?

He's just a man, another exiled dictator who wants his country back.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I find it hilarious that /r/atheism pays tribute to a theocratic god king.

what a fucking joke.

[–]The_Mexorcist26 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

wait wait wait wait wait it's only because he's nice, that makes it different! /sarcasm

[–]jjg_denis_robert 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, sure. The "Dalai Lama" is really nothing but yet another huckster, just like every single cleric. He lives on the "generosity" of others, has not worked a day in his life, pontificates on issues he knows nothing about (having been a sheltered spoiled brat his entire life), and has ideas on sexuality even more dangerous than those of the Catholic Church. The only thing that's good about him is that he annoys the hell out of the Chinese government. Other than that, he's an empty shell.

[–]painperdu 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Also, why is it that when he utters something people give it more weight? He's just another man wielding unwarranted power over a group of self-loathing people.

Are some Atheists feeling empty and need super heroes to give their lives meaning?

[–]RedCoatsForever 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It's easy to talk about money not being important when you've never had to work a day in your fucking life.

[–]Fennder 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Why would you listen to someone who didnt have to do shit to get where he is. Hes like a king who thinks he understands how his minions think because he once drove through Birmingham.

You know why man sacrifices his health to get money? So he can life in a house and feed his family. Not all of us can be a reincarnated god, who gets waited on hand and foot by an army of servants.

Less of a cock then the other religious bosses but still a pretty big cock.

[–]BostonCentrist 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama wants to get his power and riches and temples back. He runs a religious oligarchy and his place is chosen by birth. It's not such a great life for the lower-caste peons born into his society. He's really still not worth looking up to.

[–]douglasmacarthur 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I'm so tired of "atheists" that like eastern religion. "Atheism" doesnt mean "different from what my dad likes," kids.

[–]psilocybinmushrooms 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

ZOMG I fucking hate Christians! Islam, though, I love Islam! The religion of peace! Not like the evil imperialist Christians. AND OMG <3 Dalai Lama. That guy is so chill!

...Guys am I cool yet?

[–]MelsEpicWheelTime 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He is not a religious leader to me. He is a spiritual leader, and a damn good one.

[–]Keldrath 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

i still dont like him.

[–]Mr_Philosopher 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah well fuck you, you're going to buddhist hell for not liking this guy then. I will meditate for you so that you can find Buddha (and send his representatives all your money).

[–]rdouble 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This man practices his religion by attempting to bring peace and enlightenment to everyone, where Christians are always about converting as many as possible. Truly demonstrating what following your faith is.

[–]TBizzcuit 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

where Christians are always about converting as many as possible

Overgeneralization

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Christians believe we have one life to get it right, Buddhists believe we have infinite.

[–]wingedpegasus 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama is tolerant of, and even promotes, slavery. Proof? Look at Penn and Teller's episode of "Bullshit" named "Holier than thou." It debunks and insults the myths that religious leaders like him can do no evil which you, r/atheism of all subreddits, should know.

He is a normal fucking person like the rest of us, except he's a stupid religious bigot that has influence over many people by claiming he support all these good ideals, but leaving the tyrannical rule of his country out of the equation, leaving the gullible susceptible to deception.

HE'S AN ASS, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER RELIGIOUS LEADER, EVER.

[–]Deetoria 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

FYI, I love Penn & Teller and Bullshit, but they are entertainment and although they have some great points and make some great arguments, using them as your base of fact is not always the best.

[–]docnose 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Yeah, he was...24, when he was exiled? So I don't know how much tyranny he really got down to. The only thing he's really done as the political leader since then is try to hold shit together for the refugees that went with him.

I think what you're missing is that it looks like the Dalai Lama is at least trying to be a nice guy. Is he right all the time? No, not by a long shot. Tibet is one of those places where shit is still pretty ass-backwards, and no one I see is denying that he is still a giant cog in that machine. But, for a religious leader, he does a much better job of admitting that other people have a right to live on this planet than most.

Sometimes a little compromise goes a long way. There are bigger fish to fry than the Dalai Lama, g.

[–]Zeniths 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I saw him speak last year, very inspiring.

[–]KarmakazeNZ 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The thing that annoys me is that it is not even correct. The quote reverses the order of things, for a start. In order for man to live, he must make money. In order to make money he must sacrifice his time and his health. Because he has sacrificed his health and his time, he doesn't care about the future and simply tries to enjoy the present as best he can given his limited time, money and health.

More accurate and insightful than that crap.

[–]KorgRue 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

This coming from a man that lives on rice, walks on eggshells, and exists in exile.

He is the last person that should be preaching about the good life.

[–]dirufa 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Don't judge who said it, judge the meaning of the sentence.

[–]hiltonking 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

If the dali lama had to work for a living he wouldn't say shit like that. What a lazy cunt!

[–]nhowl 1 point2 points ago*

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama is an atheist. His response when asked about god:

Q:The Buddha was silent on the question of God. What about you?

Dalai Lama: "Why did the Buddha not say anything about God? Because he talked about the law of causality. Once you accept the law of cause and effect, the implication is that there is no 'creator'. If the Buddha accepted the concept of a creator, he would not have been silent; everything would have been God!"

Q: Who caused the law of causality?

Dalai Lama: "About that, the Buddha would say 'the mind', never God or dharmakaya or even the Buddha himself."

Q: How did the mind come about?

Dalai Lama: "The source of mind is nature. The word that been used for existence is 'interdependent arising'. Talking of God, who created God? There is no point arguing. Dharmakeerti and Shantideva debate the existence of God and reach the conclusion that if we believe in a benevolent creator, how do we explain suffering? I remember a funny incident. In Tibetan drama, criticism is allowed and even the Buddha is not spared. There was this man acting on-stage and he was saying that he did not believe in God. If God made us, he said, instead of putting both the eyes in the front, one should be at the back! We would have been more efficient that way. Jokes apart, the idea is not to disrespect any religion but to analyze the nature of reality."

[–]mleczko 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

anyone who claims that he has the only right and ultimate truth can go fuck himself, no matter if pope or dalai lama.

[–]SumoMoses 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I myself used to think the Dalai Lama was different than other religious leaders, but have since learned that he's just as bad the Pope or the Ayatollah.

Under the Dalai Lama, Tibet actually operated under a caste system of sorts where he and his priests lived in luxury, while the rest of the population lived in abject poverty just to support the upper priest "caste".

He talks a good one, but at the end of the day, he's just another conman.

[–]therealgaloosh 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I understand his point, and I'll admit that I know next to nothing about the Dalai Lama, but this strikes me as a quote from a person who doesn't live in the real world. I'd love to sit around all day and do nothing but "meditate" about shit but I have to feed myself and put a roof over my head. I don't always have the luxury to live in the moment Mr. Lama.

[–]jesuscthulhu 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't think he was criticizing people, but rather the system people live under and their complacency with it.

[–]Deetoria 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama knows this and understands this. I have heard him speak and many things are very practical and easy to put into practice in your own life.

He mainly teaches compassion and love for others...that's easy to do.

[–]Massless 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

He's expressing what other religions refer to as "mindfulness." The goal being to be live in the moment regardless of what you are "doing." For example, Zen Buddhists practice Samu or ritual cleaning as a way to bring this state of mindfulness from the Zendo to the real world.

My overarching point is that doing the things you need to do in your daily life and living in the moment aren't mutually exclusive (from this point of view). in fact, that's the point.

[–]ZeroKiel 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Dalai Lama is a great guy till you realize that all he wants is for his country to reinstate the Lama class and have their slaves back.

[–][deleted] ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

[deleted]