--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ...fat lot of good it did the 1.5 million of his people that died > > under his watch and the millions more of his people who suffered > > because of his myopic, anything-but-non-violent philosophy. > > > > I apologize to the group to keep harping on this fellow but it irks > > me no end that we automatically rever and praise this man whose > > very actions produced the very opposite of the non-violence that he > > is supposed to be so knowledgable about... > > The man acted in accordance with his beliefs, and > in accordance with the stated beliefs of Buddhism. > Would you have had him do less? > > Besides, in all these harrangues you haven't shared > with us what he *should* have done. What exactly > was the alternative path he could have taken that > would have worked out better for Tibet and its > people?
1) Instead of keeping his country isolated for so many years, he could have had contact with other countries and cultures (something I think he himself has admitted to), such as a European country or the U.S. 2) He could have aligned himself with one of those countries MILITARILY so as to have an implicit threat -- yes, a THREAT of violence! -- against those that would do him and his people harm. 3) He could have educated himself as to the already clear track record of communism that had occurred in the world, such as what life was like under Stalin in the USSR so that when he was exposed to Mao he wouldn't have been swayed by Mao's lies and been attracted to communism as he was. Remember that Mao courted and "seduced" the Dalai Lama... 4) Most importantly of all -- and this goes to your comment about doing things in accordance with the beliefs of Buddhism -- he could have delved a little deeper into the teachings of Buddhism and of "ahimsa" (i.e. "non-violence") and realized that it meant a whole lot more than the silly surfacy definition he seems to want to promote to the whole world. Curiously, on this very point, I remember reading about 5 years ago around the time that India and Pakistan were having that spat about nuclear weapons that Richard Gere made news for making a very un- Buddhist remark: he came out IN FAVOUR of India having nuclear weapons. It made me think that he was saying this (my conjecture) because his teacher also felt the same way. Certainly, the Dalai Lama's allegiance to India is obvious: they have provided him and his people refuge since the '50s. For those of us on this newsgroup that put at least "some" spiritual importance upon the story of the Bhagavad-Gita, let's remember that being established in being and performing action (yogostah kuru karmani) means being established in a state of "ahimsa" or non- violence...and in this case the person established in that state of non-violence came into the field of action fully established in that non-violent state of consciousness and went on to slay hundreds upon hundreds of human beings. I wonder who is, truly, the greater proponent of non-violence: the NRA or the Dalai Lama. That is, one who actually creates a situation of non-violence (through the threat of violence to those who would be violent against them) or one who gives lip service to some bastardized sense of non-violence but whose very actions -- or lack thereof -- leads to the most horrendous violence that we can imagine... ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
