Avatar
Please consider registering
guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_TopicIcon
The Dalai Lama's Insights ...
July 16, 2008
1:03 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Thats fine if you dont wanna deal with the issue I raised.

>> "It is ironic that the more serious problems emanate from the more industrially advanced societies."

How does he say that? He's sitting in 3rd world, I can understand him hating on everyone and saying "you guys THINK you got it better than us, but you dont". Thats what he's saying.

Also ofcourse to boost his own ego... I really dont like this guy.

I saw him talk for the first few minutes and I felt this is a guy who would fight with his family etc.

So... what serious problems come from more industrial developed countries, that dont exist in the 3rd world, or ...... how is the 3rd world better off?

He preys on gullible "lost" westerners. Not calling you one, but I'm commenting generally.

July 16, 2008
3:42 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Ccnt listen to the insight of a guy, who refuses to drink any water during a 90 minutes lecture, and then proceeds to complain of a sore throat at the end. hello..?

Something doesnt look right here....? Seriously.. wtf.

July 16, 2008
4:17 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

WEll Tez i don't really know what my question IS about Tuesday's insight.

I'm drawn to the word attachment.

free

July 16, 2008
4:52 pm
Avatar
MsGuided
Golden Horseshoe.ca
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 104
Member Since:
September 24, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I can totally understand Thursdays insight.

Technology doesn't solve the problems of humans because we have a very self distructive nature.

Easy does not make it right or sustainable.

Altering raw materials into machinery, drugs or compounds, creates side effects. This being pollution, extinction, lost wetlands and migratory tracts of land, to name a few.

Driving a car, with an alpine system into the mountains alone, does not alleviate loneliness. It meerly diverts the attention to something else.
We as humans are very good at diverting our energies rather than facing what is in front of us, without ego, and accept things as they are. We always have to make things different, better or more.

In Taxonomy and horticulture cultivars are developed through swapping tissue cultures, cross breeding related plants seed and pollen to produce a hybrid to provide more bloom, better colour, increased hardiness,etc. but this is done using the related species that are vegetable based. Manipulating nature Not changing it.

I don't agree mixing bacterias,the cells of mammals or insects with plant cells to create super plants is a smart thing to do. It fools with the chain of life.

Maybe some things are better off being left alone and kept simple.

I think everything in the natural world is perfect and it is all we need. It used to be but then we had to tackle the human condition.

What is that anyway to everyone?
To me it is disease, our self centredness(ego) and the constraints of some religeons and what it drives us to do.

But i sure am glad for technologies like, Washers and dryers, running water, refrigerators, heatring and air conditioning, various cooking devices and transport...oh yes and power tools!

I can feel comfortable with my Carbon footprint, but I wish technology would consider this factor a little more and allow me to make my footprint smaller.

Like cheaper and more access to solar energy technologies, wind tech, geothermal, recycling within the home ( more efficient water heaters, and furnaces, and a system to recycle used water)
So far to power an average home with the technologies above you have to pay in the $20,000 range and up.
That's just offensive to me.

July 16, 2008
6:56 pm
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Keeping within the Buddist tradition of non attachment ... could it be,? when we are in chaotic relationships we are playing out a piece of an attachment disorder, taken in during childhood, and needing to be resolved.

Sometimes I wonder if we don't repeat the same thing over and over, hoping for, wanting, praying for a different outcome. Perhaps for me an apt definition of co-dependency.

Non attachment as an admirable goal?

Nah! Not really.

Its been my experience that my closest relationships have had the most value .... good and not so good.

Its all a learning.

littlespirit

July 16, 2008
10:13 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

I have the answer to Tuesday night's question of Dalai Lama:

>> "With love that is simply attachment, the slightest change in the object, such as a tiny change of attitude, immediately causes you to change. This is because your emotion is based on something very superficial. Take, for example, a new marriage. Often after a few weeks, months, or years the couple become enemies and finish up getting divorced. They married deeply in love - nobody marries with hatred - but after a short time everything changed. Why?"

Why? Because the next door neighbour who just moved in was frikking HOT.

So.. he couldnt resist.

July 17, 2008
1:03 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

free

On the 16-Jul-08 you said:

"I'm drawn to the word attachment."

Yes, I can understand why. It is one of the major causes of suffering.

If I say I am very attached to an heirloom, my deceased mother's wedding ring for example, and I lose it somehow, then I would most probably suffer badly. That is how suffering arises. As a result of attachment to some person, place or thing and either losing or not gaining possession of that person, place or thing, the consequence is suffering. So attachment means caring very much about having some person, place or thing in my life, providing for my needs, at my disposal, and readily available to me.

Since all is impermanent, arising, abiding and then decaying then attachment to any person, place or thing, sooner or later, will bring suffering through their loss.

This does not mean that we should not care about loved ones? Not at all! The Dalai Lama certainly cares very much about people. But if at the same time as caring about people, we keep the knowledge of their inevitable aging and demise as a stark reality in our minds then we can enjoy interacting with them without the incredible sorrow that the ultimate loss would bring if we were 'attached'.

The Dalai Lama said:

"With love that is simply attachment, the slightest change in the object ..."

What is love without attachment like? When we can love someone and let them go easily without suffering at all, then I maintain that we loved that person without being attached to him or her.

I suffered because I was attached to Joy, not because I loved her. If love demands a return then there is attachment to a need fulfilment in me that is met by that person. When Joy left me, she no longer meets my needs so I suffer. To the degree to which I break my attachment to Joy to that degree my suffering has decreased. I now meet my own needs and feel relatively happy provided I continue to do so. I am still attached to getting my needs met. Unless in the meantime I break my attachment to the fulfilment of these needs, suffering will result when these needs ultimately are not met. Do I still care about Joy? Yes I sure do. But there is no way that I will not be getting back with her. I now see that it is not in either Joy's or my best interests to do so.

I hope that my response helps you in some small way.

July 17, 2008
1:11 am
Avatar
Guest
Guests

Whoops - I wrote:

"But there is no way that I will not be getting back with her.:

Correction: I meant to write "But there is no way that I will be getting back with her" - I accidentally created a double negation.

July 17, 2008
3:09 am
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

yes, Tez, it does help and I thank you.

this one: "we keep the knowledge of their inevitable aging and demise as a stark reality in our minds then we can enjoy interacting with them without the incredible sorrow that the ultimate loss would bring if we were 'attached'.

The unexpected, non-anticipated, surprise loss, is where the suffering comes from.

yes?

July 17, 2008
9:53 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Ok so:

>> Since all is impermanent, arising, abiding and then decaying then attachment to any person, place or thing, sooner or later, will bring suffering through their loss.

So... since this candy I have in my mouth will be gone soon and because I'll be sad after its gone, its better I dont love it too much. Its better that I dont enjoy it too much.

How can you really want something if you really dont want it that much? If object A, is something you would be ok with loosing and B is something which you would hate to loose, which is the object that you like and want most?

Is it wrong to like and want things? Thats just... straying away from human nature.

So you spend 50 years of your life not wanting or enjoying anything just because you can avoid those 2 weeks of suffering at the end when you loose it.

Mr. Lama is saying we should not want anything too bad so as to not suffer. Why live in a house then? Buy a cheap straw hut. Why buy a car, just buy a bicycle. Reduce your emotional risks. This is just fear of intimacy. This is what Mr. Lama is preaching and exhibiting.

Dont get too close... or you'll be hurt when it ends. Does that apply to your sons and daughters and other things you should love?

"Here Jennifer dear, I was going to give you a diamond bracelet for being a wonderful daughter because that would show my love for you, but since I dont want to be hurt by losing you when you die unexpectedly in a plane crash, I'll just give you a soda can. Oh and its not chilled. Just reducing my risks here, aite honey? Good. Attachment is bad"

July 17, 2008
10:49 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Its OK to be sad after you lose something. Its ok to be deeply hurt by loosing something you really like. I dont want to bring it up but.. I was touched deeply by seeing how close Bevdee was to her cousin before he succumbed to his illness. Thats humanity, thats a heart, thats LIVING life.

To deny your urges and wants and most of all, your FEELINGS just because you might be hurt someday is well, just getting into a little protective hole underground. Guess what, if you're afraid of being struck by lightening and you climb into that hole, you're not going to see the World any more. You cant smell the flowers and enjoy the morning breeze. Sure lightening cant strike you any more but its going to be cold and dark where you are. Take a little RISK with life. You cant gain something if you're not afraid to loose something. Stop being afraid and just do it. Live in the moment, rather than being afraid of the hurt that _might_ come after 20 years. Being afraid of that hurt that you might get is called living in the future, not present.

That so called SUFFERING is part of LIFE. Its unavoidable. MAN up to it, face it!... or crawl down to your cold numbing underground emotionally protective hole. The choice is yours.

Its not surprising. Fans of Dalai Lama are people who have already forsaken and forgotten their true selves and who already believe that suppressing some part of them is the best way to cope with life.

Its just like that. The teacher appears when the student is ready. So yea, if you're already twisting, distorting, squeezing and suppressing yourself inside, you're doing to love everything what Mr. Dalai Lala is going to say.

July 17, 2008
10:56 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Oh and the MF is refered to as "his holiness". Wtf? Does that ring a bell? Prophethood? Religion? Hello? Following somoene who loves attention and who is narciccistic? umm.. like Mohammed, right? But without the pedophilia, war and violence and the women. Lama is like me, he couldnt ask out a cow, much less a woman.

If he was such a humble man, he would frikking tell everyone to STOP calling him his holiness. But no..... he loves it all.

July 17, 2008
11:03 am
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

Screw everything I said about Dalai Lama. Watch this:

Penn & Teller: Dalai Lama and Tibet

I sensed that this MF is a fraud, WITHOUT knowing all the stuff these people talk about. I'm sorry, but you have to be intelligent in order to see people in their true light (good or bad). And I'm not a *_ myself. I can recognize good sincere people when I see them.

Oh well.. inspite of being this intelligent, I'm still not perfectly happy eh? lol.... oh well. Thats another story.

July 17, 2008
1:26 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest_ guest,

You are funny, and very intelligent.
Just thought I would tell you.

July 17, 2008
1:29 pm
Avatar
free
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 433
Member Since:
September 27, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Guest, you're completely missing the point.

Just stop for a sec, step off the battlefield (nobody else is there) and ponder what's been said.

I'm having trouble puting into words what's being taught in Tuesday's insight, but think I might be getting it.

When we love somebody, we can take on the stance "you are my life", or the stance "you've a beautiful life will you share it with me for awhile"

Have you ever heard of crying muscles? When ya cry so hard and for so long, specific muscles not normally used much become very sore and it can pain to breath at night when ya try to fall asleep. Did ya know a person can actually become dehydrated from crying so much? It's true. love and attachment....yes, it can lead to intense suffering. No doubt about it.

It's a part of life, but it doesn't have to be.

Strongfelt love can exist without the attachment, and thus without the suffering.

Now that's something to reach for IMO

free

July 17, 2008
2:49 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

>> Strongfelt love can exist without the attachment, and thus without the suffering.

You really cant love anything, unless it makes you very sad when you have to separate from it. The stronger the love, the harder it hurts you when the bond is gone.

Give me an example of a love where you're loving without attachment. Love _means_ attachment, it means being attracted, it means you wanting it very bad. right? And you cant want something bad if it doesnt effect you much when it gets taken away from you.

What you're talking about here:

>> "you are my life", [etc]

Thats co-dependence. Thats someone who thinks they need something to fill up the holes in their life or soul, and make them happy. Thats a separate issue.

Give an example of that non-attachment love, yea.

July 17, 2008
2:54 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

thanks OMW... I really believe we all are intelligent as anyone else and funny as well. The only difference is the level to which we're afraid of being ourselves.

There's one common thing in all great fun people. They're good at being themselves, and they lack fear. I'm learning to stop being afraid! I have to just say "__ it" and just do it. I wish I had real intense training in this. Its very hard. heh.

Being afraid, thats the only thing that stops us from living life and doing what we want. Seems kinda obvious. heh.... wish it was easy to follow and practice. We have to stop being afraid.

July 17, 2008
3:00 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

eye gouging going on under the loving peaceful Dalai Lama

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

Dr. Michael Parenti in his article 'Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth' said:

'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.” '

'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. '

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

July 17, 2008
3:09 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

How the Lama boy was chosen:

>> When Tenzin Gyatso was about two years old a search party was sent out to find the new incarnation of the Dalai Lama.[7] Among other omens, the head on the embalmed body of the thirteenth Dalai Lama (originally facing south) had mysteriously turned to face the northeast, indicating the direction in which the next Dalai Lama would be found. Shortly afterwards, the Regent Reting Rinpoche had a vision at the sacred lake of Lhamo La-tso indicating Amdo (as the place to search) and a one-story house with distinctive guttering and tiling. After extensive searching, they found that Thondup's house resembled that in Reting's vision. They presented Thondup with various relics and toys—some had belonged to the previous Dalai Lama while others had not. It was reported that Thondup correctly identified all items owned by the previous Dalai Lama, exclaiming "That's mine! That's mine!"[14][15]

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

thats mineeee thats mineeeee. yessss! i love it! I love that.. big butt. oops! How come I'm not a Dalai Lama, I've said the same things as him.

Anyway.. here's more amusing stuff:

>> His eldest brother, Thupten Jigme Norbu, has been recognised as the rebirth of the high Lama, Taktser Rinpoche.

So, the way the Lama boy was chosen to be a Lama is no different than other prophets chosen randomly. remember Jesus, Tez ?? You hate Christianity so much and yet there are many similarities between Jesus and Lama boy. There's atleast one: the way they were chosen to be a leader when they were just little babies or boys.

You cant laugh at one and revere the other.

July 17, 2008
3:18 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

And dont forget. Da Lie Lamah (lamer) ruled Tibet starting from 1950, according to Wikipedia.

And what happened during his rule?

>> 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.

Its all here, in one of the user's comments who copy pasted the contents of this book (The Tibet Myth)

http://chinaspy.org/2007/05/10.....xperience/

Lets read that again. I dont see any non-attachment love in eye gouging and handcuffs sized for children. Maybe I need glasses.

Da Lieing Lamah

This is an abusive monster inside, trust me. I know it and I can see it.

The peaceful monastries we heard about:

>> 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.” 11

Here's more, the same sexual exploitation going on which goes around with so many religious leaders:

>> 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.”18 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.19

Its all there and so much more than I can copy here, in that book from that website.

July 17, 2008
3:37 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

This is the guy in Penn and Teller's video who exposed Dalai Lama:

---------

Michael Parenti is an American political scientist, historian, and author. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. His works have been translated into at least eighteen languages. His book, "The Assassination of Julius Caesar, A People's History of Ancient Rome", was selected as a Book of the Year for 2004 by Online Review of Books and Current Affairs.

"He (the Dalai Lama) headed a social system that was exploitative, terribly terribly unequal, and terribly brutal."

"You had a privileged priest class, living in utter luxury and opulence, and you had a mass of serfs living in utter misery."

"His holiness would tell you that he must return to power for the good of his people. In this case "good" may translate to his people living in squaller and his government condoning slavery."

"As this State Department internal memo reveals, the Dalai Lama at one time took $180,000 a year from the CIA for his living expenses. and $1.5 million a year from the spy agency to finance Tibetan guerrilla operations against the Chinese, which included, running a covert guerrilla training center in Colorado."

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

Penn and Teller did a perfect job, as usual.

Here's a new quote from me: Only fools can be fooled.

July 17, 2008
5:29 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

guest_guest,

Jesus was chosen and existed before the creation of the world. He created the man before he became the Dalai Lama.

I know youdon't beleive that, but I had to correct your statement above. 🙂 Not criticism, just correction.

July 17, 2008
5:32 pm
Avatar
on my way
New Member
Members
Forum Posts: -1
Member Since:
September 29, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Also, guest_guest,

Thank you for that insight that you wrote me. That is so true. That is what I struggle with, and I just started a thread in Support about it. See you are a very, very smart person....sometimes I wonder who you really are, because sometimes it seems you play dumb, but then you come out with brilliant advice and thoughts.

We don't agree on alot but I am glad that you are here on AAC! ((((guest_guest))))

July 17, 2008
8:44 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

>> See you are a very, very smart person....sometimes I wonder who you really are, because sometimes it seems you play dumb, but then you come out with brilliant advice and thoughts.

hehe. i wanna see an example of when i was playing dumb! I have actually gone back in the history of AAC and once saw what kinda things I'd been saying when I joined the site. I have those saved. I was a little mouse and it was funny to read what I used to write. But then.. sometimes I've wondered if we ever really change. Maybe I'm still a mouse.

Give me those examples, please, I wanna see :.p. Dont worry about upsetting me. I go here upsetting everyone about Jesus and the Dalai Lama, so its cool.

>> Jesus was chosen and existed before the creation of the world. He created the man before he became the Dalai Lama.

Hehe.. good point. But, I was thinking of how we the non-believers thikn of him. To us he was chosen to be a prophet when he was born or something like that? People saw a star or some sign that he was the "one".

In the case of Dalai Lama too, this guy was chosen to be a Lamah (lame-ah, in my terms) from the age he was 2 years old only, people decided that he was the "one".

Infact this guy is a crook and to use the correct, a sham. You can see it on his face.. really. its amazing how he has been able to attract many gullible people. The fault is their own, not his.

July 17, 2008
8:45 pm
Avatar
guest_guest
Guest
Guests

what is the title of the thread you said you made in support?

Forum Timezone: UTC -8
Most Users Ever Online: 247
Currently Online:
32
Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
onedaythiswillpass: 1134
zarathustra: 562
StronginHim77: 453
free: 433
2013ways: 431
curious64: 408
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 49
Members: 110935
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 8
Forums: 74
Topics: 38542
Posts: 714222
Newest Members:
jessicawales, documentsonline, SafeWork, thomasalina, genericsmartdrugs, 才艺
Moderators: arochaIB: 1, devadmin: 9, Tincho: 0, Donn Gruta: 0, Germain Palacios: 0
Administrators: admin: 21, ShiningLight: 572, emily430: 29

Copyright © 2019 MH Sub I, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Policy | Health Disclaimer