Posted on 05/31/2010 8:39:18 AM PDT by SteveH
DHARMSALA, India (AP) — The question looms over this raggedy hillside town, a place where ancient mysticism constantly brushes against the realities of modern geopolitics. The monks who fled across the Himalayas ask it quietly, as do the exile politicians. Even the angry young activists are careful how they raise the issue.
But as the man at the center of the Tibetan exile movement approaches his 75th birthday, the question has become impossible to escape: What happens after the Dalai Lama dies?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The Dalai Lama on Thursday declared that he is still a Marxist in spirit who condemns capitalism as a system whose main goal is "how to make profit."
Marxism has "the only economy system expressing concern of equal distribution (of wealth); that is moral ethics," the Tibetan Buddhist leader told a news conference at the start of a four-day New York visit.
The 74-year-old Nobel Peace Prize winner spoke minutes before his afternoon teaching session at Radio City Music Hall on the stage that hosts the dancing Rockettes every Christmas.
Tickets for each of six such sessions - two a day starting Thursday morning - sold for $20 to $60 apiece. But several Internet sites were reselling them at prices nearing $700.
“This guy is pro-democratic”
In an article posting here last week, he called himself a marxist.
Absolutely nothing. His people and their culture will still be repressed by China and his pacifism will have done absolutely nothing to prevent that.
Total. Total. Get it right.
He will go to Marxist heaven and play checkers with Karl.
Your right, I met him, darn good guy, my comment was meant in fun in a way I felt would give him a chuckle, he liked to laugh.
The “nice guy” called himself a “Marxist” - where you been?
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend’s were.
Each man’s death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne
Per Wikipedia:
Social stances
The Dalai Lama endorsed the founding of the Dalai Lama Foundation in order to promote peace and ethics worldwide. The Dalai Lama is not involved operationally with this foundation, though he suggests some general direction and his office is routinely briefed on its activities.[67] He has also stated his belief that modern scientific findings take precedence over ancient religions.[68][69]
Democracy, non-violence, religious harmony and Tibet’s relationship with India
The Dalai Lama says that he is active in spreading India’s message of non-violence and religious harmony throughout the world “I am the messenger of India’s ancient thoughts world over”, he said democracy was deep rooted in India. He says he considers India as a master and Tibet its disciple as great scholars like Nagarjuna went from Nalanda to Tibet to preach Buddhism in the eighth century. He says millions of people had lost their lives in violence and economy of many a countries got ruined due to conflicts in the 20th century “Let the 21st century be a century of tolerance and dialogue.”[70]
Abortion
The Dalai Lama reminds that according to Buddhist precepts abortion is an act of killing,[71] although he has taken a nuanced position, as he explained to the New York Times:
Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.[72]
Economics
The Dalai Lama wrote the following thoughts on economic systems:
Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is, the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a paper where His Holiness the Pope Benedict XVI also pointed out some positive aspects of Marxism (though disapproving of it on the whole).
As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the Workers’ International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have occurred.
I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is not much left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the detriment of compassion.
The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.[73]
He’s a Marxist who is pro-abortion.
"Cheers, here's hoping the pred'jew'dice grindstone noser's don't pile on me now for enjoying the company of another honest to goodness human bean."
I have beer: one less hypocrite in the world.
He said he was a marxist himself. Are you calling him a liar?
You do realize that the Dalai Lama considers himself a marxist? I mean, he calls himself that. Does that make him evil?
Moron.
Probably nothing this time around, because this one swears he is a Godless Marxist. But that is just this peasant’s opinion.
He calls himself a Marxist. Go chew him out about being one.
All while preaching a religion of non-attachment through lectures and regurgitating the writings of better men before him.
I don't fall for the shtick and I'm the moron?
lol. Whatever, sucker.
He’s new. He may be unaware that this site is not pro-Marxist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.