He was 15 years old when he was given full power, and at this point China had already invaded. What he "inherited" with his position is irrelevant to him as a person.
That said, feudal Tibet was not a great place to be a serf.
Perhaps you should give the article at least a cursory glance, as this question is addressed in the opening paragraph.
"I suspect that our voracious appetite for the daily routines of cultural icons is fueled by a deep yearning to glean some insight on and practical help with this impossible balancing act, from people who seem to have mastered it well enough to lead happy, productive, creatively fruitful, and altogether remarkable lives."
Yes, I read that, but I don't have any particular reason to think the Dali Lama would provide insight. Should I?
Right now I hold him somewhat (perhaps unfairly which is why I'm asking) in the same regard as Deepak Chopra. Deepak often provides "deepities," things that may sound profound, but are intellectually hollow.
Very unfair comparison. Chopra is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit, whereas the Dalai Lama has notably stated that “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
I know I'm getting downvoted here, but I don't think I'm being unfair, @Panoramix. Yes, I'm also aware of his statements with regards to science trumping religion. That's a much better position than other religious leaders. Kudos.
But in the meantime, he thinks I should believe stuff unsupported by evidence. Going back to the Pope. If he had made a similar statement as the Dali Lama, that would be a huge step forward, but it doesn't mean I'm going to spend a long time contemplating the "mystery" of the Trinity, even if science can't definitively debunk God. See what I mean?
I'll ask it again, again earnestly. Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to know. I have not read the Dali Lama's writings. What is so good about them? Right now I think of the Dali Lama as someone famous for being "wise" in a generic sense. He loves talking about compassion. That's great. But that doesn't answer my questions. I am curious for the answers and certainly can be swayed to believe he might have great insights I should pay attention to, but as I said, I haven't read him, and haven't encountered anything in popular culture to make me think that's the case. Present some reasons, please.
Somehow you have jumped from asking why you should care about his daily routine into why you should care about his beliefs. Those are different questions, with different answers.
People have given you reasonable answers to the first question. Take them or leave them. This string of responses telling everyone that the answers still aren't good enough and demanding more... it is making me ask a new question -- why we should care whether you appreciate the Dalai Lama or not?
> Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to?
That is the whole point.
If you do not share his spiritual beliefs, then you should not care any more or less than any other public person of similar standing. Others have pointed about the worldly achievements of this guy, so... let's say. You should care about as much about him as about any other Nobel laureate.
Now, if you happen to care about him (or the Pope) less than other more secular Nobel laureates... there is a bias you should acknowledge. Not to say that you should not be biased, but you owe to yourself to at least be honest and know why you feel the guy is pointless.
I don't think anyone suggested everybody should or should not care or should or should not believe. It is not a question of need to care but rather one of want to. I also do not subscribe to Buddhism and I am also almost not practicing at all the religion I deeply believe into. Some spiritual discoveries started with turbulent anxious indifference, subsisted by confrontational curiosity.
The thing is, the basis on meaning in your life is always stuff unsupported by evidence in the scientific sense of the word. You're not going to get very far with reasoning if you can't see the black hole of logical positivism. (My favorite quote from philosophical logic, "self referentially incoherent".)
The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it.
Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.
>> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion."
Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim.
>> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO."
Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
>>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim.
Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
"It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
Theories can change. That is the nature of science, peer review and new observations. When the science on heliocentricity was developed, religion tried to warp reality as we know it and shove Galileo under a rug. Inevitably, reality won out, but not without cost. See famous story below:
>The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it.
So does science.
>Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion.
That's a gross simplification. See: Ptolemy and Nicolaus Copernicus.
It was actually "common knowledge" in the scientific community that the Earth was the center of the universe. The popularized issue between Galileo and the Catholic Church (and not just "religion") was largely political. The Catholic Church, to retain power, could not be wrong about anything. If they had been teaching (with scientific backing even!) that the Earth was the center of the universe. That was how it must be.
Galileo wanted to educated people outside of the scientific community that the Earth was not the center. So he had to be silenced, else the Church would be wrong and may lose power.
As early as 300~ B.C.E , there is a reference from Archemedes' book "The Sand Reckoner" of a heliocentric system described by Aristarchus of Samos. [0]
Buddhism is as close to a science as anything that could be described by anyone as a religion can get. It's really an experiment that you choose to perform on yourself, and your objective reality. What you find is precisely the point of it.
There's no reincarnation in Buddhism, only rebirth.
And rebirth happens to you right now when your consciousness arises again and again from previous states of your mind.
Yes, there's also a "fantastic" theory that this process goes beyond physical death but this theory is supported by simple logic of buddhist philosophy.
Science is not an absolute knowledge. It has many unproved theories and makes mistakes on a regular basis.
(Please note that my world view is purely scientific but I'm using buddhist ideas for looking into my consciousness because science doesn't say much about it.)
This is, in my opinion, the correct interpretation of "reincarnation". It's the realisation that your experience (and you!) is changing moment-to-moment, never constant. Being that the self is inconstant, what is self and what is not self can be sorted out. Going beyond that to imply a continuity of the "same" "individual" consciousness after a birth is not the point being made.
If you're misinterpreting the concept of reincarnation (the popular meaning of "karma" is just as confused) that badly, it's clear that you haven't looked at the basics of Buddhism. Generally begins with something aptly labeled the "Four Noble Truths". To "choose" to falsify these is ignorance, (the default starting point for everyone born) and subsequently realising that it cannot be done, is the experiment you must do on yourself. There is no one else who can write it down for you to read and then think about it once over and to "get" it like a math theorem is not what you should be expecting. This is more and more obvious once you take a look at the the substantial buddhist writings; all of it is entirely based in solid logical thinking, yet where it points is not a place where logic can go.
To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
>To clarify, reincarnation in this context is happening dozens of times every second. So then, "you" don't really last all that long, and there really isn't a constant "you" anyway. And what happens in-between those beats? Ah, look into -that-.
Has the alternative been falsified by evidence? Has this process been observed? As complex/beautiful/philosophical/metaphysical as a concept is, it is not Science unless it can be experimentally verified. One can just as easily say that reincarnation is bullshit, and you can't prove otherwise unless you have no evidence.
Science and logic are related but they mean different things. Science requires evidence for falsifiability. Deduction and proof are the domain of logic, not science.
You're acting like a child who keeps asking "why?" to every statement. Don't stay hung up on "is my idea of reincarnation real, or not?" - because that is just a concept. What's the difference between two trees? What did you bring with you when you were born? Whose mind would be reincarnated? There is no mind - the concept of a mind exists; and there are brains. Science is a concept. Religion is a concept. I never equated them, because what I am describing is not a concept: reality itself is not a concept. Your either/or viewpoint will get you nowhere in these matters: there is no alternative - it is both, and neither; non-dual. I'm telling you that the starting point for this experiment is to look at reality closely, without trying to complicate it by saying it must be this and not be that. It is what it is.
Of course, this makes no sense, because I can't make that step for you. It could take minutes, or years, to get the point. Be instead like the child who sees the order in clouds without labeling them as seeming to be this or that as they move across the sky. The experiment is experiential to the individual; do these things, and expect this result to inevitably occur. Do not these things, and it will not occur. Thousands of years of the same results, and yet you ask for evidence to be produced by others instead of yourself.
Don't misconstrue this as a personal failing - everyone starts from the same confusing position you are expressing. That each individual must overcome this futile attempt at reasoning and thinking their way to liberation is only a problem when you are determined to solve the problem in that way.
Look. Spin a pen or shoot a basket until it can be done without effort or thought - who is it that has learned this? Motor memory, brains dissected and labeled; etc., but all that is useless towards learning or doing. Would it ever be the same to describe how these actions are done with words as it is to do them without words or thoughts? I can spin a pen skillfully for a long time with the simple directive of "don't drop it", and my fingers do it for me. Over time, they avoid actions that did not lead to the desired outcome, moment to moment. When that brain that has learned that action has been dissolved, who would expect it to be innate in a new being? Yet the knowledge of how to do this thing was never mine; it is available to all to use.
Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN. There are other places on the internet to conduct generic polemics against religion. Please don't do it here.
He's a Nobel Peace Laureate and recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. He's been meditating on compassion and the self for several hours a day for 77 years (since he was 2), almost 200,000 hours of meditation. He's authored over 50 books. And he's a very charismatic, joyful, warm spirit--I saw him speak and I can see why many want to learn from and emulate him.
But I guess that's a question you can ask of any posting on HN, "why should I care about so-and-so's opinion, daily routine, life, etc?" So perhaps the burden is on the person asking to question to say why we shouldn't care.
Also, I would say that the Dalai Lama's teachings aren't meant to be intellectually rich. He does have a high regard for science, but I wouldn't say his teachings are intellectual. They are practical and meant to help you observe the world without the intellect.
Thank you. Somebody willing to work at answering the question. Those are some possible reasons. Not good enough for me in this case, but definitely worth pointing out.
I've seen him in person too. Yes, charismatic. I don't think it is my burden to say that you shouldn't, because it is fine with me that you do care. Obviously lots of people care about him. The whole point of my questioning is to get at, "why?" I don't know and so I ask the question. Really, no other motive. He seems to transcend and earn respect from people outside of his religion in a way that other spiritual leaders do not. I want to understand that.
I think it mostly has to do with Buddhism being seen by the majority of people, especially in the western world, as an oriental philosophy and less as a religion like Christianity or Islam. So people outside of Buddhism feel sympathetic to the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in general, in a way that, for instance, an Islamic does not feel for the Pope.
It also helps that his messages are in general agreeable. The whole peace and meditation and good-will stuff has a very low potential for controversy.
EDIT: Also let me add that I don't see why you are being buried. You aren't being disrespectful or rude or in anyway breaking the guidelines by asking these questions. You even stated in the first post that you if you came across as snarky it wasn't intended.
Look at the word. Where do you think insight comes from? Not from another. The words are only there to go as far as words can take this insight - only pointing in the direction, leaving it for you to follow. I mean this genuinely: for you to be asking this question is to say you are still stuck considering the merits of beginning in that direction. From that position, there is nothing to do but to begin. What he is doing is beyond what intellect is capable not because of one or the other being inferior, but because it goes where intellect cannot. My takeaway from this is to start getting up earlier and meditating for a solid block of time each day - when I was unemployed, it was easy to do it whenever, any time of the day.
If you were an athlete, you would care to learn about the routines of other athletes. You may not play the same sport, but you care how they train.
Similarly, if you are an intellectual, you would care to learn about the routines of other intellectuals. You may not hold the same beliefs, but you care how they train.
Why should you care about the routines of anyone who achieved greatness?
Even if you don't agree with the Pope's religion, you can admire his work ethic/drive/charisma/etc. to become the head of an organization with a billion members.
Similarly, the Dalai Lama has won a Nobel Peace Prize, congressional gold medal (highest civilian honor), honorary citizenships and doctorates. Nobody's forcing you to pay attention to someone extraordinary.
I actually wanted to see his daily routine. But the narrative ended at 9:00 AM. He gets up early and meditates for hours. (impressive). And he listens to the news at some unspecified time (so what?). Where's the rest of the routine?
This article feels good to read, but I have my doubts about it's actual utility. Most profoundly, he leaves the question unanswered about what the Dalai Lama actually does with the information he consumes. How does he act on it? Does he ever seek to contact someone that he reads about? Does it inspire writing about compassion? Does he ever get angry about the things that he reads, or sad? Does he get overwhelmed or frustrated?
Didn't realise the Dalai Lama was a controversial figure just judging from some of the early comments here he is. Why? Is this a silly 'religion/mysticism vs. science' thing or is there more to it?
One bad Buddhist clergyman doesn't mean they are all like that.
Analogically, there are both "good" and "bad" clergymen in catholism, protestantism, [insert your religion/beliefs here], but that doesn't mean they are all like that.
Not one bad apple here. We're talking about a good deal of rotten apples. Check out the BBS movement in Sri Lanka and its incendiary politics under the leadership of monk Gnanasara Thero.
The marketing hype and propaganda surrounding everything in Buddhism like it's the most peaceful religion out there and their clergymen are the pinnacle of tolerance, inclusion and forgiveness is the reason behind my reaction and unfavorable views.
I used to think that Buddhism is a peaceful religion but after I learned of all these nutjob monks, I changed my mind and accepted the fact that all religions are at best ridiculous or at worst repulsive.
He is primarily a political leader, in exile from China. People like him because:
- they care about religious/political freedom
- he's an underdog, and his enemy is a notoriously authoritarian government
I don't think he is a controversial figure in the US. But his political advocacy is not supported by everyone in rest of the world, and his reputation is probably more notorious if you talk to people on China's side.
There are two things that you might be seeing. One is the 'religion/mysticism vs. science/engineering' argument. The other is that many Chinese nationalists see positive comments about the Dalai Lama as a cover for anit-China sentiment. In their minds, anything pro-Dalai Lama is proof that Chinas enemies are conducting a smear campaign agains China.
Hey China, you know that nation you invaded and subjugated?
Well, they didn't like that.
If you would do something to reverse those actions, they would appreciate it.
Well, imagine that Utah wanted to secede and form an independent Mormon theocracy in the middle of the USA. How do you think the US would respond if the Mormon government ignored any law or court ruling against them, and went ahead with establishing their state?
The condition of the Dalai Lama and Buddhist Tibet is analogous to this hypothetical situation in many ways, yet I find it hard to imagine that the world would rally around the exiled Mormon leaders and hail them as heroes. The biggest difference here is that the government of China is an authoritarian regime, but that fact notwithstanding, it still has autonomy within its own borders.
> The popularly endorsed government of Utah was not violently overthrown by the US.
...but if you're interested in seeing how something like that might play out, you can take a look at the Southern Victory series by Harry Turtledove :D
> * The Dalai Lama doesn't want to form a theocracy.
He claims to be the leader of the legitimate government of Tibet, whose return to power he has made his goal. He is a monarch, appointed by religious rituals. He holds simultaneously the highest religious and political offices of his people. In what way is he not a theocratic leader?
> * The popularly endorsed government of Utah was not violently overthrown by the US.
Were it to make serious motions towards secession, that would undoubtedly be the result.
> * The Dalai Lama doesn't want Tibet to secede from China, he just wants it to have more regional autonomy.
Yes, today this is true. He now advocates for a "Third Way" which allows for cultural preservation of the Tibetan people while recognizing Chinese sovereignty. This has not always been his position, and it was not for most of his exile.
> He holds simultaneously the highest religious and political offices of his people.
No, he doesn't. Since 1959 the government is exile has had a prime-minister/Sikyong/Kalon-Tripa[1]; since 2001 it's been an elected office; and since 2011 it has been the government in exiles most powerful political office.
They went form feudalism to a constitutional democracy with a titular monarch in less than 60 years. If nothing else about the Dalai Lama were impressive, overseeing that transition alone would be.
Tibet's relation to China is nothing like Utah and the US. Why would you get that idea? Utah was a US territory after the Guadalupe treaty with Mexico in 1848. After it became a US territory, mormons were encouraged to settle into Utah with the full backing of the US government. Tibet has existed as an independent kingdom for various times in the history of China/Tibet. Very recently, tibet had defacto independence before it was annexed by the communist party in 1951.
Edit: To give you some perspective, here is a gif showing all the Chinese empires since the Warring states (350 BC).
> tibet had defacto independence before it was annexed by the communist party in 1951.
Tibet was struggling to gain any sort of international recognition and was, as you say, independent de facto and not de jure. They were about as independent as the Principality of Sealand. In 1906 Great Britain and China signed the Convention Between Great Britain and China Respecting Tibet, which recognized China's sovereignty over the region. The brief period during which the de facto independence existed was during the Chinese civil war, when the Tibetans took advantage of that situation and agitated for independence. Nothing ever became of that effort, because the formation of a new state requires international recognition.
The list of treaties recognizing China's authority over Tibet goes on, whereas there exists a distinct lack of anything resembling international recognition for the existence of an independent Tibet.
So that's why I have the idea that Tibet is a province, subordinate to the central Chinese government.
Even in the best case (for China), the Chinese had suzerain rights over Tibet according to the convention. That is not at all the same as Utah and the US.
Also, being an independent kingdom with antiquity Tibet has a right to challenge status quo based on history, which again is nothing like Utah/Mormons and the US since there was no Mormom state prior to it being a US territory.
The Dalai Lama -- and the Tibetan government in exile -- are in Dharamsala, India which is GMT + 5 1/2. He hasn't set foot in Tibet since his exile in 1959.
EDIT: If he were in Lhasa, the sunrise today was at 6:55 AM so he'd be up almost 3.5 hours before sunrise. In Dharamsala the sun rises at 5:17 AM, so he gets up only 1:45 before sunrise.
That is one of the best non tech articles I have seen on HN this year. Personally I think the Dalai Lama is the real deal, someone who has compassion for everyone.
reply