Why

[Loss Leader]

And, as tibetan buddhism tells us, enlightened beings are omniscient, he is also omniscient.

What reason do we have to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is true?

 

[l0rca]

What reason do we have to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is true?

I don't think reason is the key word of his argument. You should be asking, "What feeling do we have..."

(I know, me too.)

 

[KingMerv00]

I choose to believe for the sake of my own sanity that JetLeg is kidding. I don't want to live in a world with people that blinded by faith.

Now, if you'll excuse me I am going to ride out the rest of this thread by hiding under a pile of coats and hoping everything works out fine.

 

[Nosaj]

JetLeg,

I have never been a big fan of being overly dependent upon faith alone. When it comes to most things in my life, I much prefer a healthy combination of critical thinking and confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Such confidence, or faith if you will, is not blind, but a type of confidence that is rooted in understanding. There are obvious dangers with accepting anything on blind faith, especially when we take into consideration how easily we can be manipulated by charismatic individuals.

As the Buddha himself advised, one should (i) spend a great deal of time living with a potential teacher in order to observe their conduct, one should (ii) spend a great deal of time dealing with a potential teacher in order to observe their honesty, one should (iii) spend a great deal of time observing a potential teacher's endurance in regard to dealing with difficult situations, and one should (iv) spend a great deal of time discussing various matters with a potential teacher in order to observe the quality of their discerment (AN 4.192).

Jason

 

[baron]

JetLag, congratulations. You are a superb example of your own premise - someone who doesn't think for themselves.

 

[lionking]

This whole thread brings to mind the Animals song "the Year of the Guru". Look up the lyrics and things may become clearer for all. Respect HH Eric Burden.

 

[lolurigeller]

Why do you need to think about philosophy so much? The answers are given by HH the Dalai Lama!

Factually the Dalai Lama has never advocated blind faith, the only thing i've read is that he might be pointing out that there are metaphysical questions that lie outside the scope of rational inquiry that people routinely try to debate and answer with no resolution.

 

[Foster Zygote]

LOL. Yeah, that's what people need is for someone to do their thinking for them. Gosh, you don't even really need a brain at all!

Indeed.

 

[Molinaro]

I would be ****ed. Totally.

However he isn't. I know. I feel.

Honestly, does anyone think that the Dalai Lama is a fraud?

I think anyone who makes absolute statements about things that cannot be known absolutely are frauds.

 

[joobz]

You said it yourself - following the wrong leader. The problem is that they have not found the right one, not that the follow a leader.


Mao Ze Dong was quite a thinking person. However, he thought too much - and came to wrong, dangerous conclusions. If he wouldn't think too much but would follow the advice of someone really really good and compassionate like the Dalai Lama, it wouldn't happen.

So how are you to decide who is the right or wrong leader if you aren't suppposed to think about it and let someone else decide for you? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which leader you will follow? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which person you will let decide which leader you will follow?

 

[Ysidro]

We should all be molochs, basically; engineers in the dark, as our superior thinkers tell us about the wonderful nirvana ahead of us, if we'd just learn to get over our arrogant questioning of authority.

We should all be near eastern bull gods with really scary sacrificial techniques?

Oh wait, I think you meant 'morlocks.'

This bit of pendantry was brought to you by the Council for A Boring Evening.

Personally, I'm all for letting Katana or Miss Anthrope or Library Lady or someone like that do my thinking for me.

 

[JetLeg]

So how are you to decide who is the right or wrong leader if you aren't suppposed to think about it and let someone else decide for you? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which leader you will follow? How are you to decide without thinking which person you will let decide which person you will let decide which leader you will follow?

Okay, I guess I have to think about that. I should think for some time, decide who is the right leader, and then let him do the work for me.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Okay, I guess I have to think about that. I should think for some time, decide who is the right leader, and then let him do the work for me.

Thinking is a form of exercise. The more you do it the better you get at it. You may even come to enjoy it. But please consider that a lot of people were convinced that Jim Jones was the right leader.

 

[JetLeg]

The real question is: What criteria are you using to determine that the Dalai Lama is the "right" individual to follow?

What criteria would a Chinese person have used at the time to know that Chairman Mao was the "wrong" individual to follow?

And, for the $64,000.00 grand prize, how is the process of determining which individual is "right" different from the process of philosophical thinking in general?

This poses something of a free rider problem. If every single person in the world were to adopt your strategy, there would be nobody left to be "rational, open, curious, skeptical, inquisitive." Everyone would just be wandering around, looking for someone to follow. In order for your advice to work, it is necessary that some people disregard your advice completely.

This raises the question: How should we determine which people should follow your advice and which should not?

After all, you run the risk of having an individual who could be the greatest, most compassionate, most original, most groundbreaking and most revolutionary thinker in the history of the world accidentally take your advice, do no free thinking and contribute nothing to society.

Once again, I repeat myself from before: How do you know that he is compassionate and moral? It would seem that the only way for you to "know" it is for you to have done some philosophical thought of your own. If philosophical thought is required to know whom to follow, then how does your advice that we not do philosophical thinking at all make sense?

If there is someone who is enlightened and infallible, who became this way due to the use of reason (independant thinking) and morality, then everybody might follow him. The freerider problem is not real, because when one is through the enlightment door, the others can follow safely, and they will know the answers without applying critical thinking. He is infallible, so if everyone will follow him, they will become smart too. You do have to be sure you select the right person, though.



But I agree that selecting the right person is part of the philosophic process in general. Do you agree though, that the philosophic process can end somewhere, where it comes to the conclusion that a certain man \ being is enlightened & unfallible, and then stop the philosophic process? Borrowing a buddhist metaphor from a different context, one's own thinking will be like a boat to pass the river, to meet the perfect authority, but when the river is passed, and the authority is met, what is the need for the boat?


As to the specific criteria that I use to say that HH the Dalai Lama is the one, first I read the dialogues of him and the scientists published by "Mind and Life", and he is one of the most critical, skeptical and open minded people I have ever read about. Second, he got a great education in the monastery, with lots of critical debate that is a characteristic of tibetan buddhism. Third, he had some ideas that made lots of sense to me, which I have not heard from western philosophers.

As to morality, the chinese have brutally opressed his nation, and drove him from home.Yet he says he has no hatred at all towards them (I am too young a user to post URLs, so you can google dalai lama + victor chan ). It is not that he has hatred but does not act it out, like we normal people would. He does not have that negative feeling at all! Which is explained in buddhist scriptures as being the cause of realizing emptyness from inherent existance, and becoming omniscient, therefore is also omniscient.

Do you think they are good reasons?

 

[JetLeg]

Thinking is a form of exercise. The more you do it the better you get at it. You may even come to enjoy it. But please consider that a lot of people were convinced that Jim Jones was the right leader.

If some people were convinced that Jim Jones was the right leader, and they were wrong, it does not follow that there cannot be a right leader...

 

[JetLeg]

What reason do we have to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is true?

How else can you explain the Dalai Lama's extraordinary personality other than realizing emptyness of inherent existance, and becoming enlightened due to the truth of tibetan buddhism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?

 

[Complexity]

Right, but thinking is hard and confusing. Instead of doing that, you can just trust someone reliable, and rely on him.

No one is that reliable.

I'll continue to think for myself.

Shame on you for abdicating your birthright.

 

[Nosaj]

JetLeg,

How else can you explain the Dalai Lama's extraordinary personality other than realizing emptyness of inherent existance, and becoming enlightened due to the truth of tibetan buddhism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?

This line of reasoning seems rather shallow to me. By this logic, we could then conclude that someone like Bill Clinton has realized shunyata, as well as enlightenment, due to his extraordinary personality, charisma, and subsequent popularity.

Jason

 

[TuftedPuffin]

How else can you explain the Dalai Lama's extraordinary personality other than realizing emptyness of inherent existance, and becoming enlightened due to the truth of tibetan buddhism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?

How else can you explain Gandhi's extraordinary personality other than realizing the union of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma and becoming enlightened due to the truth of Hinduism? Honestly - do you have another explanation?

Dalai Lamas are a dime a dozen, especially when your rules for who's a Lama are based on what they write in books and say in interviews. The Lama act is common (even if it isn't an act, that personality is common). What makes the Dalai Lama better than, say, Gandhi? Or Tolstoy? Or Jesus?

 

[JetLeg]

No one is that reliable.

I'll continue to think for myself.

Shame on you for abdicating your birthright.

Complexity, I appreciate your point of view, but you just assert it. How can you be sure that no one is that reliable?