Tibet, China and the Olympics

IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.     BTW Bhutan's king is quite a progressive guy from what I hear. The man insisted on becoming a constitutional monarch and installed a parliament some 10 years ago. That doesn't affect human rights in Bhutan in any way, of course

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Other buddhist absolute Monarchies like Bhutan, Sikkim (part of India) and some provincies of Nepal are not much better in terms of human rights as Tibet of the 40's or today's China.     BTW Bhutan's king is quite a progressive guy from what I hear. The man insisted on becoming a constitutional monarch and installed a parliament some 10 years ago. That doesn't affect human rights in Bhutan in any way, of course   Didn't they just have "elections" that ranked among the worst mascarades ever seen??? I think that even Saddam and Stalin played the game more respectfully!!!

Alright, I don't follow the politics of Bhutan closely and don't know much about their "elections." Put that "progressive" in quotes too - "PROGRESSIVE" - fine with me.

Let's see ... We got Russia out of Afghanistan, the U.S. got tit for tatted in L.A. , and no one has yet to explain why the billions governments spend on Olympic facilities (not to mention the usual & never forecast cost overruns) are of any benefit that would exceed the good that could be done in other projects.
Amateurs competing for ancilliry monetary rewards (sponsorships, advertising deals, gov't financial support etc ...); bloated bureaucracies enjoying the gold seat perks of power, while bemoaning athletes using any means necessary to achieve the top, all the while knowing that the major nations (hello America/Russia/China) will do all they can to hide/avoid/deny any positive tests.
The ultimate reality is that Tibetans would have to show themselves willing to commit mass suicide (with Chinese help of course) rather than endure Chinese tyranny.
Now if only Tibet was under Cuba's thumb, then you'd see the good ol' U.S. of A. kick some communist butt. And you know why ... 'cause you never pick on a power that can nuke you back.
If anything, we in the western world could boycott any & all products that buy advertising or sponsor these Olympics. And let them know it. money talks, eh.
Whoops, I forgot to take my meds. Oh Well, back to reality

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:   You put words into my mouth. I specifically used the word "tilt" to emphasize that I've got it. Your "Far away from me the idea of supporting China " was pretty clear. That was me who sided with you - rare occasion. Even the parallel with the Vietnamese in Cambodia was legit.   As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.   THe entire situation in Tibet is used as a counterbalance to China - the West supports the Dalai Lama and the separatist movement, etc. but no Western power has no interest in Tibetan feudalism and standard of living. Neither do the Chinese or anybody else for this matter. Even if they brought the XX century there, the change was miniscule, nothing to celebrate. One opressor replaced the other. So the Dalai Lama might very well stay in charge, what's the difference?   Sorry for misreading you!!     Ain't that the truth

You're not sarcastic, aren't you? Bet you, if the Chinese REALLY open their country to free trade and begin playing by the rules with their currency by letting it float, there will be much less talk about Tibet as well as much less appearances of the Dalai Lama on TV.

Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote: Sean Trane wrote: IVNORD wrote:   You put words into my mouth. I specifically used the word "tilt" to emphasize that I've got it. Your "Far away from me the idea of supporting China " was pretty clear. That was me who sided with you - rare occasion. Even the parallel with the Vietnamese in Cambodia was legit.   As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.   THe entire situation in Tibet is used as a counterbalance to China - the West supports the Dalai Lama and the separatist movement, etc. but no Western power has no interest in Tibetan feudalism and standard of living. Neither do the Chinese or anybody else for this matter. Even if they brought the XX century there, the change was miniscule, nothing to celebrate. One opressor replaced the other. So the Dalai Lama might very well stay in charge, what's the difference?   Sorry for misreading you!!     Ain't that the truth     You're not sarcastic, aren't you? Bet you, if the Chinese REALLY open their country to free trade and begin playing by the rules with their currency by letting it float, there will be much less talk about Tibet as well as much less appearances of the Dalai Lama on TV.   As far as I can read from your posts, we agree very much on these issues.   Of course, part of the problem is really full accessibility of the Chinese market, but we should not underestimate their resistance and xenophobia (the Hans are extremely xenophobic). Even if they do open up completely, the average Chinese will buy Chinese.

It's just a matter of time. So far they drink Coca Cola and smoke Camel. Consumerism always wins. And the new generation is pretty much open-minded.

Shakespeare wrote: IVNORD wrote:   As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.   It's not a religion.

 

Sean Trane wrote: Shakespeare wrote: IVNORD wrote:   As any religion, Buddhism is a well-established business. Ever wonder what the sources of income of the Dalai Lama are? There's no question it's a religion. The claim to its philosophical status is to reassure its followers of their sophistication as if they not merely follow a religion but a philosophy.   It's not a religion.     I see monks, prayers, monastries, shrimnes etc....

  ... temples and idols to worship... Do you have to pay membership fees when you join a congregation? Just curious

Visitor13 wrote: Buddhism is a religion, for reasons already stated. To illustrate the point further - in early medieval Japan there was a very strong Buddhist movement centered around the figure of a Buddhist saint called Amida. Basically some monks discovered a passage in one of the holy texts claiming that before he died, Amida said he would come back to save all beings. His followers decided that their efforts to clear their karma were useless and that their only hope was total and unquestioned belief in the saving power of Amida. Other Buddhist schools of thought were frowned upon. Sounds somehow familiar, doesn't it?

Going off the original topic:
Amida, or Amitabha as I know him, in the Pure Land sect of Buddhism, in countless ages past was a bodhisattva who swore never to become a Buddha. And if he did, then any man who says his name will be guaranteed eternal life. And Amida did become a Buddha, and therefore saying his name promises the sayer eternal life. That seems to be a very religious-like promise. But the reason behind this is the following philosophy: because man's karma is so bad, if you were to try to do something to earn eternal life, that would be spiritual pride and done through selfish motifs, and wouldn't affect your deliverance. You have to just take it as a gift from Amitabha and do the absurd thing of saying Amidabha's name. Merely saying it once will guarantee you eternal life. The reason: you don't need to do anything to grant yourself eternal life, to save yourself, because you are saved. As Alan Watts says: popularly, Amitabha is something else; someone else. But esoterically he is your nature, and the foundation of you. Therefore, you don't need to do anything to be that, for you are that. You don't have to do a thing to justify yourself.

The reason I don't think this is at all a religion is that the definition of a religion is a set of rules to live ones life by, and here there are no real rules here, it's merely an idea and a belief. The only rule of it is that you mustn't do a thing to justify not justifying yourself, because that returns to spiritual pride. But, again, that goes hand-in-hand with the philosophy of the whole thing.

But all that's just Pure Land Buddhism, I was actually thinking of Zen Buddhism which is nothing at all like a religion, it's just eastern psychotherapy.

All of 2, 3 and 4. I doubt it would help Tibet at all (if not perhaps make things worse). I think that giving China the Olympics was, for other reasons, a good idea, and the beginning of really engaging with the country.  I also prefer sports and show taking precedence over politics where it's appropriate, rather than in the general news.

As much as I support the movement for Tibet's freedom, I still don't think you should mix sports and politics.