Why Tibet?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:03 am

It's one of the few issues involving Buddhists that bothers me.

They teach that one should avoid attachment to anything in the physical world yet, for some reason, they desperately want Tibet back. It's just a piece of land.

Numerous countries, including the one they are currently residing in, are willing to grant them asylum. It seems to me that they are allowing attachment to a specific piece of land. Is there something they aren't telling us?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:43 am

There are Buddhists all over the place. the ones from tibet would like to go home it's not the same as the jews and israel. It originated in india not Tibet.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:47 am

gmc;1266762 wrote: There are Buddhists all over the place. the ones from tibet would like to go home it's not the same as the jews and israel. It originated in india not Tibet.

Sounds like a nice, simple answer but if they have no attachments then "home" is wherever they are.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:01 am

koan;1266765 wrote: Sounds like a nice, simple answer but if they have no attachments then "home" is wherever they are.

True but why shouldn't a Buddhist feel homesick? They didn't flee rather than leave from choice and the chinese are gradually supplanting the indigenous population another generation or so and it will be as if Tibet never existed. It's easy to forget china is made up of many different nations/tribes we have different hair and eye colour to help remind us there were once separate peoples throughout europe that now think of themselves as british.german/french.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:14 am

gmc;1266769 wrote: True but why shouldn't a Buddhist feel homesick? They didn't flee rather than leave from choice and the chinese are gradually supplanting the indigenous population another generation or so and it will be as if Tibet never existed. It's easy to forget china is made up of many different nations/tribes we have different hair and eye colour to help remind us there were once separate peoples throughout europe that now think of themselves as british.german/french.

They shouldn't feel homesick because they shouldn't have attachment to a specific place.

They believe everything is an illusion and transitory, it's why they wipe away the sand when done a sand mandala. It is a loss to the rest of the world that we can't go be tourists in Tibet to see the way it was but if it is gone forever it would just reaffirm what they already believe.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:25 pm

Perhaps even Buddhists are survivalists.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:11 pm

Robert J;1266836 wrote: Perhaps even Buddhists are survivalists.

No. Buddhists are all about dying but they want to not have to come back.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:21 am

koan;1266943 wrote: No. Buddhists are all about dying but they want to not have to come back.Looks like actions speak louder than words. Being survivalists may be in our genes and being Buddhist or whatever else may be in our heads.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:27 pm

I've sent the query to The Office of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Hopefully they will have the opportunity to answer my question.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:33 pm

Do you think Buddhism can thrive without any reference point? I don't know anything about it really.

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 pm

Robert J;1268301 wrote: Do you think Buddhism can thrive without any reference point? I don't know anything about it really.

I'm not sure what you mean by reference point.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:40 pm

koan;1268302 wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by reference point.Well in order for a practice or ideal to remain current and relevant it usually needs a point of reference or something for potential subscribers(?) to look to. If there is no reference point then how will it be passed on for any worthwhile length of time rather than fade away?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:48 pm

Robert J;1268305 wrote: Well in order for a practice or ideal to remain current and relevant it usually needs a point of reference or something for potential subscribers(?) to look to. If there is no reference point then how will it be passed on for any worthwhile length of time rather than fade away?

Tibetan Buddhism is one type of Buddhism.

It will continue whether they live in Tibet or not. There is a large body of literature that documents their beliefs and Buddhist Temples all over the world.

Is there another type of reference point that you are intending? They certainly don't need a cause to fight for in order to continue Buddhist practices.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:57 pm

koan;1268314 wrote: Tibetan Buddhism is one type of Buddhism.

It will continue whether they live in Tibet or not. There is a large body of literature that documents their beliefs and Buddhist Temples all over the world.

Is there another type of reference point that you are intending? They certainly don't need a cause to fight for in order to continue Buddhist practices.Forgive my ignorance! To keep it short I'm thinking of it as a religion, is that not correct?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:59 pm

Robert J;1268317 wrote: Forgive my ignorance! To keep it short I'm thinking of it as a religion, is that not correct?

Some people say it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. I consider it to be a religion.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:14 pm

koan;1268319 wrote: Some people say it isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. I consider it to be a religion.So then comparing Buddhism to say the Catholic religion would be fair?

If so, then wouldn't it be normal to have a home base? Religions usually have one while philosophy thrives on passing down an intellectual viewpoint (that's at least how I see it).

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:23 pm

Robert J;1268326 wrote: So then comparing Buddhism to say the Catholic religion would be fair?
Most certainly they can be compared. I'd be surprised if you find that much in common though, regarding the institutional aspects, though there are similarities regarding how they feel people should treat each other. Joseph Campbell dedicated his life's work to pointing out the similarities between all religions. Wonderful work.

If so, then wouldn't it be normal to have a home base? Religions usually have one while philosophy thrives on passing down an intellectual viewpoint (that's at least how I see it).
According to my understanding it shouldn't need a home base, especially now that we have the internet.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:33 pm

koan;1268329 wrote: Most certainly they can be compared. I'd be surprised if you find that much in common though, regarding the institutional aspects, though there are similarities regarding how they feel people should treat each other. Joseph Campbell dedicated his life's work to pointing out the similarities between all religions. Wonderful work.

According to my understanding it shouldn't need a home base, especially now that we have the internet.Didn't think of the internet, that's a good point. But even the internet would be a replacement for Tibet, only virtual. Where would people go to actually meet the Dahli Lama?

I've read some of Campbell's work years ago (Hero with a Thousand Faces). Smart fella. Did you know he was an advisor for the characters in the Star Wars series before passing away?

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 9:00 pm

The Tibetans want their country back. That is simple enough.

The Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibet. He is also Buddhist.

So, in a move of solidarity with his Holiness The Dalai lama, many Buddhist declare the desire for a free Tibet.

What His Holiness has to say on the matter:

Dalai Lama: Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:14 pm

LarsMac;1268376 wrote: The Tibetans want their country back. That is simple enough.

The Dalai Lama is the leader of Tibet. He is also Buddhist.

So, in a move of solidarity with his Holiness The Dalai lama, many Buddhist declare the desire for a free Tibet.

What His Holiness has to say on the matter:

Dalai Lama: Tibet Wants Autonomy, Not Independence

I'm aware of that.

It still doesn't address the issue of non-attachment.

Buddhism teaches that the world is an illusion, everything is transitory and it brings suffering to be attached to anything. I find it odd that a person who believes all that would be involved in arguing over a piece of land. I also find it hard to believe that being the leader of Tibet takes precedence over being the leader of Tibetan Buddhism.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:33 pm

koan;1268389 wrote: I'm aware of that.

It still doesn't address the issue of non-attachment.

Buddhism teaches that the world is an illusion, everything is transitory and it brings suffering to be attached to anything. I find it odd that a person who believes all that would be involved in arguing over a piece of land. I also find it hard to believe that being the leader of Tibet takes precedence over being the leader of Tibetan Buddhism.

Well, like any religious notion, humans manage to screw it up by confusing the principles of the idea with the human ideals.

You are hoping to get a Buddhist to debate the idea?

I think that by the time one thinks about this enough to prepare for a debate, he or she will realize the correctness of what you say and move on.

Unless, of course, they are completely attached to the idea of liberating Tibet.

Then, they are probably not really Buddhists.

Nomad · Post by **Nomad** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:20 pm

Seems to me Tibetans use all sorts of physical symbols that represent their beliefs. Why use visual symbols if they are meaningless?

Also it occurs to me that they may need their home because Everest is their primary source of income. (I think it is)

They have websites, sell hand made goods world wide. For profit of course.

Would their goods be as interesting to consumers if it werent for the infamy and mysterious allure of Everest?

Tibetan Symbolism

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:34 pm

Nomad;1272351 wrote: Seems to me Tibetans use all sorts of physical symbols that represent their beliefs. Why use visual symbols if they are meaningless?

Also it occurs to me that they may need their home because Everest is their primary source of income. (I think it is)

They have websites, sell hand made goods world wide. For profit of course.

Would their goods be as interesting to consumers if it werent for the infamy and mysterious allure of Everest?

Tibetan Symbolism

ADDRESSED TO EVERYONE ON THIS TOPIC

Firstly, all those 'symbols' have a meaning, but I won't waste space and time trying to explain them unless you wish it so.

Get your facts straight, before ridiculing and attacking the Tibetan people. Mt. Everest for example, is Nepal's source of income, not Tibet's and Tibet never had a 'tourist population'. It was a closed country, devoted to happiness and practicing Buddha Dharma - Bhutan is the same and has only recently opened its doors. Tibet was renowned for its pristine environment and its environmentally friendly attitude towards life - so is Bhutan. Now Tibet has become a rich source of uranium mining for the Chinese and the Tibetan people, like Native Americans and Australian Aboriginals are being 'bred out' and killed off at a rapid rate while the world does nothing. The streets and roads are filled in with concrete, dogs were slaughtered in their thousands in early 2000 in a 'cleansing' of Tibetan things. People are imprisoned for carrying a photo of HH Dalai Lama and no one is notified of this - they vanish! The list is endless.

Would any of you walk away or flee from your family, your house, property, beloved animals and your country without some horrendous cause? We are not talking just about "a piece of land" here, we are talking about an entire culture and millions of people who have been slaughtered by the Chinese invasion - some fled, others did not.

Just because Tibet is a Buddhist country, doesn't make it a mythical Shangri.la. Why do you want to hold the Tibetans responsible for their actions and reactions and not the guilty parties, the Chinese?

Please try and have some wisdom and compassion for people who have never seen their family for decades and families who have children growing up speaking Chinese (Han) to them!

Peace is the aim of Tibetans - can you say the same of yourselves?

:yh_flower:yh_flower

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 3:56 pm

Buddhists are all about dying
????????????

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:01 pm

the ones from tibet would like to go home it's not the same as the jews and israel
gmc, what's that mean?

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:15 pm

AnneBoleyn;1382954 wrote: ????????????

Good question! Mahayana (Tibetan) Buddhists are experts on the 'death process', but they sure know how to live! They do not talk about dying.

I don't know what that means either!

:yh_flower

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:28 pm

Tibetan Book Of The Dead....

Joseph Campbell asserts that Buddhism is the religion most steeped in mythology surrounding death. I just took his word for it.

It's not a bad thing.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:46 pm

koan;1382958 wrote: Tibetan Book Of The Dead....

Joseph Campbell asserts that Buddhism is the religion most steeped in mythology surrounding death. I just took his word for it.

It's not a bad thing.

LOL! I never take anyone's word for something unless I check it out thoroughly.

"Mythology surrounding death" - now I'm not quite sure how one would take that, but Tibetan Buddhism is famed for its beautiful practices for a person who is dying and how to enter death peacefully.

This does not mean it is the 'centre' or core practice of Tibetan Buddhism by any means. The core practice is Bodhicitta or Loving Kindness towards all people. And before you say it, YES, the Tibetan people actually do have compassion for the Chinese,! :-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:12 pm

Joseph Campbell was the world expert on religion and myth. His word is good.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:16 pm

koan;1382964 wrote: Joseph Campbell was the world expert on religion and myth. His word is good.

Surely one's own experience is the best denominator of what is the correct view.

:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:18 pm

Please explain why you think a religion largely based on coming to peace with mortality and trying to avoid being reborn isn't largely about death.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:19 pm

pemalah;1382966 wrote: Surely one's own experience is the best denominator of what is the correct view.

:-6

Joseph Campbell spent his entire life studying all the world's religions and myths. I don't have 65 years to catch up to what he already knows. If every other academic didn't think he was an expert I'd second guess it.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:31 pm

koan;1382967 wrote: Please explain why you think a religion largely based on coming to peace with mortality and trying to avoid being reborn isn't largely about death.

This is not true.

Finding inner peace is true of Buddhism.

Avoiding rebirth? Not true. We don't mind.

:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:35 pm

There are different levels to the path

1. being at peace with having to be reborn again and with living each life

2. freeing oneself from karma so if you need to be reborn it will be a more peaceful life

3. freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth completely

Sure, it helps to find the means to be at peace in a world of suffering, which Buddhism does quite effectively, but the path to enlightenment, if one should choose to accept the mission, involves trying to not be reborn.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:42 pm

koan;1382972 wrote: There are different levels to the path

1. being at peace with having to be reborn again and with living each life

2. freeing oneself from karma so if you need to be reborn it will be a more peaceful life

3. freeing oneself from the cycle of rebirth completely

Sure, it helps to find the means to be at peace in a world of suffering, which Buddhism does quite effectively, but the path to enlightenment, if one should choose to accept the mission, involves trying to not be reborn.

If you are referring to the Three Scopes, they are:

1. Wanting peace for one's self only.

2. Wanting a better rebirth.

3. Wanting to achieve Enlightenment for the welfare of all living beings.

The third path is the Vajrayana Path and that does not 'aim' at no future rebirth, as stated it aims at the welfard of all sentient beings.

:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:47 pm

I'm referring to everything I've read from the different disciplines of Buddhism and from religious scholars about Buddhism and been told by my guru.

Summed up nicely here: "A fundamental concept of Buddhism is the notion that the goal of one’s life is to break the cycles of death and birth. Reincarnation exists because of the individual’s craving and desires to live in this world. The ultimate goal of a Buddhists is to achieve freedom from the cycle of reincarnation and attain nirvana."

Buddhism

I don't wish to disagree. Perhaps you've found different ways of interpreting it. I, myself, have never heard anyone disagree with this description... except you. So, I'm waiting for more sources who agree with you.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:57 pm

Who is your guru?

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:01 pm

koan;1382974 wrote:

Summed up nicely here: "A fundamental concept of Buddhism is the notion that the goal of one’s life is to break the cycles of death and birth. Reincarnation exists because of the individual’s craving and desires to live in this world. The ultimate goal of a Buddhists is to achieve freedom from the cycle of reincarnation and attain nirvana."

Buddhism

.

The fundamental concept of Tibetan Buddhism is not a "notion" it is a firm conviction to live one's life for the welfare of others.

Do you think I would be replying to all this if that were not the case?

This is a silly debate, because it is leaving out the very heart of the Teachings and is along the lines of a philosophical discussion. That may be the 'way' for some, but it is not of interest to me.

:-6

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:09 pm

pemalah;1382975 wrote: Who is your guru?

A very simple woman who would not wish to be named.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:10 pm

pemalah;1382976 wrote: The fundamental concept of Tibetan Buddhism is not a "notion" it is a firm conviction to live one's life for the welfare of others.

Do you think I would be replying to all this if that were not the case?

This is a silly debate, because it is leaving out the very heart of the Teachings and is along the lines of a philosophical discussion. That may be the 'way' for some, but it is not of interest to me.

:-6

Yay! We agree.

Very silly.

pemalah · Post by **pemalah** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:18 pm

Then do not quote her.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 30, 2012 6:21 pm

pemalah;1382979 wrote: Then do not quote her.

I didn't. I quoted from thinkquest. The link is in the post.