TENETS, dammit.
Dammit is right–they neva pay the rent on time!
Here’s a good HuffPost takedown of the DL:
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty good handle on it. Or you’re not clear on what a medieval theocracy entails.
I’m dubious taking Michael Parenti as an authority on Tibetian Buddhism. He isn’t a scholar and he is a leftist hack. He might be correct. But there’s also the possibility that he’s drawing on Chinese Communist propaganda, of which there is a lot.
Are you in fact the same person that you were when your were 6? Should you own up to all that behavior?
AFAIK, the Buddhist doctrine answers those questions as “No” and “Yes”. The only constant is change or impermanence as Buddhists express it. You are not the same person that you were when you were 6 or even the same person you were 2 1/2 hours ago (when I assume you were involved in another activity*). You do need to take ownership of your karma though, and that includes your past and future lives. Actions have consequences.
The Dalai Lama has been candid about his memories of his past lives. He even has suggested that the Dalai Lama might be democratically elected at some future point in time. I think that’s sufficient. Those who disagree might try diving into the Western philosophical literature on identity. The conventional view is rather problematic.
- Who the hell am I talking to? Past Miller (when he wrote that) or future Miller (when he reads this)? Meh, no matter.
Yes, this.
It’s like condemning someone for taking the wheel of an out of control bus with faulty brakes that is careening through a marketplace killing people; yes the bus is a massive problem but it already exists, it’s already rolling, and deaths are already occurring. Why is the guy who tries to steer it in a less lethal direction a bad guy? How would things be better if he didn’t?
Here’s a hypothetical: the pope, the Dalia Lama and you each walk off, and your jobs remain undone for a full month. Which one results in the most disruption?
The Pope, by far. My absence would be a mild disaster for a small business. The Dalai Lama’s absence would be a major disaster for the industry built around his official appearances and speaking arrangements.
Poverty and environmental problems that have, as a major contributor, the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control. His pronouncements on the poor (which have been refreshing) are like sending the world a get-well card while still holding the knife that’s sticking out of its gut.
This isn’t some great mystery. Use the information at hand and your gut. Were the lamas beneficent rulers fulfilling expectations for their spiritual state, or were they corrupt and cruel pieces of shit? Or something in between? My money is on their being not so great. All the evidence I’ve seen is to that effect. I’ve yet to see any serious article (or any article) that says that Tibet was really nice before the Chinese took over. If there is anything I can look at online that presents the case that Tibet was a land of justice and happiness pre-1959, please post the link. I will read it open-mindedly.
But to say, “It’s Chinese propaganda, so, hrmm, maybe things were awesome,” no I don’t buy that. I can buy that it might be exaggerated, however. At the very least, the feuds between the sects and monasteries in Tibet seem to be fairly objective historical fact, so the idea of Tibet being this eternal land of peace would not seem to hold up.
What is the content of that candidness?
Not sure what your angle is. Are you a Buddhist?
You do have a point. I think Buddhism has a lot of wisdom in it. Sunyatta, sankhara, yep. I think the flip side of that is that we do feel that we are the same people day after day, and how is that continuity to be explained? So I don’t think Buddhism has the whole picture.
No, not.
Your metaphor doesn’t work. You make it sound as though Francis were saying, “This is all fucked up, I’m trying to reduce destruction as much as possiblllllleee!”
No, he’s not. Unless he truly is a mole and unbeliever and is focusing on social justice for now.
A more correct metaphor: Fracis grabs the wheel of the bus, still is running people over on purpose, but just fewer people.
Kind of like Che Guevara…
If he were to come out and change more, that very well could create a crisis in the Church not seen since Martin Luther.
And why would this be a bad thing?
My analogy has limits but is apt enough. Let’s keep the analogy going and see what fun we can have with it.
Someone with good driving skills could stop the bus but unfortunately the driver had a heart attack and the passengers are all members of the Non-driving Club of Rome. Consequently, the only people who are going to be able to get to the wheel are people you and I wouldn’t ideally want to put in control: that’s the situation we are faced with. Not only that but Mr Frank Pope, the guy who is trying to steer the bus so it causes less harm is surrounded by other panicky passengers who are grabbing at the steering wheel, and the linkages between the steering wheel and the front wheels of the bus are sloppy, spongey and in danger of breaking if he yanks too hard.
Frank thinks he’s steering the bus the right way and - even though he’s still running people over - he’s running less people over. Frank should ideally be someone who can drive - since someone with driving skills could stop the bus altogether - but if he was a driver, he would never have been on the bus in the first place, and so would never have been able to minimise harm to the extent he’s doing so.
In other words, the RCC is what it is; it is not possible for someone with views like you or I to become Pope. And if they did, they wouldn’t be able to implement those views, since they are not 100% in control. In the circumstances I’m not too sure you can condemn someone who is doing what they can.
The bus analogy isn’t working for me. I think it’s more like the mafia. The new don has come in and said that they’ll stop selling drugs in a three block radius around any elementary school, and all of their prostitutes will be at least 16 years old. Less bad than the old guy, but it’s not as impressive as all that.
Very much so!
That’s ridiculous. He is supposedly a fully enlightened buddha going on 14 reincarnations. His 12th or 13 iteration isn’t remotely analogous to when I was 6 years old.
Well, you could also say, “The new leader of ISIS rocks! Only beheads on occasion and suppresses women much less,” and use the same logic.
I think your metaphor “works” only because people see the Catholic Church as a kind of benevolent organization. It’s got some issues to take care of, but it’s basically OK! But no, it’s not. It’s not ISIS, but it’s not a good organization either.
An excellent post Aeschines.
However, I think that every organisation or institution or government:
1/ does some sub-optimal things. There is a continuum. The RCC has a lot of good people in it trying to do good works and I don’t think it is in the same category as ISIS. You could argue forever about the relative merits, and
2/ has a variable degree of longevity and momentum. ISIS is I believe (hope?) a flash in the pan that will self destruct. It hasn’t been around long, is relatively small, and won’t last. The RCC is the opposite of that.
Consequently you have to recognise that something like the RCC is too big and solid to go away and change from the inside is the likely way to improve it, and those that do so aren’t to be condemned out of hand.
To stretch my analogy beyond breaking point, there is an argument that Frank Pope should just jump off the bus to decrease its weight and destructive power. That isn’t realistic. He can probably do more good by trying to steer it than by hoping to make much difference by his departure.
Man, that is tricky. I’d say from my own experience as a Catholic, 95% of the Church’s money (at least in the US) goes to “running church,” and there is not really a whole lot of ostensible “good works” going on. Now, people getting together in church is more of a good thing than a bad thing ceteris paribus–social interaction and all that. At one point in the Church’s history, it was probably a good thing in itself, as I think Christianity’s teachings on altruism, love of neighbor, etc., are quite valuable and at one point new thinking. But now I think the message of the Church lies below the average level of consciousness (certainly not in the vanguard), so the “running church” activity of the RCC is a net negative. This is even before we look at other negatives like pervert priests and whatnot.
And no, it’s not in the same category of ISIS, which is really just an Islam-branded league of brigands.
The error here is the phrase “condemn out of hand.” In the OP I gave him credit for what he is doing better/well. I think what Francis is to the RCC, Gorbachev was to the USSR. He is trying to reform, if only on the level of spin, but will end up undermining the very, very tenuous authority that the Church retains in the US. I think the percentage of Catholics regularly attending church who still really believe that Catholicism is “true” is quite small, and there is a very strong possibility of a Berlin Wall-type break, in which Catholics feel safe in openly admitting that they are only in the Church for the sake of personal tradition and social ties.
I agree, but that’s an argument about what is best for the world and not an argument that leads to an overall positive assessment of the man. Which was my original point.