A Dalai Lama bit of advice for us political junkies:

[truedelphi]

D L has said: "There is no reason to be depressed about problems you cannot change; there is no reason to be depressed about problems you can change."

[Orrex]

1. Spoken like someone who has a place to sleep tonight and never has to pay for bus fare

A lovely sentiment for a Hallmark card, but it's no more a solution than "keep a stiff upper lip, Chuck."

[imdjh]

2. So as long as you have a roof and bus fare you should shut the fuck up?

[Orrex]

7. If I'd said anything like that, maybe I'd know what the fuck you're talking about

Instead, I was pointing out that good ol' DL isn't in a position to judge the legimacy of other people's depression because, among many other reasons, he has a safe place to stay tonight and he can rest assured that his bus fare is paid through the rest of his many lives.

[Raster]

39. Every need of the DL is taken care of. He will NEVER know hunger or homelessness.

And before the usual "he lost his home in Tibet" crowd shows up, no, he will never know true day-to-day homelessness.

[lunatica]

84. And you're sure the Dalai doesn't suffer?

You must be in some mess to be so cynical and full of hate

[Raster]

183. Really now. "...so cynical and full of hate" from my one comment?

I see you've been to the broadbrush and hyperbole aisles at Costco and bought a whole bunch of both.

Have a nice day.

[omega minimo]

116. He loves you anyway.

[Raster]

187. He doesn't even know me. To love something or someone, you must know its/their essence.

The Dali Lama is a man, just a man, elevated to quasi-living saint status. While I have respect for the DL, his is still just another religious figure created by man. That's all.

And consider, if in 100 years from now, if the human race manages to eradicate itself from this planet, which is a distinct possibility, with the demise of the human race comes the demise of all forms of Buddhism, Islam, Christianity--every religion and its pantheon gods. They will all cease to exist. They will all revert to the nothingness they came from before their creation by man. There will be no christian sky god swooping in to save the faithful, nor a "merciful" allah wrecking vengeance. There will be nothing.

[omega minimo]

206. Exactly

"To love something or someone, you must know its/their essence."

"They will all revert to the nothingness they came from before their creation."

That is the essence. The Buddhists see "nothing" in all its fullness.

[Raster]

207. You misquoted me. My statement in it's entirety:

"They will all revert to the nothingness they came from before their creation by man."

[omega minimo]

211. Okay, miss the point. The dots are there. Do with them what you will.

"They will all revert to the nothingness they came from"

WE will all revert to the Nothingness..........

[omega minimo]

49. And somehow you're in "a position to judge the legimacy of" the Dalai Lama's comment.

Have you done any reading or study of Eastern thought, at all? Ever?

Why does a statement like that make you aggressive? Odd.

[Orrex]

130. Everyone who hears it is in a position to judge the legitimacy of it.

You really don't get it, do you?

Your kind of person assumes that a rejection of some mode of thinking must necessarily result from ignorance of that mode of thinking, or perhaps some trauma relating to that mode of thinking. I've seen it from you--and others just like you--again and again.

The truth of the matter is that it's entirely possible to examine a statement on its own terms and conclude "this is bullshit."

I know that this is objectionable to you, and I don't care, because it's the truth.


What's truly baffling is that the more vapid his aphorisms are, the more wisdom is ascribed to them.

[lunatica]

83. Wow! Your bitterness runs deep doesn't it?

It's as if you're the only one who may lose your home.

[Orrex]

132. If I were to lose my home and then spend six or so decades in pampered luxury

I suppose I could be cheerful about the universe, too.

Let the DL live in a box on 133rd and Columbia for a few winters. Then we can discuss his wisdom re: homelessness and acceptance.

[omega minimo]

48. Yeah you shouldn't carp unless you're exiled from your occupied country or sumthin!!!

[Orrex]

100. If I could live in luxury for the rest of my life, with people buying the simple nonsense I spout.

[omega minimo]

108. Yes, the motto of Worldwide Buddhism, Inc. LLC is "Simple Nonsense Sells"

[Orrex]

111. If that's how you feel about it, that's fine.

I, on the other hand, was taking issue with the trite and simplistic aphorism that fell from the DL's veal-hole.

[omega minimo]

115. You said it: "I could live in luxury... with people buying the simple nonsense I spout."

[Orrex]

117. And I'll say it again

If I could live in luxury for the rest of my life, with people buying the simple nonsense I spout, then I'd be as happy as a Lama.


I'm taking issue with the man and his trite aphorisms. Do you assert that he's so stupendously sacrosanct that a mere mortal can't question his scintillating brilliance?

[omega minimo]

121. LOL. Just shocked by the venom. Pretty ironic.

:rofl:

[Orrex]

127. What's ironic about it?

In my time at DU I've attacked a wide range of celebrities whose schtick is the passing off of trite aphorisms as special wisdom.

[omega minimo]

129. Concentrate and ask again

"In my time at DU I've attacked a wide range of celebrities whose schtick is the passing off of trite aphorisms as special wisdom."

"The Dalai Lama is one of those people I’ve always just sort of uncritically accepted. I never gave him much more thought than being this sort of vaguely pleasant dude with a robe and a smile and a massively successful franchise in contemporary spiritual markets. "

Ignorance and scorn go hand in hand for your source too. Being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody is a point of pride? No wonder depression is epidemic.

It's just fear. Wake up.

[Orrex]

131. Do you only reject things that you fear?

Or do you reject things that you find objectionable, after you've assessed them critically?

I recognize that you tend not to think critically about things, but let's pretend for the sake of argument that you do.


You are desperate to dismiss my view as fear-driven scorn. That's a tactic of a small mind, and you employ it repeatedly.

[omega minimo]

142. No one is dismissing your view and no one is buying your personal attacks

I am not "dismissing your view." I am questioning the behavior and showed your post next to the quote you linked, to point out the obvious similarities. I clarified that the comments were generalized. I have TWICE corrected you on your confusion and "It's all about ME"-colored glasses.

I also asked you the question about the behavior in general, which we see on DU all the time. if fear is not the reason to be scornful, willfully ignorant, petty, mean, spiteful, fearful, hostile, narcissistic, then what is the reason? That's what I commented on, that's what I asked you and you are welcome to your view. As I said, the venom toward the Dalai Lama is shocking. Is that the reason, to shock?

Shocking ignorance and disrespect. And self righteousness.

If someone said, "Cuz it's cool" that would at least be an answer.

I'll answer the question for you. It's ego. And the ego is fear-oriented. Which is why it comes across in these petty skirmishes in the way I described.

And since you think questions are accusations and examining belliegerence is "dismissing your views," I'm reminded that the level of paranoia makes continuing this a lost cause. Magic 8 Ball says " Outlook not so good."

Corrections #1 and #2. Third times a charm!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5870832

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5870832

I said:

"Ignorance and scorn go hand in hand for your source too. Being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody is a point of pride? No wonder depression is epidemic."

Is there another reason than fear to be proud of "being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody?"

What would that be?

[Orrex]

148. Ah, yes. The old "It's All About Me" chestnut

That accusation is simply an attempt as a diversion and a distraction. I've seen that same juvenile tactic from you for years, by the way, and it's never failed to bore me.

In fact, you are dismissing my view, because you claim that it is ignorant scorn motivated by fear. If that's not dismissive, then what is it?

f fear is not the reason to be scornful, willfully ignorant, petty, mean, spiteful, fearful, hostile, narcissistic, then what is the reason?

Do you feel/express scorn or hostility for misogyny? Is it because you fear misogyny? Or is there some other reason?

I see no reason to address "willfully ignorant," "petty," "mean", and "narcissistic" because these are personal attacks that are, in any case, your own subjective diagnoses.

And I likewise see no reason to address "fearful" in this context both because it's begging the question and because I'm not fearful.

As I said, the venom toward the Dalai Lama is shocking. Is that the reason, to shock?

Why are you so easily shocked?

For what it's worth, I have nothing against the man himself. However, I reject the cliche Hallmark slogans of the celebrity God King, and I will take issue with them whenever I see them put forth as if they were answers unto themselves.

[omega minimo]

150. I'm shocked by the kneejerk pettiness that seems uninformed. OCD dissing. Cultural and

historic ignorance. Intolerance. Lack of Live and Let Live.

I'm shocked that some folks are proud to be like that.

[Orrex]

153. Again, those accusations are subjective and don't apply to me

Additionally, I submit that your attempt to diagnose me with a neurological disorder is not consistent with DU's TOS. If I am incorrect in this view, then I have quite a laundry list of diagnoses for your myriad odd behaviors.


Once again, since your arguments have no merit, you resort to name-calling and scatter-shot accusations. My response is not kneejerk. It's not petty. I'm not uninformed. I do not suffer from cultural or historic ignorance, though I'd be curious to learn why you think this is the case.

Accusing me of intolerance is baseless and a new low, even for you with your long history of increasingly low lows. Do you call me intolerant because I argue that the DL's cutesy slogan is simplistic? How is that intolerant?

Or do you assert that I am intolerant simply because I don't considered a man living in pampered luxury to be homeless in any real sense of the word?

What does "Lack of Live and Let Live" even mean, really? I took issue with the DL's cutesy slogan; you took issue with my posts. Seems that we both suffer from a "Lack of Live and Let Live."

[omega minimo]

156. You object to the "All About Me chestnut" and then obsess that the post is All About You

It's not. And I am trying to extricate myself from pissing you off any further. Honest.

I honestly answered your question about being shocked. That's my answer. And I realize that it's anachronistic. Hard to answer, maybe hard to even recognize and consider the question.

One reason I'm shocked is I know most people aren't ignorant or intolerant.

So anyway, best to you and the family. Night. :hi:

[Orrex]

157. When you accuse me of intolerance, cultural/historical ignorance, and kneejerk pettiness

Then I submit that you are indeed making it all about me.

That's the fallacy of that tactic, by the way; rather than discussing the issue at hand (in this case, whether or not the DL's sentiment is a trite aphorism), you attempt to put me in a position of having to defend myself personally. You thereby steer the discussion away from the actual issue and turn it into a "yes you are/no I'm not" shouting match.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not pissed off. Honest. However, the now-deleted post in which you questioned my suitability as a parent was objectionably over the top.

[omega minimo]

158. "Over the top"!?!

Now who's dissembling?

"However, the now-deleted post in which you questioned my suitability as a parent was objectionably over the top."

I didn't "question your suitability as a parent" I questioned that you WERE a parent.

I thought that you were quite YOUNG.

I asked "you're a parent?" with a :wow: smilie -- more shock, that's all -- at your AGE, not your "suitability."


"Over the top"? :wtf: You know what's "over the top"? Continuing to badger me, despite attempts to get free from your paranoia, wish you well and say good night. Subterfuge. Dissembling. And getting an innocuous and humorous post deleted because of your own "subjective" misinterpretation of it.

Wonder how the hell you pull that off. :evilfrown:

:thumbsdown:

[Orrex]

161. The mods apparently likewise subjectively misinterpreted your innocuous and humorous post

And I wasn't the only one who read it that way. It wasn't the :wow: smile that put it over the top; it was the :scared: icon, as though you were scared at the thought that I of all people would be raising kids.

I recall another of your posts deleted not long ago that likewise used the "scared" smiley in a manner which the mods also agreed was a personal attack. It seems you have a history of people misinterpreting your humorous and innocuous posts. Is everybody else the problem, perhaps?

No doubt your perception of my youth is due to my stunning and boyish good looks, another misapprehension for which I can hardly fault you.


When I logged back in and checked this thread this evening, I saw over a dozen of your posts in reply to mine, and I in turn responded to most of them, and most of the ones that followed. Is it "badgering" to reply to posts? That's a pretty loose interpretation of badgering. By that metric, a dozen replies to me by a single poster during my absence would seem to be badgering.

[omega minimo]

163. I apologize for ever using the :scared: smilie ever

and now I'm :scared: to ever use it again.

[ZombieHorde]

233. Do you think people are buying your personal attacks?

[omega minimo]

309. .

:scared:

[ZombieHorde]

312. .

[ZombieHorde]

231. Simple nonsense does sell and it sells well. nt

[county worker]

3. I think you miss the point completely.

If you think about it like a Buddhist (and I am no expert)

Check out The Four Nobel Truths and The Eightfold Path.

The DL speaks as a Buddhist. You would have to understand where he was coming from to get what he was saying. Without that context it just doesn't fit non Buddhist thinking.

[Orrex]

8. I think that the DL's quote misses the point

Even if you buy into the Four Noble Truths or the Eightfold Path, you still need to pay rent and find a way to get to work, and if you don't, then at least you'll know that you have no reason to be depressed while your kids are starving to death on the street.

[imdjh]

11. And even if you are having troubles at the most critical levels, his advice holds true

It's a basic coping mechanism which I employ almost daily.

It's also two of the commandment of Alcoholics/Narcotics Anonymous:

1- Don't sweat the small shit.
2- It's all small shit.

[Orrex]

16. I call bullshit

So, for example, you'd advise a woman facing eviction from her apartment and an emergency double mastectomy not to sweat that small shit?

She has nothing to be depressed about?

I'm not saying that her depression will solve her problem, but the DL or anyone else telling her not to be depressed sure as hell isn't going to solve it either.

[imdjh]

26. If you like.

So, for example, you'd advise a woman facing eviction from her apartment and an emergency double mastectomy not to sweat that small shit?

She has nothing to be depressed about?

I'm not saying that her depression will solve her problem, but the DL or anyone else telling her not to be depressed sure as hell isn't going to solve it either.

The Dalai Lama (or anyone else) offering such advice in axiom form is not going to solve anyone's problem. The person who hears it, thinking about it, working it out in his mind is what will solve the problem, not the crisis but how he feels about it and handles it. Some people do this and give up the suffering completely, and I admire these people. Others like me, have to work a little harder to do it. And some appear to be unable or unwilling to let go of the suffering they are causing themselves in addition to the suffering that is beyond their control.

I react badly to any number of problems, but then I have to get a hold of myself, and ask myself , "What has changed? You were happy, and now you are upset." Invariably, the only thing that has changed is how I feel emotionally, and how I feel emotionally is COMPLETELY IN MY CONTROL. That idea pisses some people off. Unfortunately, the learning tool which is most effective, getting a terminal diagnosis, is an extreme way to learn this. I'm still working on making it automatic, but once I get that I'll be invincible.

[Orrex]

29. That's a recipe for impenetrable self-delusion

A steaming pile of shit is still a steaming pile when seen through rose-colored glasses.

[imdjh]

38. It isn't delusion, it's acceptance

When I was told I had kidney damage I was devastated. I had to think about it. What had changed? I had kidney damage the day before, and I was happy the day before. The only difference is that I now knew I had kidney damage. That's the only difference. I wasn't there yet, though. I had to have another test, and I worried about the test, couldn't wait for the results. Why? What would the tests tell me? That I had a longer period of time to live or a shorter period of time- they wouldn't tell me a thing about what I should do today to enjoy life today. So I decided to paint the bathroom, and for several hours of bliss, I painted the bathroom and enjoyed the finished product. The best part was, it wasn't my bathroom. That's how I get by. You can call it delusion if you like, I call it living. I feel best when I am doing something productive, not when I am sitting around worrying.

[Orrex]

40. If depression were simply a matter of choice, then it wouldn't be a disease

And, by the way, if everything is impermanent, why does the ol' Lama give a shit who runs Tibet?

[imdjh]

43. So that's the problem? He used the word "depressed"?

There is depression, being depressed, and then there is Clinical Depression. I would assume that the Dalai Lama knows the difference.

[Orrex]

44. That's part of the problem, yes

In essence, the problem is that he trivializes the suffering of millions of people with his trite aphorism. And he does so, knowing that millions more will fawn all over his "Don't Worry, Be Happy" wisdom as if he really is the Incarnation.

[omega minimo]

59. Unbelievable. Your attacks are based on complete disrespect for the person?

:wow:


Unbelievable.


So, no wonder you have no clue how dense and arrogant this is:

"...he trivializes the suffering of millions of people with his trite aphorism."

How fucking ABSURD that is. Even using the word suffering.






Are you serious?

[Orrex]

81. Everyone can see that you're totally obsessed with me. It's embarrassing, really.

I can hardly blame you, because I am pretty goddamn impressive, but eventually one has to ask what you hope to achieve.

At the very least, you should try to mix it up a little. The non-stop attacks are becoming more and more transparent, to the point that the whole charade is absurd.


If you really feel the need to chase me from thread to thread, methodically replying to all of my posts, I guess I'll learn to live with it. Heck, I should be used to it, given how irresistible I am.

[omega minimo]

82. Nice try. Haven't spoken to you at all in ages. For obvious reasons. Check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5869221




(In this case, I did post several. Since your posts were so UNBELIEVABLE!) :wow: good luck :hi:

[Orrex]

85. Curiously, you are as hostile and aggressive as anyone I've seen on DU

And believe me, I'm not the only one who sees it.


Is this what a life of peace and acceptance does to a person?




I'll pass, thanks.

[omega minimo]

89. So you didn't look at the link. Directing you to a helpful suggestion.

[Orrex]

92. Well, I replied to it. Does that count for anything?

[omega minimo]

98. I see now. Thank you. I guess I assumed that if you saw a peaceful message you would not have posted

what you did. Or would at least realize it's not true.

[Orrex]

101. One civil post does not a civil poster make

You remain among the most adversarial and vindictive posters on DU.

[omega minimo]

106. One clinging to the past does not a civil poster make

Imagine my surprise that the bullies and tag teams that I have stood up to, actually imagine that I am the instigator and tell themselves and each other that!?! :rofl:

Isn't gossip COOL?!!!



Hey, how're the kids? :popcorn:

[LostinVA]

88. I think you're really hot

[Orrex]

91. I knew it!

Don't worry--I won't tell Haruka if you won't.

[LostinVA]

93. I won't tell, and she has you on Ignore, so...

JOKING!

[Orrex]

95. I wondered why she never replied to all of my ribald limericks

It's so clear to me now!

[bettyellen]

194. your ego is astounding

[Orrex]

213. My ego would be astounding if I passed myself of as a God King incarnate with transcendent wisdom

Instead, I'm just a normal guy laughing at your utter failure to grasp sarcasm.

[omega minimo]

215. "just normal guy laughing at your utter failure to grasp sarcasm" looking for an insult to run into

:scared:

[Orrex]

226. Now who's obsessed?

You simply can't stop yourself from replying to me, even when I'm not addressing you.

Goodness. If you keep this up, people will really start to wonder.

[omega minimo]

232. It's all about you (that's your ego talking and boy is it PISSED!!!)

[Orrex]

238. So, if I pursue a topic, I'm obsessed. But when you pursue a fello DUer, it's somehow all about me.

Got it.

[omega minimo]

58. No one said depression's "a simple matter of choice." Willful ignorance is a simple matter of choice

unless it's an addiction. Are you addicted?

Can you think about a concept before pissing on it?

[omega minimo]

57. That's a recipe for impenetrable self-delusion

A steaming pile of shit is still a steaming pile when seen through belligerence-clouded glasses.



See? :think:

[Orrex]

128. You look the same to me with or without the glasses

[omega minimo]

56. Stop thinking in black and white

NOW












(Did it work? Like scaring someone with the hiccups)

[county worker]

15. There is no "buying" anything. I'm not arguing the point. All I am saying is that the DL

understands the issue differently than you do.

[Orrex]

17. I understand that. I maintain that his statement has little relevance beyond "oh, that's nice."

[county worker]

21. It has great relevance to me.

He is saying to me that suffering is caused by attachment. If I have an attachment to something and I lose it I am suffering and depressed. If I don't want to suffer or be depressed than I will not have an attachment to that thing. I can understand the idea of impermanence. Things will never stay as they are.

It helps me get in a better place in my head.

[Orrex]

22. I'm rather attached to my children, even if they're impermanent

And I'd prefer that they not starve to death in the street.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

119. It's not worth it

Let's talk about something that'll calm you down, like racehorses.

[Orrex]

134. Them's fighting words!!111111!

:grr::mad::grr:

[omega minimo]

60. And yours have none beyond "oh that's mean."

[omega minimo]

54. "While your kids are starving to death on the street" and yer making pissed off posts on DU

your depression only makes things worse and cannot make anything better.

The concept in the quote can free up energy to act. Or not.

[Orrex]

109. I'm not depressed, by the way. Quite cheerful, in fact.

I have a beautiful, loving wife, two wonderful kids, a nice home, and I've lined up a good job that pays much better than the shitty one I last had to endure. Everything's coming up roses.


The bit about "kids starving in the street" was a metaphor. If you need that word explained to you, as appears to be the case, please let me know. It is possible to discuss matters that don't have any direct bearing on one's life. That's how the lavishly pampered DL can talk about hardship and suffering.



Thanks for your concern.


Since I have recently learned that calling someone a "buffoon" is a personal attack, I will simply point out that you are conspicuously ill-informed.

[ZombieHorde]

235. No amount of religion changes the fact that the DL lives a pampered life.

The guy is even a meat eater while telling everyone else to show compassion as if all beings have been your mother.

[truedelphi]

4. Actually, Dalai Lama had to escape his home country, fleeing through the night,

While hundreds of Red Guards encircled the building from which he had to make his escape. And then he made a long dangerous trek on foot, across the mountains in not the balmiest of weather conditions. (We are talking Himalaya Mountains here.)

But again, what gets you through tough times is to focus on the problems that you can solve. And to let go of problems you cannot. I am not someone who can say, "I wouldn't know. I have never been there."

I have been. Medical bankruptcy that wiped out every penny we owed. Living day to day, eating if we found change in the couch cushions. One night, my dinner was a tortilla with a third of a stick of margerine - I was that hungry and those items were the only thing I owned that I could eat.

But getting depressed over what had already been lost, or focusing on the parts of the life that were not going to change, changed nothing.

The one thing that I could change was learning to ask from help from people I knew. It was not easy to do this. When I thought of someone to phone and ask for help, I was sweating bullets for hours before I could dial the number. It was hard. And a few people I knew helped out with a little bit of help. All that blood and sweat for just a one or two week rerieve.

And Surprise. Surprise. Many of the people I knew could care less. I had just been a name on a weekly meeting list, or someone to accompany them to a local latte joint when they were bored.

But by asking for help, a person I only knew for three weeks lent me some $ 2700 bucks, which got us back on our feet again.

For whatever reason, the Universe shifted and we came into some money. I was able to pay that woman back with in a month of her making the loan.

But my household is till sometimes in precarious position. I no longer judge the toothless, drunk looking person standing by the roadside. For one thing, his shabby clothes and toothlessness might not mean they are a drunk. They could have just had the misfortune to become ill in this crapshoot of a nation, which could care less about its people, and whose Powerful Interests prevent many of us from having affordable and decent helath care.

[Orrex]

14. Most people who are depressed didn't choose to get depressed

I can't solve my student loan debt, and frankly I'm feeling a little blue about it. Should I just let go of that problem? Believe me, if were as simple as asking someone's help, it wouldn't be a problem for me.

The DL's little aphorism is sweet but isn't anything like a solution for millions upon millions of people.


That doesn't diminish the ordeal that he's endured.

[truedelphi]

46. My husband worries a lot about his student loan

He has joined an organization that is promising to storm the barricades until total forgiveness of all student loans is accomplished. (In many European countries, both health care and higher education is free to people, paid for by taxing the more well off.)

I don't have the organization's info at hand, but will ask him for it if you want it.

[Kind of Blue]

70. truedelphi, if you ever find the

info, I would truly appreciate having it. I'm still paying monthly after all these years. Sure would be nice to have some relief but if not, I'm thankful that I can make the payments.

[truedelphi]

75. If I haven't gotten you the info by tonight, let me know.

He and I have a busy afternoon, but I think by 9Pm CA time I'll have the info.

And another thing - keep all your recrods. I had heard that they will let you know you never paid the final third of your payments, once you pay it all off. So I kept my records, rather carefully.

Sure enough -- six months to the day I paid off all my loans, the mail arrived with them telling me I had not paid the final third.

When I called the call center, and told them I had every document needed to prove my case, they kindly said they made a mistake and that they would fix it. And then they did.

[Kind of Blue]

80. California time is my time too :)

But whenever you send the info is just dandy!
Thanks for that nugget. Yes, I've got all the checks that have cleared .
That is really cool they were able to assist you. I've had to prove TWICE that I didn't miss a payment so now I pay automatically through the bank. I'm so ready to join the bandwagon for relief for all!

[truedelphi]

220. Here is the student loan group website

It is at:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062410/americas-student-debt-now

Hope it helps!

[Kind of Blue]

302. Thanks very much, truedelphi!

Gonna check it out now.

[Caliman73]

78. me too

My wife has a large debt. I would appreciate the information too. Thanks.

[truedelphi]

221. Got it for you.

The URL is:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062410/americas-student-debt-now

[Orrex]

90. Sure, I'd love to hear about it

Heck, I don't even really ask for total forgiveness, though it would be nice. I'd be happy if I could be forgiven the amount of my penalties and surcharges, perhaps with some recalculation of interest. Let me repay the actual amount of the loan, and I'll have nothing to complain about.

I borrowed a total of $19,000 and paid off about $6,500 of it before financial hardship caused me to fall behind. I now owe about $23,000.

All told, that's about $10,000 more than I borrowed in the first place.


Tell them to have fun storming the castle!

[truedelphi]

222. Here is the info:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009062410/americas-student-debt-now

Hope these people accomplish a lot for everyone in that predicament.

[Orrex]

227. Thank you--I've bookmarked it and will give it a look.

[bettyellen]

261. bumming over paying interest huh? and you think you don't need to learn acceptance. *smile*

[omega minimo]

61. Orrex, it might help

you to look at the concept of the phrase with a different word. If "depressed" sets off alarm bells b/c it is also a clinical condition, insert other words for the non-clinical depressed experience: "immobilized," "hopeless." "overwhelmed," etc.

IMHO this is a comment on living in the moment, when those thoughts can be releasted b/c they don't help and they block energy needed to do something about whatever it is.

I put this into practice in the dentist chair yesterday to relax. It's something to think about and try out. Can't hurt! :spray:


"There is no reason to be _________ about problems you cannot change; there is no reason to be _________ about problems you can change."



It's not a judgement. It's a perspective. A point of view that accepts reality and frees energy to act.

[Orrex]

87. Regardless, it's a Magic 8-ball Answer to a complicated problem

If that's your idea of enlightened wisdom, then by all means continue to shake that ball and look for guidance. I'll look for something with a somewhat more tangible benefit than quotes that could just as easily have come from Yoda.

[omega minimo]

97. The Magic 8-Ball is within you.

That's a good metaphor. The trick is learning to wear/balance/read it. Ambiguous? Perhaps. That's why it's called "practice" and not "instant pill."


"MHO this is a comment on living in the moment, when those thoughts can be releasted b/c they don't help and they block energy needed to do something about whatever it is.

"It's not a judgement. It's a perspective. A point of view that accepts reality and frees energy to act."



I don't read the message as being about denying depression either. It's a Buddhist perspective on reality, which allows one to move without the resistance of fighting the negative thoughts.

Speakin' o' which....... :hi:

[Orrex]

99. Well, if he's so keen on moving on, why does he still give a shit about Tibet. Move on, DL!

And if you've ever actually seen a Magic 8-Ball, you'd understand that the answers it gives aren't answers at all. They only sound like they're answers, just like the stuff that falls out of that Lama's veal-hole.

That's why it's a good metaphor.

[omega minimo]

102. Maybe

Ask Again Later

[Orrex]

104. That's about the most cogent thing I've ever seen you post

More's the pity.

[omega minimo]

107. Cogent is as cogent does

[JNelson6563]

191. Splendid post.

Thank you for sharing your experience. I have been where you have been and have learned about "friends" too. When you hit the really hard times you find out who your real friends are.

Glad you made it through your dark days, I seem to have also. :hug:

Julie

[ThomWV]

5. Spoken like someone who was driven out of his country on foot with the stars for a roof

Or didn't you know?

[Orrex]

6. He enjoys a veal dinner now and then, too, and he loves a soup-line photo-op.

And are you aware of his CIA connections?


He's a paragon, all rightie.

[SeattleGirl]

9. Proof?

Or are you just doing a drive-by?

[Orrex]

18. Of which part?

[SeattleGirl]

27. Ties to the CIA. n/t

[Orrex]

28. Here's the first one I came across. There are others.

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2005/07/25/dalai-lama-on-cia-payroll/

If these points can be refuted convincingly, I'll recant.

[imdjh]

10. He is not forbidden to eat and any former head of state would have CIA connections.

[Orrex]

24. My point about the veal was that any other celebrity veal-chomper would face Liberal scorn

But in this case it's just peachy.

[imdjh]

33. When did he eat veal?

A monk is instructed to eat whatever is offered to him in the home he is visiting as a matter of politeness. Most vegetarians should only be so polite. He may not kill for his own dinner. I don't know about restaurants, I don't think they had them in 500 BC.

[Orrex]

37. May 3, 2007

http://www3.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=605615

He wasn't visiting a home; he was attending a feast in his honor at the Milwaukee Club. But that's not the point.

Personally, I don't care if he eats veal stuffed with veal and washes it down with a flagon of calves' blood. If Sarah Palin ate veal and pheasant at a meal in her honor, I don't suspect that DU would be as quick to forgive her for her politeness.

[imdjh]

41. Seal, not veal. Sarah would eat seal, and wouldn't Heidi be mad.

[Orrex]

42. He deserves it for that awful "Kiss from a Rose" song

Hell, I've been tempted to roast him over a slow fire for that one myself.

[truedelphi]

323. Oh gawd ORREX -

As the OP Poster, I'll see to it that you are BANNED from this topic.

And even a note from Heidi will not get the likes of you back here.

Does Olbermann have a "Worst joke of the week" announcement on his show!?! If so, I know where he can find it.

[Orrex]

324. I aim to please

Guess I was thinking of the wrong Heidi...

[county worker]

34. What the hell did the DL do to you anyway?

Shit, don't pay any attention to what he says.

[Orrex]

36. I don't

I just can't help wondering why he gets a pass for behaviors that would get less well-marketed public figures pilloried.

[omega minimo]

126. What are you talking about? "behaviors that would get less well-marketed public figures pilloried."

"I just can't help wondering why he gets a pass for behaviors that would get less well-marketed public figures pilloried."

What's that about?





Do you have any respect for other cultures at all?

[Orrex]

133. Your accusations of ethnocentrism are baseless

He eats veal and, as has been noted previously, is a homophobe.

And his staged soup kitchen photo-op is not significantly different from GWB's plastic turkey photo-op. Yet George was (and still is) mocked for it, while the DL is considered a great and humble man for it.

And name me any other celebs who eat veal without getting attacked for it.

[omega minimo]

135. I asked you a question. So defensive that a question is an "accusation"?

"He eats veal and, as has been noted previously, is a homophobe. And his staged soup kitchen photo-op is not significantly different from GWB's plastic turkey photo-op."

Any evidence to back your assertions? You want to "pillory" the Dalai Lama for eating veal? Someone whose whole life is about lovingkindness and compassion is a bigot? That would be important information, if verified beyond "as has been noted previously."

Your drive by claim made it sound like there was something behind it, but apparently there's not.

[Orrex]

137. Again, you misstate the facts, and you're dissembling

Any evidence to back your assertions?

Which ones?

He certainly eats veal. And pheasant. This is not in dispute, and I posted a link to the article elsewhere in this thread.

His soup-kitchen photo-op was discussed here at DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=5611320

There was the DL, front-and-center to have his picture taken while spooning out a bowlful. If I, well known to be a great and humble man in my own right, show up to volunteer at a soup kitchen, do I get the premium real estate so that I can stand in the best lighting for my photographer?

"Me too, homeless person." Oh, bullshit. The DL is homeless in no real day to day sense of the word.


And once again you attempt to dismiss my assertions by resorting to cheap tactics. It's hardly a drive-by when I've answered nearly every post in reply to mine. Except yours, which really don't merit a reply most of the time.

(However, I say without snark that your "Happy Juneteenth" post was very good. Props to you for that one.)

[omega minimo]

146. Again your personal attacks are impotent. Thank you for providing "evidence"

You're welcome to your view. This reply is not trying to just counter your "facts." My view is different.


Did a memo go out planet wide not to eat pheasant or veal? :shrug:

Nothing about alleged homophobia.

People in photographs usually end up being "front and center"



From your description, it sounded like a real photo op set up. "...the premium real estate so that I can stand in the best lighting for my photographer?"

IMHO, the photo shows the Dalai Lama in a line of servers, not in "prime real estate." People are working, no one is fawning over him. The photographer clearly is trying to shoot past other people and found a hole to frame the Dalai Lama in. His expression is quite candid, as he listens to the person speaking to him. He may not even be aware the photo is being taken.

Good luck, Orrex. Thanks for everything.

[Orrex]

155. "Everybody act natural. We want the DL to seem like one of the crowd."

Do you really believe that the event was not staged? Do you think this was the only photo taken, or was it the best of the hundreds that the professional photographer snapped? And what does it matter if the DL knew that this particular photo was being taken? His whole life is one big photo-op.

The good ol' DL could have washed pots or scrubbed floors or unclogged the toilet and been just as helpful to the effort. And he'd have looked even more humble in the process.

Instead, he gets soft lighting and a well-staged photo while standing face to face with an actual homeless person.

Re: homophobia http://www.q-notes.com/top2005/top01_040905.html


Again and again I see that you make numerous accusations--often in direct violation of the TOS--but you never back up any of your assertions or answer any questions. You offer nothing but relentless and increasingly wild attacks until the other poster remembers that you're beyond any hope of reason, throws up his or her hands, and says "oh, fuck it."


Also, I'd like you to point out the personal attack I made. Aside from in my deleted message which was in reply to your personal attack, of course.

[omega minimo]

166. I won't use the smilie

but you are scaring me.

[Orrex]

181. That's another in your nearly uninterrupted string of posts with no substance

It's your standard ploy: attack attack attack, and when called on it, make a feeble joke about it.

[omega minimo]

63. Ya know this Ignorant Scorn schtick infesting DU is just getting pathetic

"The Dalai Lama is one of those people I’ve always just sort of uncritically accepted. I never gave him much more thought than being this sort of vaguely pleasant dude with a robe and a smile and a massively successful franchise in contemporary spiritual markets. "

Ignorance and scorn go hand in hand for your source too. Being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody is a point of pride? No wonder depression is epidemic.

It's just fear. Wake up.

[Orrex]

103. You uncritically accept a great many nonsensical things, so that's no kind of endorsement

To attempt to trivialize my assertions by calling them fear is as misguided as dismissing all homophobia (the Lama's, for instance) as suppressed homosexual urges.

[omega minimo]

112. Is it?

"To attempt to trivialize my assertions by calling them fear is as misguided as dismissing all homophobia (the Lama's, for instance) as suppressed homosexual urges."

This is the first I've heard of alleged homophobia associated with the Dalai Lama. Hard to imagine someone in the compassion business, who honors all living beings.............. Very doubtful.

There was no attempt to "trivialize your assertions." (And there was an attempt to assist, if you were open to it. These other answers of yours are just amazingly hostile -- esp. if you're old enough to be a parent and know at least a little bit about Buddhism and the Dalai Lama) And I did not "call them fear."

I said:

"Ignorance and scorn go hand in hand for your source too. Being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody is a point of pride? No wonder depression is epidemic."

Is there another reason than fear to be proud of "being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody?"

What would that be?

[Orrex]

114. Clearly, you're misstating the facts

Is there another reason than fear to be proud of "being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody?"

First off, I don't piss on everything and everybody, metaphorically or otherwise. That accusation is baseless and irrelevant, and so I can't see any reason to answer it.

Second, I'm not at all oblivious, much less "completely," so I don't see any reason to answer that charge, either.

Third, I can reject trite aphorisms simply on the basis of their own lack of merit or usefulness. I don't understand how fear should necessarily have anything to do with it.

[omega minimo]

118. You linked to a source that is doing that

I referred to him and was speaking generally -- not trying to direct accusations at you. Questioning the fashion of "being completely oblivious and pissing on everything and everybody" and being proud of it. It's a thing to do. Wonder why that is.

It's not because people are informed or original thinkers. Quite the opposite. Your source introduces himself with:

"The Dalai Lama is one of those people I’ve always just sort of uncritically accepted. I never gave him much more thought than being this sort of vaguely pleasant dude with a robe and a smile and a massively successful franchise in contemporary spiritual markets. "


Okay. So much for history, culture, education, respect, ya know, all those old fashioned concepts.

It's okay, Orrex, I wish you and your family well. Happy Juneteenth :hi:

[conscious evolution]

13. Actually,the CIA

connections are pretty thin.
The CIA was working mainly with the other Tibetan buddhist sects.

[omega minimo]

47. Is there anything you won't immediately disrepect? Do you THINK for two seconds

before launching your little darts?


That concept DOES require a bit of thought. Sorry if that bother you.

[Orrex]

94. What makes you think I immediately disrpected the mighty DL?

I've been disrespecting him for years, after years of thinking very seriously about it.

Nothing immediate about it, unless you're referring to the immediacy of my stunning response, in which case I can hardly fault you for it.

[BoneDaddy]

200. Wrong

and spoken like a true self righteous angry lib. It is about finding peace of mind in a world that is not perfect. Work to change it but stay centered and do not allow the imperfections of the outside world to destroy you. With all of the recent medical awareness of the effects of stress and how our minds and emotions influence our health, it is good practice.

[nadinbrzezinski]

242. Google his political history

then come back to me

[myrna minx]

12. LOL--Am I beginning to see a flame war start in a Dalai Lama thread?

:rofl: I love this place. Everyday is an awkward Thanksgiving dinner.

[LostinVA]

19. It's happened before -- the Dalai Lama is a huge homophobe

I've been attacked for saying it, but it's totally true, and I have proved it on here several times. I also don't care for the whole God King thing.

Yes, he did have to escape his country, but almost his whole life has been quite privileged.

I myself am a Soto Zen Buddhist.

[myrna minx]

31. I wasn't aware of all of that.

Thanks for letting me know. :hi:

[imdjh]

45. I'm a Sortof Zen Buddhist myself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnbEd1gAFgg

[omega minimo]

65. ZEN?

:wow:

[H2O Man]

182. I'm a

Howard Zinn Buddhist myself.

[omega minimo]

241. LOL

:rofl: sly devil :evilgrin:

[Soylent Brice]

23. it's like watching daddy hit mommy, and then no one says anything.

aaaawwwwkwaaaard...

[omega minimo]

66. b/c this is not a misogynistic society

:crazy:

[omega minimo]

64. Does little Billy come home from college all proud of everything he DIDN'T learn?

Throw mashed potatoes at Gramma's head? Piss on the turkey?

JACKASS RULES, DUDE!!!!

[Hekate]

152. It's so much more peaceful since I did just one Ignore. Ommmmm.

O8)

[Stevenmarc]

20. Thank God the Dalai Lama didn't use a pony metaphor.

[Orrex]

32. I don't have any data as to whether or not he eats horses

I'll let you know what I can find...

[Forkboy]

25. Sometimes he can be a real idiot.

:hide:

[Orrex]

30. And Godzilla would totally kick his ass!!!1!

Er... I mean Gojira!!!

[omega minimo]

51. Har de har. Good one.

The kids are gonna love that.

[Forkboy]

52. It's not easy being cheesy.

[omega minimo]

53. Don't strain your brain

[Forkboy]

55. I'll do my best. Thanks for worrying about my well being.

:hug:

[truedelphi]

74. How is Cheesey These days? (The cat I mean. Not meant snarky)

He was going through some tough times a while back. Is he still on this planet?

And :hi:

[Forkboy]

76. He's doing better than ever.

He looks great now. He's put on some weight and his fur is all filled out. He no longer has the skin problem he seemed to have, and since his sickness he's just gotten better and better. My friend calls him Clockwork Orange because every day at four, like clockwork, Cheesy starts meowing for the canned food. :)

Thanks for asking about the little feller, and hello back at ya! :hi:

[truedelphi]

172. That's great news. For both of you.

And neat that he has a new moniker.

Good ol Clockwork... Guess now he can be in a spy movie or two!

[ljm2002]

35. Or, in another formulation...

"If you can't do anything about it ... ain't no use worryin'.
If you *can* do something something about ... ain't no use worryin'."

[omega minimo]

50. Either way... "ain't no use worryin'."

:toast: and if you do, it doesn't help!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. Completely Unwise Quote.

The quote would be far more wise if the word 'reason' was replaced with 'benefit'.

Of course there are reasons for the depression, there's just no benefit from it. If the outcome can be changed, change it. If the outcome can't be changed, then you won't change it by being depressed. The theory all lies in benefit. The wisdom of the matter is that fretting such things won't improve those things, so you might as well not sweat them. But again, that revolves around benefit. There is no benefit to the 'fretting'. But of course there are reasons for it.

[omega minimo]

67. NEWS HEADLINE: OMC Critiques Dalai Lama

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:


"There is no reason to be depressed about problems you cannot change; there is no reason to be depressed about problems you can change."



The sad part is you got the concept and you still had to dis the Dalai Lama and act like you know better, he used the wrong word. :crazy:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. NEWS HEADLINE: Omega Posts An Ad Hominem With No Substance

My point is accurate and criticism warranted. Since it is dealing with wisdom, I don't really expect you to grasp any of it. :hi:

[omega minimo]

71. I gave you credit for grasping the concept and pointed out you still had to dis the Dalai Lama

You got the point and missed the point -- playing word games -- and can't be gracious about anything.

I could refute your ill logic but if you want to hang on to your misconceptions -- which you do -- maybe you didn't get the point after all.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. Blah Blah Blah Snorrrrrrrrrre.

:boring:

[WheelWalker]

96. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice;

in practice, there is.

[bettyellen]

264. no there are no reasons- real lasting reasons - once you understand the impermanence of all things

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

282. He Didn't Say Permanent Reasons.

Your post is acting as if his quote or my analysis of it was indicating somehow that the reasons were to be permanent. No such thing was implied.

In fact, by nature, reasons are generally always temporary and circumstantial, and rarely permanent.

So yes, there are reasons. For that point in time, which by the very nature of his quote is a point in time, there absolutely are reasons. Maybe the reasons won't be there the very next day. But maybe the depression won't either.

He, and you, have been out matched with wisdom on this one. Sorry.

[bettyellen]

298. permanent reasons? what the fuck are you smoking? you are talking gibberish for fucks sake.

who implied a buddhist is talking about permanent anything? quite the opposite.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

306. You Implied Such By Declaring Real Lasting Reasons.

Reasons need not be real lasting in order to be considered reasons. Most reasons ARE impermanent and not real lasting. So again, neither I nor he implied they had to be real lasting. He simply stated reasons. And yes, there absolutely ARE reasons for the depression. There's just no benefit.

He thought he was being wise, but got it wrong. It really is that simple.

[bettyellen]

317. what you have no clue about, you very clumsily try to dismiss. attributing quotes incorectly

employing false equivolencies. tilting at windmills that you yourself put there... why is so important for you to dismiss something you are not up to understanding? your assumptions are the product of only the smallest bit of knowledge it would seem, an incredibly limited imagination and fixed mindset.
why do you enjoy wallowing in your own ce- incorrect assumptions instead of studying up a bit? is that scary that other people know things that you do not? or it just amuses you to blow these wild guesses out your ass?
kinda sad. mostly boring. later.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

319. What Useless Blather That Was.

No defending of your point whatsoever. No explanation of it. No clarity. No justification nor substantial argument to bolster it. Instead, there is nothing but empty blather. What a waste of time.

You babble about lack of understanding, yet you provide nothing worthy of being understood.

I made my points, and they were in direct context to your statements. I think it's clear whose argument contained wisdom, and whose contained nothing more than empty blathering.

I find no surprise in your turning tail and running away from the discussion. It is generally the easy way out for someone once they realize they were outmatched in the realm of wisdom.

So while you run, just know the point has been made. There are absolutely reasons to be depressed. There simply are no benefits. He got it wrong. Get over it.

[bettyellen]

320. "they were in direct context" he he. i know you're tryintg to use big words here

but for fuck sake, look em up. learn how grownups use them in sentances before trying it on your own.
cuz you've waded in waaay over your pointy little head.
"outmatched in the realm of wisdom" wtf is that from -Dungeons and Dragons? I want some of what you are smoking.
before i;d bother to respond to you, you'd have to stop with the gibberish. you could use an editor to help express whatever it is your trying to bray about because you express yourself fairly poorly.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

321. I Thought You Were Leaving? Instead, More Useless Blather.

And to you 'context' is a big word? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What a hoot!

And what's a sentance? LOL

You have nothing left. You can't overcome the wisdom of my position so instead you resort to empty attacking blather. Blah blah blah blah you're done go to bed. :hi:

[bettyellen]

322. Too big for you to use correctly. I think perhaps a thesaurus would be of great use to you

[Kind of Blue]

68. Thanks for the post, Truedelphi.

the DL may sound trite but it works for me. My first and most profound encounter was when as a young adult my family's home burned down during one long hot rainless summer. Everything was lost, most painfully gone were all my paintings that I considered my life. My family and I were gathering what we could from the rubble, crying and sometimes happy when we found something that wasn't destroyed. Then some guy came to offer sympathy and then told my dad that he better have all the stuff cleaned up before he sued us for the hazard and the eyesore. Turns out he does cleanups after fires. Then all of a sudden it started to rain. I mean a deluge and the scene was beyond a mess.

The situation was so ridiculous that my dad began to sing. I was stunned when my mom joined him. How was it possible to find joy and sing a song of thanksgiving in this moment? Well, my siblings and I joined in :crazy: And it felt great! It wasn't like I wasn't ever depressed many times later but always I remembered for a few hours in my darkest moment, I got it, I could actually transcended suffering.

Another gem on the path and understanding suffering was Nazi concentration camp victim Viktor Frankl's book "Man's Search for Meaning."

[truedelphi]

73. YOur experience is heart shattering. I am very grateful your dad began to sing.

Who would ever believe it could help? I am glad it did.

Also, asking out of curiousity - were you an artist then? Did you remain an artist?

[Kind of Blue]

79. Indeed, I was only messing around

with it at the time, caught between the sciences and life as an artist. But that experience (kicked me in the stomach) taught me that ALL things material are transitory and to pursue what gave me the most joy. But really, All that's left is one long memory of life and, of course, Love :)

[omega minimo]

72. Thanks for "being the change" truedelphi

:spray: :pals:

[Saboburns]

105. Life is Suffering.

One must accept this first.

Then.........

Buddhism is a wonderful way to look at life.

[armyowalgreens]

174. No, life is not suffering.

Life can be whatever you make of it.

If you want to be a pessimist, then life is suffering.


I'm assuming you see the glass half empty.

[Saboburns]

268. LOL. You'll Learn.

All the Best.

[begin_within]

113. I'll disagree - I think being depressed about something temporarily can bring about change,

while being oblivious and disconnected from reality just because the reality may be unpleasant, never results in any change. So I say there is a good reason to be depressed about something you can change, though only temporarily. And then do something about it. Not good to wallow in it endlessly.

[omega minimo]

120. That seems in agreement with his comment.

You feel it, you move through it, you go on..........

It you're "doing something about it" you're not depressed.

[Kind of Blue]

124. Bingo!

"You feel it, you move through it, you go on..."
Strategy, tactics that work. A matter of how quickly one can pivot...again, and again, and again, andagainagainandagain... :)

[omega minimo]

125. LOL

"again, and again, and again, andagainagainandagain...."

[cagesoulman]

122. So this is what dumbass Richard Gere spent so much money supporting

What a freakin waste.

[omega minimo]

123. Keyboard Conan!!!

[flvegan]

136. This thread went stupid really fast and stayed there.

Well done.

[Orrex]

138. Beg pardon?

[flvegan]

143. No need.

A simple look above depicts what I mean.

And no, I don't mean a particular poster or opinion. I'm simply stating that this thread went really south, really fast. Happens often when people have strong/opposing opinions on a topic, as we all well know.

[Orrex]

145. I'll totally kick your ass for saying that, you lousy bastard!!!!!!!!11!!

Oh, wait a minute...

Now I see.

[BoneDaddy]

256. A man of great reason and peace

destroyed by ignorant, eternally angry children.

[omega minimo]

280. Must be why he giggles so easily

:think:

[omega minimo]

171. Scary isn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5872627

[saltpoint]

139. Mm. Well, I just don't know about that. I think the Chinese government's

treatment of Buddhist monks in Tibet, for example, is entirely abominable.

And yes, I think it's damned depressing.

There's a difficult paradox in exalting the paradigm in his quotation and responding to actual people's struggles.

[Orrex]

140. Well that's just the thing

It sounds great on a Hallmark card, but it has little relevance to day to day reality.

[saltpoint]

141. Hi, Orrex. I'm just a bit torn between my abiding respect for the D L and

the siren song of being one's brothers' and sisters' keeper.

There must be a labyrinth between the two polarities where each of us, if we chose, could be faithful to both the elevated Mind and the necessary Action.

In 1942 a just person could not stomp into Gestapo headquarters and demand, "Now you fascist monster cut this shit out immediately!" It would have meant you'd be in a box car en route to a camp, likely within the hour.

But then again, the option to risk participation in the Underground to subvert the Third Reiach... there was a noble path. Not spectacular, since it was clandestine by nature, but frequently very effective, and it saved many lives.

[Orrex]

144. As you may have gathered from my posts above, I don't have any particular respect for the DL

Nevertheless, the underlying question is worth asking: what is one to do when faced with a problem?

What bothers me about the "what, me worry?" attitude is that it doesn't address the issue in any way that's productive. All it does is make you feel better about it. Maybe. Or maybe not.

When faced with a situation of true hopelessness, like my hypothetical example above about a woman facing foreclosure and a double mastectomy, someone who tells her "don't worry, it's all impermanent anyway" is really just being an nihilistic asshole. And horrifically insensitive, besides.

Depression (or anxiety, or fear, or disquiet, or whatever) is a natural response to a great many crises that people face in life. If one trains oneself not to respond in that way, that's super-duper, but that doesn't convince me that it's the right way or even a better way to respond. It's simply another way to respond.

But if the DL's advice is given to someone who doesn't choose to respond in that way, then the advice is irrelevant at best.

[saltpoint]

147. I'm not nearly as drawn to the D L as I might be to an anonymous monk

in Sri Lanka or Taiwan -- or I guess Omaha, for that matter -- who takes the path with heart and mind and who does not do interviews on 60 MINUTES, etc. For whom 'celebrity' is always beside the point.

Over on the Christian side of the farm, I prefer the Francis of Assissi model over the glamorous trappings of the Vatican.

It's not a particularly brave argument to make, but I'm making it in support of the more humble of the two ends of the spectrum.

I know quite a bit of life happens inbetween those two polarities, and I didn't do a very good job of saying so when I first responded. Your comments opened more windows than mine, clearly. Let me grab a cup of coffee and do some more reading.


:thumbsup:

[Orrex]

151. Your first response was fine!

I agree that there is something more sincere about the person who works in quiet anonymity.

I don't object to a celebrity who uses that celebrity to accomplish great things. In fact, such a pursuit can be downright noble. But I have no patience for simplistic answers to problems that deserve a much more complex examination, no matter who offers those answers. For instance, one might ask:

"How do we fix the problem of catastrophically expensive health care in America?"

Is the answer "Don't sweat it," or is a more complex response called for?


I see the larger picture, of course; the answer is that worrying about the problem won't solve the problem. But not worrying about it won't solve the problem either, and for that matter I'm not convinced that worrying about it will make it worse.

[saltpoint]

154. I follow. What is concerning is the cost we all pay to choose one or the

other of the polarities. For that matter, we pay a cost also for engagement. Progressives hold Dr. King and RFK very high, but of course, their engagement cost them their lives. It is a haunting loss, one that goes much deeper than politics.

I was a (then-younger) volunteer for Bella Abzug. What a lift that woman was. What a lift she still is, even after her death. She gave many of us in NYC a model by which to gauge the times. Not only could women be public officials, they SHOULD be public officials, and would that they possess the zing and charisma and ferocity of Bella Abzug.

Also her hats were outstanding.

So the engagement-of-issues models holds the strongest resonance with me. I'm not against the celebrity of the D L at all -- as celebrities go, he's got a very calm vibe. I've read a lot of his interviews, heard him on NPR from time to time, and on public tv on panels with Desmond Tutu and others. There's a strong anonymous monk inside him, despite the presence of the cameras.

The ghost of Robert F. Kennedy still walks the country I live in, still presides over the country I want to live in. Ditto Dr. King. King's "I Have A Dream" address is a bone-throttling uplift. I would distrust anyone who didn't think so. I would wonder what was the matter with them that they could not be uplifted and transformed by those words, that circumstance.

If anyone wishes to disengage, I also understand that model. It isn't one I could pull off. But I understand it, and respect it.

[omega minimo]

162. "difficult paradox in exalting the paradigm in quotation & responding to actual people's struggles"

"There's a difficult paradox in exalting the paradigm in his quotation and responding to actual people's struggles."

You hit it exactly. There is a paradox. It is difficult to work through. It requires reflection. Self awareness. He makes it sound simple. It is. It's not necessarily simple to get there, though.

To me he is speaking of an inner state. The conflict as you put it in your posts doesn't go away magically. To me it seems his comment is for reflection, for internalizing, in order to continue to do... anything.

I used similar concepts yesterday in the dentist chair and had a very intense "living in the present moment" experience.

He's talking about how any of us in any circumstance get through the day.

:thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

164. You know what? I want to give you another cyber rose, madam.

http://www.pbase.com/image/1673789

I've enjoyed reading your posts on this site since forever.

Thank you.

[omega minimo]

170. Thanks. The connection, peace, rose, goodwill, redemption, make it all worthwhile

:pals: :toast: :woohoo:

and for you, dear saltpoint, this


http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html

[armyowalgreens]

180. Ultimately what his holiness is talking about is philosophizing...

Which apparently many in here cannot perform.

But maybe I think this because I'm a philosophy major. Who knows. I'm just a naive fool.

[Orrex]

190. You might indeed be a naive fool; that's not for me to say

You hardly elevate yourself when you attempt to insult others here by implying some functional or organic mental deficiency.

And you're the one who professes amazement at the cynical a-holes? That's some mighty impressive philosophizing.


If you want to pore over his inane slogans and pretend that they're unique insights, then by all means feel free to do so. You can just as easily pretend that a refrigerator box is a spaceship to fly you to the moon.

Have a great trip!

[armyowalgreens]

196. Oh Orrex...

I never said that his insights were unique. But again, thanks for trying to play mind games with me. And thanks for putting words in my mouth.

I should rephrase my previous post...

Some people simply refuse to truly philosophize. It's not really that they can't, but they won't.

The cynical people in here are assholes not because they refuse to philosophize. They are assholes because they attack those who do. I don't mind apathy. Although I hold little respect for the apathetic. What I do mind is hateful attacks against people who actually want to philosophize.

[Orrex]

198. Okay, if you're allowed a rephrasing, let me try one

Instead of

If you want to pore over his inane slogans and pretend that they're unique insights, then by all means feel free to do so.

let's try

If you want to pore over his inane slogans and pretend that they're profound insights, then by all means feel free to do so.

Better? The point remains the same.

Nowhere have I attacked the DL or anyone else for philosophizing, unless philosophizing means "grab a Hallmark sentiment and pass it off as deep wisdom." I attacked him for being a veal-eating homophobic hypocrite who pretends to share common ground with someone who is actually homeless. I have provided citations for all of these accusations. Do you assert that the DL is sacrosanct and above all criticism?


I don't even know what you mean by "mind games."

[armyowalgreens]

201. ...

Mind games: : a psychological tactic used to manipulate or intimidate


You attacked philosophy by attempting to trivialize what the DL said. What the DL said was true whether he can relate to the "poor" or not. Sorry, but if you want to attack the man, go right ahead. But don't attack the man by denying truth.


Actually, I've heard you talk about how "fake" the DLs answer was, but you never seemed to elaborate. So what specifically is your problem with the DL quote? What do you see wrong with it?

What is incorrect about what the DL said?

I'll be on later to read and respond.

[Orrex]

203. I didn't attack philosophy; I attacked his cutesy Hallmark slogan. Hardly the same thing.

Mind games: : a psychological tactic used to manipulate or intimidate

How have I done this? By replying to people who posted replies to me? By taking issue with personal attacks against me? If you're going to charge me with engaging in manipulation or intimidation, you're going to have to cite specific examples and allow me to respond.

You were really a philosophy major? Didn't you encounter rhetoric during your studies?

But don't attack the man by denying truth.

That's argument by assertion. Tell me what "truth" is and tell me how I'm denying it. I'm disputing a trite aphorism; that's hardly the same thing.

Actually, I've heard you talk about how "fake" the DLs answer was, but you never seemed to elaborate. So what specifically is your problem with the DL quote? What do you see wrong with it?

It's fake because it's a bit of reasoning that any idiot can come up with, and it's passed off as transcendent wisdom. You yourself have elevated it to the level of Truth simply by your say-so. It's fake because the DL is getting credit for profound wisdom simply for spouting a trite slogan.

It's not "incorrect" in a "2 + 2 = 5" sort of way. It's incorrect because it's passed off as a meaningful solution to a problem when in fact it's nothing of the kind.


I have elaborated on this point numerous times throughout the thread.

[armyowalgreens]

248. You apparently don't know what fake means...

In this context, fake could mean insincere. What is fake about the words spoken by the DL?

You just completely contradicted yourself. If it is a bit of reasoning that any "idiot" can come up with, why is it fake? The wisdom is real. The words are the DLs. He simply reiterated a philosophy that many of us already know. It's just nice being able to quote a philosophy in a neat couple sentences. That is all.

Philosophy is not some elitist party that only the smartest and richest will get. The truths can be accessed by anyone. You are arguing against the DLs words because philosophy is accessible by all. Which is simply ridiculous.

No one is crediting the DL with the wisdom in the OP. You keep saying that we are, yet you have no evidence of that. You just "know".

We simply like the simplicity of his words and appreciate his attempts to find the truth.

You are using mindgames

"You can just as easily pretend that a refrigerator box is a spaceship to fly you to the moon.

Have a great trip!"

Thanks for the insult that was only said to initiate an emotional response.

"Incidentally, history is replete with self-sustaining philosophical systems, each of them constructed in such a way as to shield them from critique or challenge. It's an ancient rhetorical trick, as I'm sure a philosophy major must be aware."

Again, thanks for lying about what true philosophy is and then attempting to get me to admit that philosophy is "self-sustaining" since I'm a philosophy major. You said I should know since I'm a philosophy major. That is a mind game. You are using psychological manipulation to attempt to mentally corner me.

Mind games.




No, it seems that you really are on a personal vendetta against the DL. And because of that, you insist on attacking his philosophy as well. Which is quite hysterical. If you want to attack the mans character, by all means do it. But don't use that as an excuse to also marginalize philosophical truths.

What you are essentially saying is that the DLs wisdom is correct, but not "meaningful" enough to deserve recognition. If it is a philosophical truth, and someone wants to discuss the philosophy behind it, does it really matter whether or not YOU think it's meaningful or not? I believe beauty and importance is subjective.


I'm not about to dig into this thread to find your other examples. You said you had other examples. You are using that as evidence to prove me wrong. Yet you insist that I find your evidence for you? Please, spare me the insult.

[omega minimo]

251. The delusion of the "skeptic"

"If it is a philosophical truth, and someone wants to discuss the philosophy behind it, does it really matter whether or not YOU think it's meaningful or not?"

Absodamnlutely, they think it does, you betcha. The attitude is summed up by one "mind gamer" as:

"If they don't want to be attacked, they shouldn't believe such stupid shit."

[Orrex]

286. Fake can also mean counterfeit, or snake oil. It can also mean bullshit.

You just completely contradicted yourself. If it is a bit of reasoning that any "idiot" can come up with, why is it fake? The wisdom is real.

I disagree that it's wisdom, or that anyone here has demonstrated how it's wisdom. Since it is passed off as wisdom, it's fake.

The words are the DLs. He simply reiterated a philosophy that many of us already know. It's just nice being able to quote a philosophy in a neat couple sentences. That is all.

What you call a philosophy, I identify as a trite aphorism. Nothing I've seen anywhere in this thread has indicated any reason to change that view. That is all.

Thanks for the insult that was only said to initiate an emotional response.

I believe you entered into this thread by calling me an a-hole, so you have no credibility when you complain about insults intended to initiate an emotional response.

Philosophy is not some elitist party that only the smartest and richest will get. The truths can be accessed by anyone. You are arguing against the DLs words because philosophy is accessible by all. Which is simply ridiculous.

You still haven't explained how it's "truth" or even explained what "truth" is or how you can recognize it when you see it. You just know, right?

No one is crediting the DL with the wisdom in the OP.

Actually, quite a few people have done so. And everyone who's defended the DL against my my charge that he spouts cutesy slogans is likewise crediting the DL with the so-called wisdom in the OP.

Again, thanks for lying about what true philosophy is and then attempting to get me to admit that philosophy is "self-sustaining" since I'm a philosophy major.

Nope. I made no claim about true philosophy (whatever that might be), nor did I ask you to admit that philosophy is "self-sustaining." Instead, I pointed out that the excerpt you quoted--part of a philosophy--is chock full of self-sustaining constructions that seek to render it unassailable to criticism. That, too, is a rhetorical trick on the part of its authors.

You said I should know since I'm a philosophy major. That is a mind game.

Psychological manipulation? Oh please. You touted your field of study as if it gives you some special authority to comment on what you now describe as accessible to all. To complain when I call you on it--specifically because you seem not to grasp rhetoric or logical fallacy--is cowardly.

You are using psychological manipulation to attempt to mentally corner me.

That's what I mean when I say that you seem not to grasp rhetoric. Have you read any Plato?

What you are essentially saying is that the DLs wisdom is correct, but not "meaningful" enough to deserve recognition.

No. I'm saying that it's not wisdom, and I'm saying that it's simplistic. "Correct" or "incorrect" doesn't enter into it, because the statement itself is constructed in such a way as to resist contradiction. That's the same rhetorical trick that I mentioned above.

And you'll have to tell me what you mean by "meaningful" if you want me to address that part.

If it is a philosophical truth, and someone wants to discuss the philosophy behind it, does it really matter whether or not YOU think it's meaningful or not?

Holy modus ponens! Let's start with the first part: "If it is a philosophical truth." Well, I don't accept that it is, and you've done nothing to demonstrate that it is.
Perhaps what you mean is "If we assume that it is a philosophical truth..." For the sake of discussion, I can get behind that framing. Sure. Why not?

By all means, let others have that discussion right here in GD. Let them discuss the philosophy behind the trite aphorism that's too simplistic to offer any kind of real solution to people facing actual problems. And I promise not to comment on any of his pithy slogans quoted therein.

What I sought to forestall, starting in my very first post on the subject, was another ostentatiously reverent procession of people stepping forth to praise the DL's transcendent wisdom apparently encapsulated in standard Hallmark form. I also explicitly took issue with the hypocrisy of a man telling people not to bother being depressed while he himself lives in lavish comfort and privilege.

I believe beauty and importance is subjective.

That's lovely, and I don't dispute it. But others in this thread have attacked notions of subjective beauty--and the people who hold those notions--on more than one occasion, so perhaps you should take it up with them.

[armyowalgreens]

291. Okay I will now address why the DLs words are true...

Even though I've attempted to do so in this thread already.

""There is no reason to be depressed about problems you cannot change; there is no reason to be depressed about problems you can change.""



I'll break this up into two parts.

There is no reason to be depressed about problems you cannot change

Worrying about things you cannot control is pointless. It will only cause you to die prematurely from added stress.

So lets say I worry about whether or not it will rain tomorrow. I have no control over it. Whatever happens will happen. If I worry about something so hopelessly out of my control, my life would be full of misery.

there is no reason to be depressed about problems you can change.

This is a lot more straight forward than the first part. If you can change something, stop being depressed about it, and change it. Wallowing over a problem that you can fix seems pretty pathetic doesn't it? If you can fix the problem, by all means take action.

[omega minimo]

293. It can also mean hair

[Orrex]

294. And orgasm, if we're aiming for completeness.

[omega minimo]

296. The completeness apparently came earlier, downthread.

[Orrex]

297. Win.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

299. Toupe........... I mean Touche

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

208. It's a verb?

:hi:

[truedelphi]

177. Maya Angelou was paired with David Chappelle on tonight's

"Iconoclasts" and she sort of took a gander at this topic.

She was telling Chappelle that anger is okay, but the thing that is important is to avoid being bitter.

She went on to explain that anger can make you work on a problem, whereas if you let yourself be taken over by bitterness, you will be eaten up by the bitterness, and then not get around to working on the problem.

BTW, it sounds like an unlikely pairing, but the two hit it off very well. Also Chappelle and her seemed to have some inner connection.

[saltpoint]

204. I wish I could have heard them. Once in a while unlikely personalities

can make a terrific moment together.

It sounds off-topic, but I wonder if the D L would think it might be very similar: there's a holiday recording of a song called "Light of the Stable" featuring Emmylou Harris, Dolly Parton, and Neil Young.

It almost sounds as if I'm making that up, but it really is those 3 musicians. And they sound wonderful together, as if they'd been pals forever.

It could be that a similar energy was at work with Angelou and Chappelle.

[truedelphi]

219. I willhave to check out that song. Thanks for mentioning it. n/t

[RedCloud]

149. That's depressing that we cannot get depressed.

[omega minimo]

159. What a depressing thing to say

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

160. I have never been able to fathom the fascination

Of "progressives" for this deposed medieval theocratic despot. He's a mullah without the power to have people executed.

[ContinentalOp]

165. Plus he may or may not have had slaves.

I can't get a straight answer on that one.

[omega minimo]

168. Orrex, everything I was asking about is represented in this despicable post

:evilfrown:

[Orrex]

214. Uh. What?

[omega minimo]

216. It's Juneteenth and you're making slave "jokes"

[ContinentalOp]

223. Um, it's not juneteenth and I wasn't joking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

[omega minimo]

228. Celebration is spread out over the week. Check the informative post for future reference.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5866170

[Orrex]

239. To all readers: o.m. and I see eye to eye on almost nothing, but she did craft an excellent post.

Credit where due: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5874794

:applause:

[ContinentalOp]

266. Yeah, it was great how O.M. dodged a legitimate point about Tibetan history

to try to imply that I was making some kind of sick joke about slavery purposely timed for juneteenth. That's totally sleazy behavior. But of course if anyone so much mentions a word like slavery or rape, O.M. thinks that they're making a "joke" about it and starts attacking them personally in order to dodge the actual issue under discussion.

[Name removed]

279. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

311. You said DL"may or may not have owned slaves;" never made a "legitimate point about Tibetan history"

It's impossible to "dodge" nothing.

"Plus he may or may not have owned slaves. I can't get a straight answer on that one."

No info. Piggybacking on another's completely disrespectful and misinformed post:

"I have never been able to fathom the fascination. Of "progressives" for this deposed medieval theocratic despot. He's a mullah without the power to have people executed."


Where exactly was your "legitimate point about Tibetan history." When questioned about a perceived snarky drive by post about slaves on Juneteenth, you provided a

LINK TO WIKIPEDIA.

The link has info about a "feudal" system in Tibet before the Chinese occupation. Are DUers supposed to wade through all that and locate where you derive that the Dalai Lama "may or may not have owned slaves"?

Is it too much trouble for you to express yourself clearly?

Looks like you're the one who "dodged."

[ContinentalOp]

314. How could I dodge when this is the first time you actually addressed the issue?

"Epstein wrote that prior to the Communist takeover, poverty in Tibet was so severe that in some of the worst cases peasants had to hand over children to the manor as household slaves or nangzan, because they were too poor to raise them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#Slavery

"A small minority were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned nothing. Their offspring were born into slavery....

In 1953, the greater part of the rural population---some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000---were serfs. Tied to the land, they were allotted only a small parcel to grow their own food. ... In effect, they were owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death.

A Tibetan lord would often take his pick of females in the serf population, if we are to believe one 22-year old woman, herself a runaway serf: "All pretty serf girls were usually taken by the owner as house servants and used as he wished." They "were just slaves without rights." <15> Serfs needed permission to go anywhere. Landowners had legal authority to capture and forcibly bring back those who tried to flee....

Some debts were handed down from father to son to grandson. Debtors who could not meet their obligations risked being placed into slavery for as long as the monastery demanded, sometimes for the rest of their lives."

http://dissidentvoice.org/Articles9/Parenti_Tibet.htm

But a lot of the info on Tibetan slavery might be Chinese propaganda so I honestly don't know what to believe which is why I originally said I couldn't find a straight answer on the question.

And by the way, which part of "deposed medieval theocratic despot" do you object to? I suppose "medieval" isn't technically correct :shrug:

[omega minimo]

315. This is the first you've "actually addressed the issue." Still don't substantiate the "owned slaves"

remark directed at the Dalai Lama, except in a hearsay driveby.

I did address it by calling it what it appeared to be, because you DIDN'T address or substantiate your claim (and still haven't)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5862109&mesg_id=5874237

[omega minimo]

167. Perhaps it's the Buddhism.

[rug]

169. A flamewar over Buddhism?

:crazy:

[armyowalgreens]

175. Some people are just looking to fight over something.

It's really annoying sometimes.

[Orrex]

186. And some people are preposterously eager to accept simplistic prattle as life-changing wisdom

It's really annoying sometimes.

[armyowalgreens]

189. I am a philosopher...The simplest things are often the truest.

[Orrex]

193. That's super-duper.

[omega minimo]

210. Let people be

"It's really annoying sometimes."

[Orrex]

185. No

It's a flamewar over inane slogans being passed off as transcendent wisdom.


Unless that's your definition of Buddhism, then the so called flame war isn't about Buddhism at all.

[rug]

205. You must hate Ben Franklin.

[Orrex]

212. Is Ben Franklin worshipped by millions? Does he have a free ride everywhere he goes today?

Is he marketed as a displaced fugitive who can count on three squares daily and a roof over his head at night? No? Then what's the basis for your comparison?

If you're referring to Poor Richard, then you're correct insofar as I attribute no great wisdom to them. They're cutesy sayings, which is exactly what the DL is offering. I'm also pretty confident that Ben didn't think they were particularly transcendent, either.

[omega minimo]

217. Fear of scarcity

Why are skeptics always obsessed with what others HAVE or DESERVE? :think:

[Orrex]

225. Why do the credulous insist on defining what skeptics are or how they should behave?

And what's with your obsession with obsession? Is that the best you can do? That's a rhetorical question, of course; I've seen the best that you can do, and it isn't represented in this thread.


I'm not at all bothered by people with wealth except when they speak or act in hypocrisy. The DL is wealthy beyond the dreams of almost everyone on Earth, and yet he's offered up as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden.

Does hypocrisy not bother you at all? Or do simply overlook it as a matter of "Live and Let Live?"

[omega minimo]

230. IMHO history, culture, respect, integrity, service and love all play a part

"The DL is wealthy beyond the dreams of almost everyone on Earth, and yet he's offered up as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden."

[Orrex]

237. And so your string of nonsensical postings continues

Try the veal, and don't forget the pheasant.

[omega minimo]

243. Don't be hatin'

You asked how I viewed -- what you called "hypocrisy" -- regarding the post I quoted there. Makes perfect sense.

There's your answer.

Thanks for the nod on the Juneteenth thread. Lots of interesting links and stuff there. Cya.

[Orrex]

246. I may be a mean old skeptic, but I can still spot a good post when I see one

Missed my chance to rec it though. Sorry about that.

[omega minimo]

218. No

It's a flamewar because one person, you, choose to pretend that the OP is somehow an affront to you personally, without ever saying why. This is the skeptic routine, altho you're on your own so far. The obsessive compulsion to attach meaning to what they claim is meaningless, cause as much disagreeableness and havoc in a thread as possible, as if they have the say so over what may be discussed, by whom, where and when they dictate, which ends up being NOT AT ALL.

Rather than let people be.

No respect for the Dalai Lama, yet his mere existence insults you.
No insight or attention span for the very simple OP statement, yet you don't want anyone else to discuss it.
Obsessing on the Dalai Lama's current lifestyle in exile after 52 years, echoing the skeptic fixation on $$ spent on alternative health vs. conventional medicine.

is there a particular reason you can't let the thread and other people be, to discuss without this constant detraction? Do you ever just slow down and consider what you're doing? Take a breath.

Deeply.

:think:

[Orrex]

224. Once again, you misrepresent me in order to attack me.

It's a flamewar because one person, you, choose to pretend that the OP is somehow an affront to you personally, without ever saying why.

Entirely untrue. Nowhere have I said that the OP is an affront to me, personally or otherwise. I have repeatedly pointed out that the DL's trite aphorisms are unoriginal Hallmark sentiments, but that's not because they're an affront to me personally.

This is the skeptic routine, altho you're on your own so far.

Also untrue. Why would I accept your characterization of a skeptic when you are aggressively hostile to skepticism? I'm not on my own, either; others have contributed to the thread and have been likewise assailed by the DL's apologists.

No respect for the Dalai Lama, yet his mere existence insults you.

Insults me? Nope. Your accusation doesn't even make sense. However, I am disgusted that he's given a luxurious free ride while people somehow believe that he represents hardship and homelessness.

No insight or attention span for the very simple OP statement, yet you don't want anyone else to discuss it.

Not true. Everyone can discuss it; where have I suggested otherwise? Or do you pretend that, by replying to a post, I am somehow forbidding discussion? It's the General Discussion forum, after all. Am I not allowed to post here?

Obsessing on the Dalai Lama's current lifestyle in exile after 52 years

Obsessing? No. Is it "obsessing" to point out the hypocrisy of a living for decades in luxury while claiming to speak for the downtrodden?


I've seen you claim repeatedly that anyone who asks you a question is attacking you, and anyone who asks you to clarify a point is bullying you, and anyone who pursues a topic with interest is obsessed. These are juvenile insults, and as I noted before, they are attempts at distraction and diversion.

[omega minimo]

229. is there a particular reason you can't let the thread and other people be, to discuss without....

is there a particular reason you can't let the thread and other people be, to discuss without this constant detraction?


"... anyone who pursues a topic with interest is obsessed."

"Interest"? What interest? The only interest you have exhiibited here and the usual skeptic MO is to detract, disrespect and dismiss.

"I've seen you claim repeatedly that anyone who asks you a question is attacking you, and anyone who asks you to clarify a point is bullying you."

As you know, you have that backwards, as I have already clarified in this thread. Anyone who bullies doesn't have the credibility to after-the-fact demand a discussion or reply to meet their commands or any reply at all. Bullying starts? Discussion over. And they don't like that. Imagine. Not being able to attack someone and then pretend it was "asking a question"?

It's not just skeptics that do that. Another thing to do is come back with a decent post to make a point with ideas and actual words and stuff and have the reader going along with an open mind and then POW!!!!! top it off with a fat, juicy insult at the very end. Homey don't play dat.


"... likewise assailed by the DL's apologists."

The Dalai Lama doesn't need "apologists."

[Orrex]

236. Are you kidding? You keep attacking me and then complain when I respond?

What kind of a magical world do you live in where you can attack people and then, when they respond, they're the disruptors?

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[truedelphi]

176. I wasn't depressed when I posted the comment.

But reading some of the responses, I almost got a little bit down.

Somewhat ironic, huh?

[armyowalgreens]

178. Misery likes company...

Don't let the pessimists drag you down.

[armyowalgreens]

179. Here's something that will cheer you up...

I wrote a fairly lengthy paper for my honors philosophy class two semesters ago about "community" and hermeneutics.

My intro quote was

"What does this tell us? Firstly, because our every action has a universal dimension, a potential impact on others' happiness, ethics are necessary as a means to ensure that we do not harm others. Secondly, it tells us that genuine happiness consists in those spiritual qualities of love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness and so on. For it is these which provide both for our happiness and others' happiness. Nor is it so remarkable that our greatest joy should come when we are motivated by concern for others. But that is not all. We find that not only do altruistic actions bring about happiness but they also lessen our experience of suffering.

Consider the following. We humans are social beings. We come into the world as the result of others' actions. We survive here in dependence on others. Whether we like it or not, there is hardly a moment of our lives when we do not benefit from others' activities. For this reason it is hardly surprising that most of our happiness arises in the context of our relationships with others.



-His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama"

Also, I'm listening to this as well...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxEIQdf5ahA&feature=related

Mozart Piano Concerto 14 movement 2


:pals:

[truedelphi]

285. i LOVE THESE TWO SENTENCES -

Whether we like it or not, there is hardly a moment of our lives when we do not benefit from others' activities. For this reason it is hardly surprising that most of our happiness arises in the context of our relationships with others

Everything has an interrelationship with everything else.

I ws a practicing Buddhist for seven years. One of the teachings I came away with is that we cannot know the point of our lives.

Our culture says it is about getting the best education; working long hours at a career and stocking away piles of money. And of course, I am not opposed to good educations or stockpiles of money.

But maybe the whole point of one's life was to offer the beggar that five dollar bill. Or even to be the beggar.

It is not always ours to fathom.

[omega minimo]

300. Or to help the drunk young woman trying to ride her bicycle and falling in the street today

"It is not always ours to fathom."

Butterfly effect?

[Orrex]

184. It's not cynicism to look at a trite slogan and say "that's a grossly simplistic response"

Another truly baffling thing is that the DL gets credit for this particular Hallmark sentiment, but it's been a favorite pop-culture slogan for 200 years. You can hear exactly the same transcendent wisdom from Monty Python, Bobby McFerrin, and Yo Gabba Gabba, but for some reason no one hangs on Brobee's enlightened insights. Hell, even the old "when fate hands you lemons, let's try to make lemonade" cliche has been around a long time.

Let a Smile By Your Umbrella predates the DL's birth by a decade, and "keep a stiff upper lip" preceded him by a full century, and all of these say exactly the same thing.


The problem isn't the DL is saying something bad; the problem is that it's wholly unoriginal and it's not at all insightful, but for some reason the DL gets credit for articulating some secret mystery. In fact it's a hackneyed feel-goodism that leaves the reader no better off than he or she was before.

In short, it's no kind of answer at all. That's not a matter of being a cynical a-hole; it's a matter of not being credulous.

[armyowalgreens]

188. So because it's a "simple" answer, it is automatically wrong?

:wtf:

You must hate philosophy. It's full of simple but incredibly deep and dynamic concepts . The point is to leave the purpose of the message up for philosophizing.

Philosophy doesn't try to definitively answer anything. It simply attempts to give you the tools to find your own answers. That is something you must not understand.


As for the Stiff upper limit comparison, you simply have no clue what you are talking about. Keeping a stiff upper lip basically means bottle up all your emotions. What DL was saying was that you should try to be happy in life even in the darkest times. To do so will help you in your struggle. He doesn't condemn people for being depressed. He simply says it is harmful and we should attempt to reduce the tendency to become depressed in bad times.

I will leave you with this.


Tao Te Ching Verse 41
"When a superior man hears of the Tao,
he immediately begins to embody it.
When an average man hears of the Tao,
he half believes it, half doubts it.
When a foolish man hears of the Tao,
he laughs out loud.
If he didn't laugh,
it wouldn't be the Tao.

Thus it is said:
The path into the light seems dark,
the path forward seems to go back,
the direct path seems long,
true power seems weak,
true purity seems tarnished,
true steadfastness seems changeable,
true clarity seems obscure,
the greatest art seems unsophisticated,
the greatest love seems indifferent,
the greatest wisdom seems childish.

The Tao is nowhere to be found.
Yet it nourishes and completes all things."

[Orrex]

192. I didn't dismiss it as simple; I dismissed it as simplistic

If you're facing real problems and can draw some comfort from the DL's fake answer, then more power to you.

Incidentally, history is replete with self-sustaining philosophical systems, each of them constructed in such a way as to shield them from critique or challenge. It's an ancient rhetorical trick, as I'm sure a philosophy major must be aware.

As for the Stiff upper limit comparison, you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

No, it means that you have no clue what I'm talking about.


My point about "keep a stiff upper lip" is that people have been offering trite and simplistic "solutions" to actual problems since long before the DL started his celebrity life of luxury. The specific meaning of the phrase isn't the issue; even if it were, the DL is preceded by other pop culture slogans, as I pointed out. Heck, check out Niebuhr for exactly the same sentiment as the one being credited to the DL.

[armyowalgreens]

195. If people draw comfort from the DLs answer, is it really a fake answer?

I'll let you think about that one.


Any "philosophy" that shields itself from criticism is not truly philosophy. But I appreciate the mind games you are trying to play with me.


You seem to make the assertion that simple answers are always wrong. I am saying that simple answers can be right. But they aren't right because they are simple. They are right because they are right.

"The specific meaning of the phrase isn't the issue"

Are you mad? That is the essential component of this conversation. Now I know why you are ranting on about this.

Your comparisons are bogus. Your argument is cynical and baseless.

I don't believe the DL is being credited for the meaning behind his words. He is simply being used as a reference. Truth transcends one single person. We simply give our thanks to those who seek to find it.

[Orrex]

197. Mind games? Nice try.

The passage you cited is specifically framed to preempt any criticism. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

"The specific meaning of the phrase isn't the issue"

Are you mad? That is the essential component of this conversation. Now I know why you are ranting on about this.

Oh, come on, "philosopher." I cited half a dozen examples and you're attacking one of them. If you find that particular one so ill-fitting, then we can abandon it. What about the other five?

I don't believe the DL is being credited for the meaning behind his words.

I beg your pardon, but the OP did exactly that. Or didn't you read the OP?

He is simply being used as a reference. Truth transcends one single person. We simply give our thanks to those who seek to find it.

Bullshit. The DL enjoys a life of pampered luxury exactly because he is credited for the meaning behind his simplistic words.

[armyowalgreens]

199. That is your opinion...

If you want to criticize my passage, feel free.

I don't have a clue what other examples you are speaking of. I'd appreciate it if you actually presented them to me. This thread is getting pretty massive.


The OP did no such thing. The OP simply quoted the DL. The words of wisdom can be credited to the DL. The wisdom can be credited to no one. As I said before, truth transcends any single person. We can only give thanks to those who attempt to find the truth.


His Holiness does many good things for humanity. Much more than I will probably ever do. Your concept of living a "pampered, luxurious" life is up for debate. I never said the Dalai Lama was perfect in every way. I simply like much of his philosophy.

I would stay up longer, but the sleeping pill is kicking and I can't type anymore. I'll be back on later to read and respond.

[Orrex]

202. Posts 184 and 192, and you already replied to both of them. Not much on reading-retention, are you?

From 184:

Another truly baffling thing is that the DL gets credit for this particular Hallmark sentiment, but it's been a favorite pop-culture slogan for 200 years. You can hear exactly the same transcendent wisdom from Monty Python, Bobby McFerrin, and Yo Gabba Gabba, but for some reason no one hangs on Brobee's enlightened insights. Hell, even the old "when fate hands you lemons, let's try to make lemonade" cliche has been around a long time.

Let a Smile By Your Umbrella predates the DL's birth by a decade, and "keep a stiff upper lip" preceded him by a full century, and all of these say exactly the same thing.

And post 192 introduced Niebuhr. As I mentioned, I am willing to jettison the "stiff upper lip" example.

However, you've already done an end-run around my examples by saying that the DL himself isn't important because the words are important. Again, that's super-duper, but it's untrue and entirely inconsistent with reality. Nobody quotes Brobee's transcendent wisdcom, even though he said the same thing. Here's a pic of Brobee, in case you're not familiar with him:


The DL is a figurehead celebrity whom people have invested with supernatural wisdom and consciousness. This is a fact beyond dispute. Attributing a public domain quote to the DL is a cynical attempt to give that quote greater meaning and profundity.

His Holiness does many good things for humanity. Much more than I will probably ever do.

That's irrelevant, because lots of people do many good things for humanity, but they don't score sweet book tours and primetime interviews as a result.

Your concept of living a "pampered, luxurious" life is up for debate.

Not really. He'll never have to pay for anything for the rest of his life, and he's guaranteed a bed to sleep in, a roof to sleep under, clean water, and as many hot meals as he wants every day for the rest of his life. I'm sure that he also gets the best medical care that the world has to offer, and he won't have to dodge phone calls from his insurance company afterwards. He enjoys luxuries that billions upon billions will never know. And then he has the gall to claim kinship with people who are actually homeless? And you call me cynical? Puh-leeze!

I never said the Dalai Lama was perfect in every way. I simply like much of his philosophy.

I never claimed that you said he was perfect in every way--please don't put words in my mouth.

[armyowalgreens]

249. Who are you

to say that Monty Python, Bobby McFerrin, and Yo Gabba Gabba can't philosophize and present meaningful truths?

That's simply ridiculous. You know, there have been books and essays written on the philosophy behind comic books, cartoons (the simpsons, southpark etc..) and shows like Seinfeld.

But of course they can't present legitimate philosophy because you don't take them seriously? Of course you can't take Yo Gabba Gabba seriously. It's geared towards toddlers. That means the philosophical truths must be said in a way that a toddler would understand it. About the other ones, I think you just refuse to get into the proper mindset.

That is why we quote the DL instead of Brobee. We are a bunch of young to old adults. Quoting words geared towards toddlers wouldn't make any sense. If I was speaking to a 5 year old, I'd probably quote Brobee. That doesn't mean Brobees words aren't any less meaningful. It just means the way they are said makes better sense to a 5 year old than an adult.


"However, you've already done an end-run around my examples by saying that the DL himself isn't important because the words are important. Again, that's super-duper, but it's untrue and entirely inconsistent with reality. "

Says you. Yet what seems to be such a profound truth to you does not seem to be one to me. You refuse to support that claim with evidence because you say it's "inconsistent with reality". That isn't evidence. Sorry.



So if someone scores a book tour or a primetime interview, they aren't worthy of recognition anymore? Wow, you must hate reading books from all those no-good greedy writers.




You and I enjoy luxuries that billions and billions will never know. Are you saying we are bad people because of it? Your argument is that because the DL isn't living in the slums and dying of treatable illnesses, he isn't a good person. That's simply ridiculous.



"I never claimed that you said he was perfect in every way--please don't put words in my mouth."

You are right, you never accused me of thinking the DL was perfect. But you attempted to marginalize his philosophy by presenting his "faults". Which isn't going to work on me because I never said he was perfect. Your arguments aren't going to crumble my foundation of belief in the DL. I don't think him a God.

[omega minimo]

250. How bout "Gabba Gabba Hey"?

The philosophy of The Ramones. They're pretty profound. "I Wanna Be Sedated."

"But of course they can't present legitimate philosophy because you don't take them seriously? "

Ask Orrix what he DOES "take seriously". It's gotta be a short list. :shrug:

[armyowalgreens]

253. We spent two weeks analyzing sappho in my philosophy class...

Some of her poems were a single sentence...

I don't believe anyone was mocking them for their simplicity.

I often like colorful wordplay, but sometimes the simple mind is the truest mind.

[omega minimo]

254. Aye

[Orrex]

255. Are you *sure* you were a philosophy major?

who are you to say that Monty Python, Bobby McFerrin, and Yo Gabba Gabba can't philosophize and present meaningful truths?

Did I claim that they can't? Quite the contrary, in fact; I lamented that no one quotes Brobee. Instead, everyone attributes the quote the DL and praises him for his transcendent wisdom.

That's simply ridiculous. You know, there have been books and essays written on the philosophy behind comic books, cartoons (the simpsons, southpark etc..) and shows like Seinfeld.

That's tangential and irrelevant, because I don't have any problem with such books. I don't even have a problem with, for instance The Art of War or The Book of Five Rings (both of which I've read, alas, only in translation).

But of course they can't present legitimate philosophy because you don't take them seriously? Of course you can't take Yo Gabba Gabba seriously. It's geared towards toddlers. That means the philosophical truths must be said in a way that a toddler would understand it.

But if you can't take the message seriously when Brobee says it, on what basis can you take the same message seriously when the DL says it? Despite your earlier post, you're explicitly arguing that the speaker, rather than the message, is the important part.

"However, you've already done an end-run around my examples by saying that the DL himself isn't important because the words are important. Again, that's super-duper, but it's untrue and entirely inconsistent with reality. "

Says you. Yet what seems to be such a profound truth to you does not seem to be one to me. You refuse to support that claim with evidence because you say it's "inconsistent with reality". That isn't evidence. Sorry.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I believe that I addressed it above with my elaboration about Brobee. If the words are important, then it shouldn't matter whether a mass-marketed pop-culture character says them or Brobee says them. Your claim that the words themselves are sufficient is contrary to the reality that no one quotes Brobee in preference to the DL.

You and I enjoy luxuries that billions and billions will never know. Are you saying we are bad people because of it? Your argument is that because the DL isn't living in the slums and dying of treatable illnesses, he isn't a good person. That's simply ridiculous.

Of course such a statement is ridiculous, and that's why I said nothing of the kind. You've mischaracterized my argument, and since you were a philosophy major, I'm sure that you know what a straw man is.

I don't fault the DL for being imperfect; I fault him for being a hypocrite who gets credit for immense wisdom simply by spouting vapid pleasantries.

The DL enjoys five-star accommodations everywhere he goes, and he has immediate access to the absolute best medical care available in the world. I don't enjoy such luxuries, and I presume that you don't, either. Additionally, neither you nor I is passed off as the paragon of ascetic virtue and the "it's all impermanent" mindset, so you and I are rightly held to a much lower standard.

When the DL pretends that he knows what it's like to be homeless, he's being dishonesty beyond anything you or I am capable of committing. That's not simply being imperfect; that's committing an act of cynical hypocrisy.

[armyowalgreens]

258. Lets not start back tracking now shall we?

You've dug yourself quite the hole Orrex. The contradictions are flowing now.

First you claim that the DL oversimplifies a complex solution ("It's not cynicism to look at a trite slogan and say "that's a grossly simplistic response") Then you say that what the DL said is a simple concept that any idiot can find.

Is the solution simple or complex?

You can't have both. You can only pick one.


You seem to be pissed off because people quote the DL quite often and ignore Brobee. But would you say the same thing if everyone quoted Brobee and ignored the DL? I highly doubt that.




Now you have completely misunderstood my position. Which makes sense.

I stated that the truth cannot be credited to the DL. The truth transcends any individual and therefore was not made by any individual. However, credit can be given to the DL for finding and conveying that truth in such a way as to better explain the truth.



"But if you can't take the message seriously when Brobee says it, on what basis can you take the same message seriously when the DL says it? Despite your earlier post, you're explicitly arguing that the speaker, rather than the message, is the important part."


I should have worded my stance better. I meant that YOU can't take the message seriously because it is geared towards toddlers and you are clearly very narrow minded. I can pull the philosophical message out of Yo Gabba Gabba.

That doesn't, however, mean that toddlers can understand Albert Camus. Yo Gabba Gabba is limited in their philosophy by the concepts that toddlers can understand. When I said that philosophy is accessible to everyone, I meant everyone who has the mental capacity to understand the concepts.


Therefore, the message is extremely important. But how it's conveyed is also important. And the way that it is conveyed is often based on the target audience.

Which is why many adults would choose to quote the DL over Yo Gabba Gabba.



Like I have said before, the truth is often simple. But it isn't true because it's simple. It's true because it's true.



I'm sure that one of the reasons why the Dalai Lama stays in compounds instead of shacks is because he is the target of assassination. He gets the best medical treatment because he deserves the best medical treatment, as does everyone else. I don't want the DL passing on medical care or the healthiest food because the poor can't get it. Just as you or I won't pass on the best medical care or healthiest food accessible to us.

Does he need to eat veal? Probably not. But like I said before, I don't think him a god. He has his faults just like everyone else.


I'm glad you have the wisdom to KNOW that the DL doesn't know what it's like to be homeless. I've never been homeless. But I have a pretty good understanding of what it's like through my experiences with homeless people.

[Orrex]

262. I wish that you would, in your enlightenment, figure out how to use the "excerpt" function

It would make your posts a lot easier to follow.

First you claim that the DL oversimplifies a complex solution ("It's not cynicism to look at a trite slogan and say "that's a grossly simplistic response") Then you say that what the DL said is a simple concept that any idiot can find.

Is the solution simple or complex?

You can't have both. You can only pick one.

Explain to me how it's a contradiction. I claimed--correctly--that the DL oversimplifies a complex problem. Of course he does. That's how sappy Hallmark sentiments work.

I then claimed--again correctly--that the "solution" proposed by the DL is a simple concept that any idiot can find. This is also true. I'm not claiming that it's suddenly magically true when some idiot finds it; I'm saying that it's an absurd oversimplification whether some idiot finds it or the DL finds it, and in neither case is it a solution.

How is that a contradiction?

Therefore, the message is extremely important. But how it's conveyed is also important. And the way that it is conveyed is often based on the target audience.

Ah! So you agree that the marketing of the idea is important. Now we're getting somewhere. You're speaking directly to people's prejudices, and I applaud you for it. A wide swath of people willing to accept the wisdom from the smiling, avuncular DL wouldn't accept that exact same wisdom from The Little Green One. Preconceptions are an ugly thing, aren't they?

I don't want the DL passing on medical care or the healthiest food because the poor can't get it. Just as you or I won't pass on the best medical care or healthiest food accessible to us.

Again you're missing the point. I'm not saying that the DL should decline these services; I'm saying that by having the option of accepting them or declining them, he loses the authority to speak for those who don't have the option in the first place. Claiming to retain that authority makes him a hypocrite.

[armyowalgreens]

267. Oy Vey... I've got more important things to do than explain simple concepts to you...

Oversimplification implies that there is something wrong in what the DL said.

TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH WHAT THE DL SAID. You have failed to do so in all your posts.

You have said the the DLs words were false, but not incorrect. Uhhhh that doesn't seem like a contradication to you?



So this is what I have taken from your posts...


It's a simple concept that any idiot can understand, but it isn't a correct one. But it's also not incorrect. But it's also false.




:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: Your logic is giving me vertigo.

Ah! So you agree that the marketing of the idea is important. Now we're getting somewhere. You're speaking directly to people's prejudices, and I applaud you for it. A wide swath of people willing to accept the wisdom from the smiling, avuncular DL wouldn't accept that exact same wisdom from The Little Green One. Preconceptions are an ugly thing, aren't they?

I don't believe I ever disagreed. You haven't gotten anywhere with me. So what you are saying is that simply because the DL is popular, he is no longer good or correct.

Are you one of those people who loves a band until it goes mainstream?

I'm not willing to dislike the DL because a lot of morons like him. I'm sure a lot of morons like Obama. But I don't dislike Obama because of it.

I'm saying that by having the option of accepting them or declining them, he loses the authority to speak for those who don't have the option in the first place. Claiming to retain that authority makes him a hypocrite.

whoa whoa whoa...hold the fucking phone. I don't believe the Dalai Lama claims to be THE authority on the plight of the poor and powerless. That is why he educates himself. That is why he visits those people. He is attempting to understand why the poor are poor and powerless. What he gains from that, he conveys to others. What he gains from philosophizing, he conveys to others.

So is anybody in a position of power allowed to speak about the poor or powerless? Are all of the worlds leaders hypocrites? Your logic makes no sense.

[Orrex]

273. Where did I say that it was false?

Forgive me, but since I've answered many dozens of posts in this thread, I've lost track here and there. Cut me some slack--earlier you lost track of two posts you'd read just minutes before.

Let me restate my position plainly, in deference to your vertigo and your troubled sleep:

I object to the fact that the Dalai Lama spouts trite, simplistic aphorisms that are passed off as actual solutions to complex problems. Such answers are neither unique nor insightful, and they are only accepted as wise because they come out of his mouth instead of out of the mouth of a guy in a green puppet-suit.

I don't believe that my position on this subject has appreciably changed since my first post. I would therefore appreciate it if you can cite the post in which I contradicted myself so that I can address the apparent contradiction.

TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH WHAT THE DL SAID. You have failed to do so in all your posts.

I'm pretty sure I've addressed what's wrong with the DL's cutesy slogans in just about every post in which I wasn't defending myself against personal attacks.

I'm saying that by having the option of accepting them or declining them, he loses the authority to speak for those who don't have the option in the first place. Claiming to retain that authority makes him a hypocrite.

whoa whoa whoa...hold the fucking phone. I don't believe the Dalai Lama claims to be THE authority on the plight of the poor and powerless. That is why he educates himself. That is why he visits those people. He is attempting to understand why the poor are poor and powerless. What he gains from that, he conveys to others. What he gains from philosophizing, he conveys to others.

You've got to be fucking kidding me! Do you really not understand what I wrote? When I wrote "he loses the authority," I was clearly not stating the the DL considers himself THE authority. Do you honestly fail to understand the difference? I was obviously referring to "the authority" as in "the authority vested in me." I can't believe that you fail to comprehend that the word has two different but related meanings. In fact, by claiming that I'd argued that the DL considers himself THE authority (which I did not), you are once again constructing a straw man.

I'll rephrase it for you, if that'll help:

By having the option of accepting them or declining them, he loses the legitmate credibility to speak as though he truly understands life for those who don't have that option in the first place. Claiming to retain that legitimate credibility makes him a hypocrite. Clearer? Should I sketch a rebus for you?

So is anybody in a position of power allowed to speak about the poor or powerless? Are all of the worlds leaders hypocrites? Your logic makes no sense.

Nowhere--not anywhere on the entire internet--have I claimed that people in power aren't allowed to speak about the poor or powerless. By attempting to reframe my argument that way, you are succumbing once again to the straw man fallacy. Amazing!

I am, instead, claiming that anyone in a position of power is a hypocrite if he or she speaks as if he or she were truly able to sympathize with the poor and powerless.

The DL is a man--not a God King, not an incarnation--who has lived in luxury for more than half a century and who will live in luxury until he dies and will be buried in a resplendent shrine visited by millions of pilgrims. Do you really think that such a man can possibly have any idea of what it's like to live homeless or in poverty? If he as ever likened his flight from Tibet to actual day-to-day homelessness, then he is guilty of truly profound cynicism.

[armyowalgreens]

283. Sorry, I meant "fake"

"It's a simple concept that any idiot can understand, but it isn't a correct one. But it's also not incorrect. But it's also fake."


That's what you have said in the course of your argument.

I'm pretty sure I've addressed what's wrong with the DL's cutesy slogans in just about every post in which I wasn't defending myself against personal attacks.

Cutesy? How condescending. Your attempts at marginalizing his words are futile.

You've got to be fucking kidding me! Do you really not understand what I wrote? When I wrote "he loses the authority," I was clearly not stating the the DL considers himself THE authority. Do you honestly fail to understand the difference? I was obviously referring to "the authority" as in "the authority vested in me." I can't believe that you fail to comprehend that the word has two different but related meanings. In fact, by claiming that I'd argued that the DL considers himself THE authority (which I did not), you are once again constructing a straw man.

You are correct, I misunderstood your stance. But your stance is still incorrect. If someone has the option to better food or medical care, he is no longer allowed to speak about the plight of the poor? And to do otherwise makes him a hypocrite?


What the fuck is that? Seriously, that is the dumbest assumption I have come across in a while.


So because he can get good medical care and good food, he couldn't possibly understand the plight of the poor? He couldn't possibly empathize with them?

That is just...simple minded on so many levels it's mind blowing.


Your argument is that because he has the option of having a better life, he can no longer speak for or about the poor or disadvantaged. Which would apply to any leader who attempts to speak for or about the poor. Unless there are leaders who are poor, and in turn most likely powerless. According to you, they lose the authority to speak on the subject. That isn't straw-man. Sorry.

I am, instead, claiming that anyone in a position of power is a hypocrite if he or she speaks as if he or she were truly able to sympathize with the poor and powerless.

A leader who was once poor and powerless can sympathize with the poor and powerless. Simply because they are now in a position of power does not mean that they lose the ability to sympathize.

[Orrex]

287. First off, thanks for adopting the "excerpt" format

You are correct, I misunderstood your stance. But your stance is still incorrect. If someone has the option to better food or medical care, he is no longer allowed to speak about the plight of the poor? And to do otherwise makes him a hypocrite?

No. No. No. I have never said that. What have said repeatedly, including in the post to which you replied, is that he lacks the authority to speak as if he suffers the same plights as the poor or powerless. He can speak about it all he wants. Heck, I applaud any pampered celebrity for speaking about it. But if speaks as if he's part of the downtrodden poor, or as if he endures equal hardship, then he's a hypocrite.

Cutesy? How condescending.

I call 'em as I see 'em, and I suspect that you do the same.

What the fuck is that? Seriously, that is the dumbest assumption I have come across in a while.

Well, it was your assumption, not mine. Don't be so hard on yourself.

That's the last time I'm going to address your straw man restatement of my position.

So because he can get good medical care and good food, he couldn't possibly understand the plight of the poor? He couldn't possibly empathize with them?

Empathize? Maybe, sort of. Understand? Perhaps, in second-hand observer sort of way.

But in late April 2009, he didn't say "I understand your suffering" or "I empathize with your plight." Instead, he said "Me too, homeless person." And soon thereafter he jetted off to his next speaking engagement. That's the cynical hypocrisy I was talking about.

That is just...simple minded on so many levels it's mind blowing.

There you go with the "blowing" imagery again. What's up with the spicy word-choice?

A leader who was once poor and powerless can sympathize with the poor and powerless.

Sure. But when, exactly, was the DL poor or powerless? I grant that he was on the run, but it's not like he was fleeing into the great unknown. When the Dalai Lama fled to India in 1959, he was preceded by more than 60 tons of treasure.

[armyowalgreens]

288. I don't do this often...

But when I am wrong, I concede.

You seem to be correct about the seedy history of the Dalai Lama. I am not sure exactly how that plays into his philosophy. I'll have to do more research.

If the Dalai Lama has literally stated that he is one of the poor or suffers like them, he is incorrect.


However, that does not mean that the entirety of his philosophical works are incorrect or baseless.

[Orrex]

289. This will sound cheesy, but I am humbled by your willingness to concede a point. Bravo to you.

However, that does not mean that the entirety of his philosophical works are incorrect or baseless.

I will accept that as unambiguously true. If his words are correct, then they'd be correct even if they were part of an anonymous text found in a cave somewhere.

[omega minimo]

295. So the lesson from all this sparring is "Don't kill the message because the messenger eats veal"

:crazy:

[armyowalgreens]

259. Also, yes, I am currently a philosophy major.

But the accusatory responses make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[Orrex]

263. Glad I can give you a special feeling

No doubt you'd become positively effervescent in my actual presence. I have that effect on a lot of people.

[armyowalgreens]

269. I would probably blow a load in my pants.

[Orrex]

274. You stay classy.

[omega minimo]

281. It's all about YOU!

:rofl:
:rofl:
:wow:

[armyowalgreens]

284. Hey I'm just trying to make this DUzey worthy.

[omega minimo]

292. Well it's definitely Uzey.

:yoiks: :hide:

[spoony]

290. Very insightful post n/t

[slackmaster]

209. That man is one wise sonofabitch

I love him.

[Deja Q]

234. Didn't he say that just before saying "why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"

:hide:

[Orrex]

240. I think there was something about "Luminous beings are we. Not this crude matter."

Never his mind on where he was. Hrm? What he was doing. Hrm.

[omega minimo]

244. Better luminosity than animosity

:hi:

Anyway, Buddhists are very much about the here and now. Don't look now, but you're GLOWING! :wow: or at least breathing..........

[Orrex]

265. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Anyway, if you're taking your cues from Yoda, then serious problems you have.

[omega minimo]

272. Why do you have to be contrary for the sake of it and pretend you're making sense?

:hi:

[Orrex]

277. I'm not at all contrary. I'm consistent in my rejection of trite aphorisms passed off as wisdom.

[omega minimo]

278. "I'm not at all contrary"

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:spank: :hug:

[Seldona]

245. Clueless.

I hope no one with clinical depression takes this tripe seriously. And if you aren't pissed at this point, you either haven't been paying attention, or are unable to for some reason.

[omega minimo]

247. Many people who are ill -- and healthy -- use philosophy and meditation for health benefits

Clueless is reacting to what you don't understand or respect with hostility.

[GoCubsGo]

305. Somehow, I don't think those are the people to whom he refers.

All he's saying is "Don't wallow in your misfortunes. It's counterproductive and doesn't make things better." Speaking from experience, not all depression is caused by chemical imbalances. Look up "cognitive therapy", and you can see how negative thinking can make a person as depressed as can a chemical imbalance.

Good grief! Count me among those that do not understand the hostility toward this man. Also, count me among those who have lots of reasons to be depressed (no steady job for more than two years and no replacement in sight, savings gone, no health insurance, mom with serious illness, family a mess because of it...). Wallowing in my misfortunes and constantly feeling sad will not change a thing. It only makes a person want to stay in bed and not do anything about the situation, while potential opportunities might pass them by. "Tripe"? No, it isn't.

[Seldona]

316. Then he should have pointed that out.

Not spouted empty, meaningless, words that discount every condition medical, environmental, etc, people are going through every day.

I lost both grand-fathers, my father from cancer, my mother was diagnosed this week with breast cancer, and my wife is fighting for her life after a botched hysterectomy complicated with an infection her doctor ignored until they took over a QUART of septic material out of abdomen. That was just initially. She has to wear a Wound-vac machine for anywhere between six months and year. That is best case. We could still lose her, and if we lose our insurance we are dead in the water. Her, perhaps literally.

How dare he discount the feelings of people who are living anything but the pampered life he leads? He said what he said, and it is complete bullshit.

[Mike 03]

252. I love that man. He is one of my number one heroes in this world.

I hope before I die I can meet him or see him make a presentation live.

I wish I could understand why there is such hostility to him here. I can't help but believe or hope that if people knew how he lived, they would not make such suppositions.

Sigh.

[InvisibleTouch]

257. That's good. I like it! n/t

[Bucky]

260. Well, what the fuck *should* I be depressed about then? Huh?

This guy is useless. Plus he's got a girl's name.

[AngryAmish]

270. "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, ..."

"Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consiousness."

[Orrex]

275. So I've got that going for me.

You know, I've had trouble resisting the urge to post that.

[AngryAmish]

276. My friend, you have waaay more will power than I

[omega minimo]

301. Um, sorry, due to budget cuts, that whole "when you die you will receive total consciousness" clause

was cancelled. :shrug:

[Orrex]

308. "Hey Lama! How 'bout a little something, you know, for the effort?"

[bridgit]

271. ^_^

[Dutch]

303. Truly, he is an infinitely wise Philosopher King. Almost on a par with Bobby McFerrin.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

307. Lol! When I read his quote I immediately thought of "Don't worry, be happy"!!!

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

313. And that's exactly how deep this quote this.

I've read deeper fortune cookies.

I love the guy, but damn, Skippy.

[MiniMe]

304. This explains it all

[truedelphi]

318. i am/was a sucker for that joke.

And also the one that featured "Ghandi bars" (Can't remember the whole joke - just that part of it.

[NoSheep]

310. He's not saying "don't try to change things"