Friday, June 13, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

by ABC the 7.30 Report

Thanks to Michael Murray for the link.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2273196.htm

Kerry O'Brien's exclusive interview with the Dalai Lama

Transcript

KERRY O'BRIEN, PRESENTER: For decades now, Tibet's spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has waged a sustained campaign maintaining global pressure on China to relax its iron fist on Tibet and grant a genuine autonomy within the People's Republic.

But rarely has the Dalai Lama been in the headlines more than since the sometimes violent demonstrations that began in Tibet on March 10 this year and raged on and off for two weeks.

In the inevitable Chinese crackdown, an unknown number of Tibetans were killed. The Chinese acknowledge 21 deaths; demonstrators say it
was more than 200.

It's now history that the protests spread, dogging the journey of the Olympic torch through Europe, America and Australia on its way to China for the Beijing Olympics. The Dalai Lama, of course, has always preached non-violence, but a growing number of young Tibetans are obviously frustrated by China's intransigence on their calls for full autonomy. The Dalai Lama is in Australia - not, he says, to play politics, but to teach his Buddhist philosophy.

I spoke with him in Sydney earlier today.

Your holiness, you have described what is going on in Tibet as cultural genocide. How severe? How rapid a genocide in your terms?

DALAI LAMA, TIBETAN SPIRITUAL LEADER: My expression, like this: whether intentionally, or unintentionally, some kind of cultural genocide is taking place. Word genocide qualified right from the beginning. The reason, in fact, is the administration in autonomous area and also outside of the mission of Tibet, Chinese officials put a lot of restrictions - Tibetans study. And last year, or, I think two years ago, I met with some Tibetan student who came from mainland China from Tibet, and study in America. Some of them, see, can not speak Tibetan, only Chinese. So, since they are majority of the population, the minority Tibetan in their daily life, they have to use Chinese language rather than Tibetan. So, these are unintentionally some kind of - all elements of the situation, the Tibetan culture, heritage, including language - degenerate.

KERRY O'BRIEN: It must concern you, if that continues for uninterrupted long enough, then Tibetan culture disappears, or becomes very weak?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, yes. Would die.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You've argued Tibet's case to the world and to China for decades now. Do you think the fact that younger Tibetan protesters have become more militant this year - the fact that they have - reflects some frustration at the failure of your leadership and your dialogue to force change in Tibet?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, it is true now a growing sort of feeling of frustration now growing among Tibetan is understandable. So, the criticism towards my stand also increasing. Sometimes they won't listen to my suggestions or my advice. But, of course, I respect - you see, they are utilising freedom of speech, freedom of heart. I'm always telling them I have no authority to say, "Shut up". It is up to you.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you have a moral authority?

DALAI LAMA: Oh, yes. Even those people, I think they love me, they respect me, but in certain views, they have different. But as far as violence and non-violence is concerned, I think generally Tibetan, you see, including youth organisation, generally they support, they agree, non-violent principle. But some individual, one or two - that's a different question.

KERRY O'BRIEN: You have urged Tibetans not to demonstrate against the Olympic torch, but do you sympathise with those who see the torch route through Tibet itself as a provocation?

DALAI LAMA: Our citizens do not seeking separation and then, moreover, the Olympic Games. I think, over a billion Chinese brother, sisters really feel proud of it. Therefore, we must respect. So, in the past, many occasions I appeal, including Tibetan, should not disturb that sort of ceremony, or even torch. For example, after incidents in London and Paris because of the disturbances, so I particularly, specifically appeal to Tibetan community in San Francisco, don't make disturbances. I appeal. So, in visit in area of Tibet, I personally feel may not much disturbances. It's better. Not much use.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Do you think that China's long-term strategy is simply to wait you out. That you are the most effective focus of resistance on Tibet? That if they simply wait you out in the expectation that you're gone, that you will be gone one day, and at that point what is left of Tibetan resistance will fade away?

DALAI LAMA: There are two opinions since early '80s - there are two opinions even among the Chinese. One opinion, yes, Dalai Lama as a troublemaker. So, after he gone, he pass away, the thing's automatically solved. That's one opinion. Another opinion is better while that troublemaker remains there, you can deal.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Not quite like dealing with the devil?

DALAI LAMA: Yes, devil, with horn. One say, "That demon, gone." Then nobody can truly represent or in other words, I think I'm popular among Tibetan. I'm, I think, I don't know. I think if I say Tibetan, I think generally, listen. Majority, certainly majority of them listen. Therefore, while such person alive, it is better to find solution.

KERRY O'BRIEN: I assume that even the Dalai Lama acknowledges human frailty. What negative emotion do you personally have the most trouble with?

DALAI LAMA: Anger - sometimes.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Is that right? How do you deal with it? What makes you angry?

DALAI LAMA: If you ask some silly questions again and again, then I may lose my temper.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But you haven't lost your temper today?

DALAI LAMA: Yes. One time in New York, in America. One New York Times - what do you call?

DALAI LAMA'S ASSISTANT: Columnist.

DALAI LAMA: Columnist. One lady asked me, "What is your, sort of, legacy after me?" And I told, "I'm Buddhist practitioner. I cannot think about my name after me". So, important is while I alive I should do something useful for other. Then she again that same question. Then I answer same way. Then, third time - then I lost my temper.

KERRY O'BRIEN: So, how do you deal with anger?

DALAI LAMA: But I think the basic mental attitude, I think, through training. If you're basic mind calm, then anger come, go, comes and go. Not remain.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And that's the important thing?

DALAI LAMA: Yeah, that's important.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Not hanging onto your anger.

DALAI LAMA: No, no. Within minute, it go. Now, for example, after 10 March, a lot of anxiety, a lot of sadness and also feeling of helplessness. So, intelligence level, a lot of disturbances. But things, you see, on deeper mind, I think through years, years training of mind, so senses are quite calm. So, these disturbances on intelligence level may not disturb much deeper level. So, at least, in spite of the many, sort of, worry, I think one indication, since last now, more than two months, 10 March, when I give some sort of lecture on Buddhism, my mind not that much clear. I think that's I think as disturbances in my intelligence level. But, you see, these disturbances never destroy my sleep. So that, I think, at a deeper level, still calm mind. I feel like that.

KERRY O'BRIEN: And on that note, we'll have to end the interview. But thank you very much for talking with us today. Thank you.

DALAI LAMA: Thank you, thank you.

KERRY O'BRIEN: Some well-timed advice from the Dalai Lama on anger management and finding the inner peace.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, June 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 134 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #192647 by Brian English on June 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

He seems like a nice guy. The weird thing is, and he doesn't argue for it, but many westerners do, is that Tibet was some paradise before the Chinese. It was awful. Boys were forced into monstaries and placed at the whim of older monks. Ordinary people were subsistence peasants with no rights.
I'm not saying it's wonderful under the Chinese, far from it. Just that it wasn't wonderful before either.

Other Comments by Brian English

2. Comment #192650 by doubtingfoo on June 13, 2008 at 8:06 pm

It would give me great pleasure if he would come out and say "Um...yeah, about me being reincarnated, that's a bunch of crap." I think anyone who was taught from the age of 3 that he was the reincarnation of Buddha would probably believe it. I love the guy but that one issue really bugs me!

Other Comments by doubtingfoo

3. Comment #192656 by Inferno on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 pm

I would have asked him about some of his actions in his past incarnations and whether he regretted any of his actions.

And then really got into the nitty gritty of his beliefs. The media gives this guy a free ride, and never question the ridiculousness of some of the things he says.

Other Comments by Inferno

4. Comment #192669 by the great teapot on June 13, 2008 at 10:11 pm

"your Holiness"
Ha.

Other Comments by the great teapot

5. Comment #192694 by mmurray on June 13, 2008 at 11:19 pm

If you follow the link you can see the whole interview. The transcript is just the edited down interview which appeared on the TV, the extended one is on the web site.

The Dalai Lama is going to be an interesting contrast to the Pope who comes to Sydney soon for World (Catholic) Youth Day. I will be very surprised if the Pope is interviewed on TV. They're also flying out some dead holy person in a coffin. Maybe he'll be available for interview.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/catholic-pinup-boys-body-heading-for-sydney/2008/04/18/1208025479559.html

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

6. Comment #192821 by rod-the-farmer on June 14, 2008 at 2:38 am

I've never seen/heard a good explanation as to why China invaded Tibet in the first place. I see the Dalai Lama as mostly harmless. They don't seem to actively solicit new members, like the LDS and their annoying door-knocking campaign. Nor do we hear much about offensive practices against their own members or non-members, unless provoked by actions against them. But I do not consider myself well-read on the subject.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

7. Comment #192835 by suffolkthinker on June 14, 2008 at 3:02 am

Brian English said:

He seems like a nice guy. The weird thing is, and he doesn't argue for it, but many westerners do, is that Tibet was some paradise before the Chinese. It was awful. Boys were forced into monstaries and placed at the whim of older monks. Ordinary people were subsistence peasants with no rights.
I'm not saying it's wonderful under the Chinese, far from it. Just that it wasn't wonderful before either.

Well said Brian. I get so fed up with the new age fawning of the "Paradise" of Tibet. In the past (i.e. prior to the disintegration of China in the early 20th civil wars) it was a theocracy that paid tribute to the Chinese emperor. Whether it was genuinely a sovereign nation or not is a pointless argument of definitions. Paradise it was not.

Roll forward to the 21st Century, China is a whole stable modern (or rapidly mobernising depending on your view) nation. Yes elements of its regime are rather authoritarian for many in the west's taste but the average Chinese citizen is well educated, well fed and has more influence in selecting their leaders than a Tibetan has in selecting the next incarnation of the Dalai Lama.

The comment on language in this is also misleading. Certainly 50 years ago there was heavy pressure to suppress languages other than standard Chinese but these days Tibetan is recognised and the government pays for schools in that language as well as in Chinese. Not that much different from that status of Welsh or Gallic in the UK.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

8. Comment #192852 by mmurray on June 14, 2008 at 4:08 am

They don't seem to actively solicit new members, like the LDS and their annoying door-knocking campaign.

In fact the Dalai Lama is quite keen on people sticking with the religion of their cultural background.

I was amused during his visit though by the protests by a Tibetan Buddhist faction. I don't know anything about the background to this particular schism but it has to be one of humanities favourite pastimes. Peoples Front for the Liberation of Judea, Judean Peoples Front ...

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #192865 by KRKBAB on June 14, 2008 at 5:07 am

Who cares about all the negative issues that could be dealt with and some real wrongs being righted- just DON'T GET MAD! ? What utter crap! Think of C. Hitchens dealing with THAT subject. Mr. "don't tell me to LOVE my enemies- I want to HATE my enemies". Of course getting angry too much and too often could impede rationaity, but this eastern philosophy of "let the world's troubles and anxieties just wash over me- they'll go away kind" of bullshit is annoying as hell. Hands off- do nothing! fuck that. That sounded appealing to me before, and granted it has it's usefulness in alleviating (temporarily) anxieties, but it's like willfully giving yourself a frontal lobotomy.
Who cares that he's a nice person. He still speaks drivel and many people hang on to his last word as if their lifes are going to be guided onto a better "path". Buddhisim bothers me because there are so many intelligent people in the West that are leaving the idiocy of their family's inherited religion, well onto the way to rationality and then BAM (or more like mush), just before they discover proper skepticism they get trapped in the gooey fluff of buddhism. Yes, I said it- the gooey fluff of buddhism. And it's adherants think it's crystal clear thinking!

Other Comments by KRKBAB

10. Comment #192867 by KRKBAB on June 14, 2008 at 5:13 am

oops- in my last rant I wrote life's instead of live's. I guess I got too ANGRY and didn't properly check my wording (but do I ever?). ta-ta

Other Comments by KRKBAB

11. Comment #192878 by njwong on June 14, 2008 at 5:42 am

9. Comment #192865 by KRKBAB

Actually, I consider the Dalai Lama to be a very interesting philosopher. Instead of denigrating everything the Dalai Lama says just because Buddhism is classified as a "religion", perhaps you might be interested to hear what he says about a Creator, atheism, and what Buddhists should do to solve the problems in the world:

Dalai Lama: "I'm Buddhist, I'm a Buddhist practitioner. So actually I think that according to nontheistic Buddhist belief, things are due to causes and conditions. No creator. So I have faith in our actions, not prayer. Action is important. Action is karma. Karma means action. That's an ancient Indian thought. In nontheistic religions, including Buddhism, the emphasis is on our actions rather than god or Buddha. So some people say that Buddhism is a kind of atheism. Some scholars say that Buddhism is not a religion " it's a science of the mind.

Interviewer: Do you agree with that?

DL: Oh, yes. I even consider Buddha and some of his important followers like Nagarjuna (one of Buddha's leading disciples) to be scientists. Their main method is analytical. Analyze, analyze" not emphasis on faith. And these masters are not magicians. (Jokingly pretends to clip me around the head and laughs.)"

Japan Times, Sunday, December 02, 2007

http://www.dalailama.com/news.199.htm

Other Comments by njwong

12. Comment #192910 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 7:56 am

I agree with Hitchens's view of the Dalai Lama. I loved the guy and everthing he said...when I was 14. Reading his books, I found certain things disturbing, such as his views on karma, but as a little boy, I tried my best to just rationalize them. One thing he said, which suggests a deeply anti-scientific attitude on his part, is that he would renounce the doctrine of reincarnation if it could be proven false. He wants evidence against reincarnation. I believe he said that in "Ethics for a New Millenium." He doesn't realize that the onus is on him to supply evidence for reincarnation, not the other way around. I can't regard the Dalai Lama as either a philosopher or an ethicist. He really is just as sleezy as Mother Theresa (Ol' Bojax), or at least that's where I'd put my money. Hitchens's observation about MT in the Missonary Position (that her actions are judged by her reputation and not the other way around) could be equally applied to the Dalai Lama for anyone who bothers to do the research. Food for thought:

The Dalai Lama believes that the "Government in Exile" is the rightful government of Tibet purely in virtue of being the incumbant. Tibetans are never consulted on this matter.

He says one thing and does another. Preaches tolerance, but is abusive and terroristic in his treatment of people in sects other than his own, the Yellow Hat Sect.

He lies. He's lied about Tibet's history. Both with respect to it's relation to China and to the nature of the theocrcy's rule (95 percent of people were either slaves or serfs). He screams genocide, but the population of Tibetans in Tibet has icreased by over one million (the one child poicy does not apply to Tibetans). He's lied about the territorial extent of Tibet prior to 1959. "Cultural genocide" seems to be code for "modernization." I had an art teacher who went to Tibet and complained that "the Chinese are building all these modern buildings." You mean, like hospitals and schools?

He is not the spiriual leader of Tibet, only one sect (there are four).

He makes claims, but supplies no evidence. He is believed for the same reason the pope is believed: we don't hold religious leaders to the same standard's of evidence that we hold historians and scientists nor to the same standards of reason as scientists and philosophers.

Whether or not Beijing gets to rule Tibet is an unrelated matter. What claim does the Dalai Lama have to Tibet? What sense does it make to lift Tibet from the hands of an authoritarian regime only to place it in the hands of a sectarian theocrat?

There's a lot of bullshit to unravel about this situation.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

13. Comment #192913 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #192878 by njwong

Buddhism usually contains a lot of nonsense, but it useful to understand it, I think. It shows that religion need not be theistic. That one can be an atheist and believe all kinds of things. Atheism isn't linked to a belief in evolution, or a lack of belief in absolute morality. Most of us here have those views, I suspect, because we aren't supernaturalists, not because we are atheists.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #192917 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 8:28 am

That's the reason I was attracted to Tibetan and Zen Buddhism as a young man. I was raised in a secular home and wasn't prepared to embrace God. A Buddhist can be a polytheist or a monotheist, but it isn't CATEGORICALLY theistic the way Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are. I think Hinduism is fascinating for the same reason. The word "Hinduism" usually brings to mind polytheism, but India's history is saturated with atheistic forms of Hinduism. The Dalai Lama, as far as I know, is in fact a polytheist, although this fact is not widely advertised to those who want to buy the sterilized version of Lamaism that's wrapped in plastic and has a "fun for all ages" sticker prominently displayed on it. Advancing the good cause of polytheism isn't part of the Dalai Lama's PR campaign.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

15. Comment #192918 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 14, 2008 at 8:40 am

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html

The Hitch on Tenzin Gyatso, aka the 14th Dalai Lama.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

16. Comment #192924 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 am

Thanks ThoughtsonCommonToad!

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

17. Comment #192931 by njwong on June 14, 2008 at 9:30 am

Comment #192913 by Steve Zara

When one studies the original teachings of Buddha (The Four Noble Truths (his diagnosis of suffering), and The Eight Fold Path (his prescription)), this atheistic philosophy of life is indeed very remarkable, considering that Buddha developed his insight 2500 years ago in a time when superstition was rife and beliefs in gods and deities were the rage (he was a Hindu).

I would say that today's philosophy of Ethics and Humanism are the evolved forms of Buddha's original teaching (got rid of the reincarnation stuff).

However, religion being religion, Buddhism suffers the same problem as the other faiths in that it will not discard teachings or practices that are no longer relevant.

In Sri Lanka and Thailand, where monks are held in high esteem by the local folks, it is very obvious that many of the monks have develop a crutch like mentality, and expect to be treated like kings simply because they are monks.

Monks are also assumed to be bastions of piety and goodness. However, wrapping oneself up under a saffron cloth will not make one a better person, and many rogues are known to have don such robes with no intention of reforming their "evil" ways. Religion protects them because we are not expected to criticise religion.

When you see expensive and elaborately built Buddhist temples in a region where people are starving and living in poverty, you know that the focus is out-of-whack. The people donate large sums of money to build temples and monasteries in the belief that this will earn them good karma, when in reality, building more schools and clinics will be more useful to the population.

We don't need temples and monasteries if we have good schools that teach people both material knowledge like science and technology, and moral knowledge such as civics and ethics.

I have no quarrels with Buddhist philosophy. It is the religion that needs to be stripped out.

Other Comments by njwong

18. Comment #192935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

Four Noble Truths

1. Suffering exists
2. Suffering arises from attachment to desires
3. Suffering ceases when attachment to desire ceases
4. Freedom from suffering is possible by practicing the Eightfold Path

Noble Eightfold Path

Three Qualities	Eightfold Path
Wisdom (panna)	Right View
	Right Thought
Morality (sila)	Right Speech
	Right Action
	Right Livelihood
Meditation (samadhi)	Right Effort
	Right Mindfulness
	Right Contemplation

Three Characteristics of Existence

1. Transiency (anicca)
2. Sorrow (dukkha)
3. Selflessness (anatta)

Hindrances

1. Sensuous lust
2. Aversion and ill will
3. Sloth and torpor
4. Restlessness and worry
5. Sceptical doubt

Factors of Enlightenment

1. Mindfulness
2. Investigation
3. Energy
4. Rapture
5. Tranquillity
6. Concentration
7. Equanimity

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

19. Comment #192938 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:49 am

Comment #192935 by ThoughtsonCommonToad

5. Sceptical doubt

Having been investigating Buddhism for a while, I don't think that is what is intended. For example, wikipedia gives that as

"Lack of conviction or trust."

It is certainly not intended as "faith".

It is a negative thought. If you go around filled with cynicism and trusting nobody, you aren't going to be very happy, which is, after all, what Buddhism is supposed to be about.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #192940 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 9:51 am

I find it difficult to defend Buddhism. Sure, it's more ratioanl than the other religious proclivities that were dominant at the time. However, just saying "Oh look how less stupid it is!" isn't an argument. Comparing it to Hinduism or Judaism or the worship of Baal certainly makes it look more enlightened and it certainly sounds fair. If we're really going to be fair we should compare it to the standards of the day and not to 21st century standards. Fair enough! The Buddha lived at roughly the same time that philosophy was flourishing in Greece and China. Although Buddhism might have been an improvement over religion, it still didn't live up to the standards of reason and clear-thinking that thinkers like Aristotle and Mozi taught us to expect. By the standards of the day, Buddhism, in my opinion, just wasn't that sophisticated.

What's worse. It's built on the eightfold path, which is built on the fourth noble truth, which is built on the thrid, the third on the second, and the second on the first. In order to be a Buddhist you must accept the first noble truth, or else you have no reason to accept the second, third, and fourth, and the eightfold path and, therefore, Buddhism. What is the first noble truth: all life is suffering (dukkha). I see no rational reason to accept THAT. If you do, for whatever reason, accept THAT, I don't care to know you. A religion whose usefulness is contingent on the veracity of a universal statement that is obviously false is no friend of reason's.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

21. Comment #192942 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 9:58 am

Comment #192940 by Lil_Xunzian

I find it difficult to defend Buddhism.

Let's put things this way. If all theists converted to Buddhism, I think the world would be a far better place. Buddhism has no objection to rational investigation of reality. It does not believe in a soul (there is barely any notion of self). Some schools don't believe in re-incarnation or karma as we think of it.

What is the first noble truth: all life is suffering (dukkha). I see no rational reason to accept THAT.

That doesn't mean we all go around in tears! It means we have desires and fears that make us miserable to some extent. I think that is pretty usual.

Buddhism, stripped of the supernatural rubbish, seems a pretty good way to live a happy life, to me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

22. Comment #192943 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 14, 2008 at 10:04 am

If anyone wants a good resource for studying Buddhism I found this one very helpful

BUDDHISM

N.B Somebody mentioned Hinduism. Here's a great clip with Bill Bailey LINK

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

23. Comment #192944 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:14 am

I disagree. Spinoza's solutions to the very same problems are many magnitudes more sophisticated and elegant. You would have to be a total narcissist to want to organize your entire life around the alleviation of YOUR OWN suffering. Pain sucks, but we just have to deal with it. The satisfaction of knowing that you live an ethical life and pursue and speak the truth, perhaps even at the cost of your own happiness, more than makes up for the pain.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

24. Comment #192947 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:19 am

Comment #192944 by Lil_Xunzian

You would have to be a total narcissist to want to organize your entire life around the alleviation of YOUR OWN suffering.

I don't think any one claims that Buddhism is only about relieving personal suffering.

Pain sucks, but we just have to deal with it.

Buddhism is about how to deal with it, without any "God will help you" solutions.

The satisfaction of knowing that you live an ethical life and pursue and speak the truth, perhaps even at the cost of your own happiness, more than makes up for the pain.

Sounds like a miserable life to me. I want to be able to speak the truth and be happy. I see nothing in Buddhism that would prevent that.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #192949 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:24 am

Religion is, I think, an incredibly narcissistic exercise, period. You make the whole of existence about YOURSELF. Any selfless or altruistic acts you do perform you only perform with yourself in mind. In religion, the other is a subordinate telos. The good you do for others is only a proximate end, where the remote end, for which the proximate end is only a means, is your own enlightenment, salvation, or passport into heaven. Hitchens makes this very clear in the case of MT.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

26. Comment #192951 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:27 am

Comment #192949 by Lil_Xunzian

Religion is, I think, an incredibly narcissistic exercise, period. You make the whole of existence about YOURSELF.

That is an unwarranted generalisation that ignores human nature.

Religious parents have been know to worry about getting their children baptised so that they will not suffer in hell.

Theistic religions are narcissistic because they make the universe about us. I think that claiming people think it is about only themselves is wrong.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #192953 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 10:32 am

Why do we have to adhere to anyone elses views on life. I am sure buddha and spinoza were both as happy and unhappy as you or me, regardless of how many self help manuals they sold.

Other Comments by the great teapot

28. Comment #192957 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:33 am

A simple illustration:

Why do you feed the hungry and care for the sick?

Because God wants me to.

Well, why are you doing what God wants?

So he will save my eternal soul.

In Kant's "Kingdom of Ends," you couldn't have any religion, because religion, I think, ultimately boils down to using people as a means to an end.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

29. Comment #192958 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 10:35 am

Comment #192957 by Lil_Xunzian

You have forgotten something.

"Well, why are you doing what God wants?

So he will save the eternal soul of my parent/sibling/lover/child."

There is enough to criticise about religion. We don't need the straw man argument that it is entirely narcissistic and selfish.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #192960 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:36 am

Steve Zara,

That's not the claim I made. You also didn't bother to follow the argument. I said religion is the product of human narcissism. I didn't make a single claim about human nature. Where did you get that from?

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

31. Comment #192962 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 14, 2008 at 10:43 am

Whenever I want to illustrate narcissm and arrogance I quote Jane Goodall.

When I was a child, born into a Christian family, I accepted the reality of an unseen God without question. And now that I have lived almost three quarters of a century I still believe in a great spiritual power. I have described elsewhere the experience I had when I first visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. When, as I gazed at the great rose window, glowing in the morning sun, the air was suddenly filled with the glorious sound of an organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. It filled me with joy, brought tears to my eyes. How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in timeï¿½"the cathedral, the collective faith of those who had prayed and worshiped within, the genius of Bach, the emergence of a conscious mind that could, as mine did then, question the purpose of life on Earth. Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed.

It would be an incredible feat to find a more arrogant paragraph than that. It makes me ill reading it.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

32. Comment #192963 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

Unfortunately that's not the way religion works. If I'm a Christian, my being a Christian isn't going to do a damn thing about my little sister who practices wicka. All the good deeds in world aren't going to save poor little Annie. No matter how much I do God's bidding, she'll still burn in hell forever. All I can hope to do is convert her. An individual is religious for narcissistic reasons. Why they try to convert others is another matter. Maybe it has something to do with selfish memes or selfish genes, rather than selfish individuals. Christianity for example, doesn't grant the option of redemption for your little sister vicariously through you, BECAUSE JESUS ALREADY DID THAT. Religions only give you the option of saving yourself, everyone else has to save him- or herself, all you can do is point the way. Your criticism is null and void.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

33. Comment #192964 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 10:46 am

Steve,

Since when was religion not egocentric.
That is what shouts out at me most about the bible.
The book of job is my favourite. The world revolves around Job (and god of course).
If I hear the word straw man one more time...

Other Comments by the great teapot

34. Comment #192965 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:50 am

I assume trying to convert family members is a misfiring of the otherwise useful instinct for looking out for our own kin. I certainly don't want my mommy to burn in hell, but since I don't believe in hell, I'm not too worried.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

35. Comment #192966 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 10:55 am

ThoughtsonCommonToad,

I feel your pain. It makes me ill to think that anyone could be so self-absorbed.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

36. Comment #192967 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 10:57 am

I'm with Steve here.

I have met and talked to so many religious people. And most of them do want others to know the "truth" about god - or at least how to find the true way so that they will be able to please God and enter the kingdom of heaven.

When it was still the official doctrine of the catholic church that unbaptized children who die are going to spend eternity in Limbo - that was a major incentive for christians to have their children baptized as early as possible. They didn'wanted their children to know the grace of god, to get into the kingdom of heaven.

There are many religious people who are genuinely altruistic and are genuinely altruistic and empathetic. That's part of the motivation for indoctrinationa/mission and has been all along.

That's the real pervasiveness of the doctrine. You are a human being capable of empathy and altruism. You believe firmly that in order not to suffer the worst fate possible in the hereafter, the others have to believe the right things and do the right things. So you have an altruistic motive for missionary work.

Actually I think the class of altruistic actions/beliefs are a subclass of egoistic beliefs/actions - because in the end, every action is motivated. Anyone's altruistic actions are always also done out of the desire to live up to one's own standards - to fulfill the own desire/moral imperative to behave altriustically.

I'm also not saying that religion isn't narcissistic - but it would be wrong to say that it isn't true that religious people act on their beliefs also out of empathy and altruism (misconcieved though it is).

Other Comments by MPhil

37. Comment #192968 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 10:58 am

I assume trying to convert family members is a misfiring of the otherwise useful instinct for looking out for our own kin.

I don't think it's a misfiring - it fires correctly, but the information (the beliefs which evoke this) is wrong.

Other Comments by MPhil

38. Comment #192969 by Steve Zara on June 14, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #192964 by the great teapot

There is all the difference between something being about me, and something being about us

Religion says things like "We are the chosen people", not "I am the only chosen one".

Religion is a human invention. It flatters prejudices and beliefs. Most people are decent. They care about family and friends. They use religion in that way, which is why, in some religions they want them saved too. Parents can be desperate to baptise children.

For goodness sake, religion is bad enough. We don't need to exaggerate.

Buddhism, for all its many faults, is about relieving suffering. It isn't about relieving just my suffering and (excuse my language) everyone else can just bugger off.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #192970 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 11:13 am

Sorry, but concern for my tribe is a form of egoism, a little extended but not by much.

Other Comments by the great teapot

40. Comment #192972 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:13 am

It does seem correct to say that trying bring other people to a "saving knowledge," or whatever, is altruistic. You are, however, confusing the drive to be religious, which is narcissistic, with the drive to convert others to said religion, which is not. Being religious is by definition narcissistic because it's (a) teleological and (b) the telos is yourself (in some way, shape, or form). The ultimate "hou heneka" (for-the-sake-of-which, to speak Aristotelese) for being religious is your own salvation, enlightenment, etc. There may be other proximate ends, but they are subordinated to the ultimate end (me, me, me!), and are, therefore, a means. Religion is a glorified for of:

Why do you do community service?

Because it will look good on my college resume.

We would find this contemptible, yet we find "altruistic" acts directed at proximate ends done in the name of religion laudable.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

41. Comment #192973 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 14, 2008 at 11:14 am

Primary motivation for religious belief? Ask the believer themselves. For example I assume Goodall assumes she's being humble in the statement I posted above, but in actual fact she is saying "the whole universe was created so I could experience that moment", the most arrogant statement possible.

So I think we arguing over primary motivation of individuals versus the most salient thing about religion itself: solipsism.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

42. Comment #192975 by mordacious1 on June 14, 2008 at 11:21 am

What's always bothered me about this Lama fellow, is that he is constantly saying that he wouldn't even kill a mosquito if it was sucking his blood. He has too much respect for life. Yet he is alway jetting around the world, the jets kill countless insects and even birds while taking off and landing. Plus, the polution the jet creates is harming the environment much more than me swatting an insect here and there. If he would just stay put or do more walking, he could save more life. I wonder how much life would be destroyed if he used a sailboat to move around? Just don't talk the talk, walk the walk.

Other Comments by mordacious1

43. Comment #192976 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:22 am

"Sorry, but concern for my tribe is a form of egoism, a little extended but not by much."

Indeed. Narcissism operates on multiple levels. "Selfishness" does just mean "myselfishness," it can also mean "ourselfishness." Sexism is narcissism operating at the level of gender. Racism, race. Agism, age. Speciesism is just species-level narcissism. Narcissism just means a form of pathological self-love. Speciesism, for example, just refers to a type of collective, pathological self-love whereby we show an arbitrary preference for own species at the expense of every other.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

44. Comment #192977 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:25 am

"Solipsism" is so the perfect word to interject into this conversation!

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

45. Comment #192979 by Peacebeuponme on June 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

Steve

There is all the difference between something being about me, and something being about us

Religion says things like "We are the chosen people", not "I am the only chosen one".

I agree. Religious people I know generally care about others a great deal.

Teapot does have a point though, there are a number who are somwhat self-centred. When you hear about somebody doing something with their life because 'god' spoke to them and told them their path, they end up becoming evangelical preachers or whatnot. God never speaks to a person to let them know they should remain a farmer, or a lollipop lady.

In a similar way, those who think they have live past lives, do not live them as serfs or petty thieves.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

46. Comment #192980 by MPhil on June 14, 2008 at 11:30 am

Speciesism, for example, just refers to a type of collective, pathological self-love whereby we show an arbitrary preference for own species at the expense of every other.

Every species has that - it's not pathological.
What would be pathological in this respect would be to regard every thing on this planet has having equal moral status. That would be pathological in rendering us incapable of any action - and thus in its ultimate consequence would be the demise of ours species.

The moral question is far too difficult to be dismissed by an a priori assumption of equal moral status of everything.

Other Comments by MPhil

47. Comment #192986 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 11:38 am

I am not suggesting religious believers are selfish people, I am just saying they believe the world is created for them.(I believe we have recently included the blacks too)

Other Comments by the great teapot

48. Comment #192990 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 11:56 am

Since natural selection doesn't work on entire species, there's no evolutionary basis for an arbitrary and pathological preference for one's own species. Firstly, I doubt other animals have a robust enough concept of a "species" to be speciesists. Secondly, I doubt other animals have a robust enough notion of "self" be narcissists. They may be selfish, but words like "narcissistic" and "solipsistic" don't really apply to non-human animals. No one is suggesting that all living things have the same moral status. The key word, the one that should have tipped you off that that point wasn't being made is "arbitrary." If a cayote is trying to eat me and I, by whatever means, manage to kill him/her, I didn't exhibit an arbitrary preference for my own species. I just defended myself. That's not arbitrary. He/she also didn't exhibit an arbitrary preference for his own species. He needs to eat. I happen to be the nearest prey animal. End of story. If I defend myself against another human, no would accuse me of exhibiting an arbitrary preference for myself. If I tried to kill someone and he resisted, I wouldn't counter his resistence by looking him in the eye and saying, "look, you're just exhibiting an arbitrary preference for yourself, just let me kill you, okay?"

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

49. Comment #192994 by Lil_Xunzian on June 14, 2008 at 12:06 pm

No one is contesting THAT religious people care about other people. Give teapot and me a little credit. We're asking WHY they care about other people. The argument, let's call it "religiosity = narcissism," doesn't state that religious people DON'T care for others, it states that the REASON they care/the CAUSE of their caring is solipsistic. They care (see how the actual argument depends on that admission?) about x as a proximate end, which is a means to an ultimate end, y, which I do for MYSELF. The distinction between a "proximate" and "remote" or "ultimate" end is kind of important.

Other Comments by Lil_Xunzian

50. Comment #192995 by the great teapot on June 14, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Where speciesism kicks in is when man is aware that he is causing AVOIDABLE pain to a fellow traveller down the evolutionary trail and just doesn't give a shit. Plenty of caring religious people will do that because they will, a) never be in the victims position and b) think they won't be judged harshly about it because if there is a judge he says it is ok.
I might also add plenty of non religious people will do the same because they are thoughtless bastards.
Or because they,inspite of all the similarities, choose to believe we can't be that similar.How convenient.

Other Comments by the great teapot