You might think that a person whose life had shattered by a variant of Marxism would be somewhat opposed to the philosophy. Not so if the person you’re thinking of is the Dalai Lama. But then again it really wasn’t his life that’s been shattered by it. It was all his countrymen who didn’t qualify for political asylum.
The Dalai Lama gives his followers a big ol' "Gotcha!"
For the noble truths we go to USA Today:
Usually what we hear from the Dalai Lama is an insistant yet soothing voice for compassion and peace.
So Tsering Namgyal, a journalist based in Minneapolis, was jolted by the Dalai Lama’s talk to 150 Chinese students this month at the University of Minnesota. Writing at Religion Dispatches, he says:
Midway through the conversation, His Holiness, much to their surprise, told them “as far as socio-political beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist … But not a Leninist,” he clarified.
We’re guessing the line “religion . . . is the opiate of the masses” somehow got omitted from his translation of The Hitchhikers Guide to Marx and Engels.
It is also rather telling that that this “soothing voice for compassion and peace” has clarified that he is a Marxist as opposed to a Leninist.
Nirvana forbid the bloody revolution not be worldwide.
Written by Kip Hooker at TheVitaminPress.com
Source: USA Today
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Rated Awesome! What do you think?
14 
0
He lives in luxury while his people are oppressed. That is all I need to know as far as hypocrisy is concerned for this man. I am not surprised he is a socialist/marxist.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
….which is nice.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
He can’t be a real Marxist or Obama wouldn’t have kicked him out of the White House backdoor with the trash.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
Obama was just making the distinction between a Marxist with a country full of people to oppress, and just some guy that believes in the theory.
Rated Awesome! What do you think?
11 
0
Of course he’s a marxist. Look who he hangs out with. He made the following statement:
“Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilisation of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes — that is, the majority — as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair.”
So he has a fundamental misunderstanding of how any of those things are effected by, and affect, human nature. The theory doesn’t work in practice, it’s been proven time and time again. As long as humans have freewill the theories of Marx and Engels are impossible to implement, they always run up against the inability of humans to behave in a predictable, rational manner for any extended period of time.
To him I have the following from, in my opinion, a far more enlightened man than he:
“A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” and:
“Well first of all, tell me, is there some society you know of that doesn’t run on greed? You think Russia doesn’t run on greed? You think China doesn’t run on greed? What is greed?” and:
“And what does reward virtue? You think the communist commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think, excuse me, if you’ll pardon me, American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout?”
Milton Friedman
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
“You think a Hitler rewards virtue?”
Actually he did, except his conception of it was by all accounts slightly off the norm.
A true marxist believes in historical inevitability and the superiority of the marxiste way before any morality.
Rated Awesome! What do you think?
8 
1
He’s a Buddhist. That means I don’t have to listen to anything he says. There is no Dali Lama; he is an illusion. He’s a hypocrite every time he uses a personal pronoun “I” or “me,” because he simply does not exist.
You wanna play those stupid semantic games, Buddhists? Then live by that belief and stop existing! In other words: Shut up and go away.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Hey! I wa…….goi…..ng………me……..i’m….melting………..ahhhhh….h…
…h….h…………________________________________________________
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
The Chinese governement is running a policie of ethnic colonisation of Tibet by Han chinese (circa 95% of the Chinese population) and the libertards are yet to “speak out” against it, which prooves how phony their self-declared “anti-racisme” really is.
Even better, when Tibetans began some violent revolts against this racist oppression a time back, all libertards could state was “Chinese policies are WRUUUUNG but the Tibetans still shouldn´t use VIOLENSE!!1!”. Guess the Chinese gov have to find a way to turn its memberswhite if the seriously unfunny banner of libschizoid outrage is to be raised against them.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I think most of you are having trouble differentiating between Marxism and Leninist/Stalinist communism. Marxism fits perfectly with Buddhist mythology as it believes that the world can be a perfect place while totally ignoring human nature to compete and be the alpha (male or female).
If you get to know Buddhism at all you will realize that the buddhist “religious” groups are just as territorial, competitive and oppressive of one another as any other religious group. Each buddhist sect thinks they are preaching the right path to nirvana just as catholics vs protestants believe each other is wrong.
So the Dalai Llama is no better equipped or holier then you would believe the Pope is on telling others what socio-economic system they should live under.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
A fascinating comment. But I don’t think I would go so far as to suggest that we are having difficulty in differentiating between Marxism and Lenininst/Stalinist Communism (actually that would probably be Lenninist/Trotskyist Communism . . . I think Stalin deserves a category of his own). Most here are probably aware that the initial rift came with Lenin’s need to bring about what Marx figured would naturally occur. Of course it wasn’t limited to that. There was also the small issue of the Bolshevik Revolution attempting to bring communism to a country and not the world; to an essentially feudalist system and not a capitalist one and not the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat but rather a monarch by the intelligentsia.
I agree that on a certain level the fantasy of Marxism overlaps with certain fantasies of certain flavors of buddhism . . . but the thrust of the piece was to suppose that although riddled with fantasies (such as the progression of the global communist state from a government/economy to an economy alone, and the somehow magical transition of notions of self to a universal antipathy to the individual) Marx on occasion realized some of the mechanics that would be necessary to bring about his “scientific socialism”. Amongst these would be a worldwide bloody revolution to remove power from the capitalists and a general aversion to religion (philosophically somewhat more complicated than just that as his real argument was that religion served to numb the masses to the true horrors of their predicament . . . but in reality a necessity as so many religions promote individual salvation and even in such cases where they did not it is no good for there to be a higher authority than the state or the cooperative). And that if the Dalai Lama were intellectually honest (or perhaps just present) he would realize that even in its highly idealised form Marxism is inconsistent with what he professes to believe in. Namely peace, compassion and caste systems of privilege ordered about by birth and/or reincarnation. Of course I’m certain I’ve mistaken his devotion to peace and compassion and it could be argued that he truly believes that after the revolution the resultant “egalitarian” society would justify all the mass deaths and destruction and that free will would evaporate just as surely as the government. But in that instance the man should say “Hey guys . . . despite the nobel peace prize I think all of you that don’t submit to the oncoming authority will have to die. And I’m so committed to this notion that I’m gonna be out there in the streets getting it done myself!”. (Although come to think of it he could always make the argument that as a true Marxist he believes the change to be inevitable despite any action he might take . . . but as a true Marxist that change seems impossible as free market capitalism doesn’t exist so much any more and is certainly in no position to go world wide as is needed to prepare for Marxism)
I think the point that there is no such thing as a unilateral Buddhism is a great one. As is the one about the Dalai Lama’s fallibility.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
“There’s no idea so foolish that you can’t find ten clergymen to support it.” [Malcom Muggeridge]