Not personal ones, unfortunetly. That would be pretty cool though.
But on to the point of the post. Interesting article the the Dalai Lama, some of his recent statements, and the author's reaction to said statements are here. Its of special note because I'm reading the Art of Happiness.
Read some of the comments on the article for some... uh, criticism ... of the Dalai Lama's viewpoint. Some of it is even justified.
Anyway, take a read and come back. I'll wait...
-------
Done? Okay then. My problem is this - In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought. The Marxist idea of everything to everyone get endorsed, despite never having worked anywhere and being responsible for some of the most heinious acts of man imaginable i.e. - N. Korea, USSR, China, et al. The fact that Capitalism has raised the fortunes of 1,000s is ignored. The Dalai Lama even acknowledges Capitalism's positive impact in China, and then dismisses it for the touch feely Marxism.
Part of the problem is that Marxism seems great at the moment if you apply it to a Capitalist made society that is promoting work and productivity because its already established a Living Standard A that can be distributed to all. But once you really start seeing the unintended consequences of a "from each, to each" philosophy, you realize that you now have a Living Standard B that will soon disintegrate into Living Standard C, on and on in a perpetuating cycle.
To me, the Devil is in the details. How much more "moral" can the system be, if it leads to the poverty - to the point of starvation - of thousands, if not tens of thousands? I suppose the Dalai Lama isn't all that worried about poverty - excepting starvation. But putting you in a more productive, prosperous place makes it that much more likely that another person, either through productivity or your generosity, can also be in a good place.
The second part is that it ignores that Capitalism does indeed have a moral underpinning. It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
Having said all this: The DL does seem to make some insightful points - mainly that Marxism/socialism has focused too heavily on destroying the successful class/ruling class and that as a result, when the revolution comes, there isn't much left to distribute. He suggests, instead of a resentful jealousy of the ruling class, that we employ a more compassionate stance overall.
I'm on board with that. I think there are rich that don't deserve their riches just as there are poor who don't deserve their poverty, and I'm not going to say either are totally deserving or undeserving of their lot. Nor am I going to pretend that being poor is the most horrible thing in the world or that being rich makes everything better. Both come with their own problems.
It suffers from having a title that isn't associated with a person's name, but it does have a moral underpinning.
ReplyDeleteI cracked up laughing at this part.
In my view, religious leaders often get stuck in a sticky web string of "touchy feely" philosophy rather than actual thought.
I think, along these lines, religious leaders are sometimes asked questions to which they are not well read or knowledgeable, but still expected to give an answer, sometimes making them sound silly. I'm not saying this is the case here, but you can only be a master of so much knowledge.
I agree with the comment above, spiritual leaders are very often put on the spot.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Marxist comment, I do find that there really has never been a marxist society anywhere and communism has a bad rep because it is associated with a totalitarian government instead of a community driven society.