--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Dec 11, 2006, at 3:11 PM, jim_flanegin wrote: > > > Assuming that they are being involutarily kept (and you know what > > they say about assumption...), sorta like those living involuntarily > > in exile from Tibet, former home of the failed tradition of Tibetan > > Buddhism. > > Well it's kind of a weird comparison--really a logical fallacy-- an > invalid comparison. Tibetan Buddhism isn't meant for waging wars, > it's meant for liberation.
...within refugee camps. > So while yes it was not good for war, it was great for > liberation. :-) So it therefore has been and still is a great success > at what it's supposed to do: making Buddhas (and much more)! Though not protecting the country from where its adherents came. Doesn't seem too useful. I suppose we coulds do a careful comparison of all of the suffering brought on to Tibet and try to balance that somehow against the suffering supposedly relieved Tibetan Buddhism. Might show that Tibetan Buddhism is marginally useful. I don't know. Probably an inconclusive result, much like the Maharshi Effect. > > Or perhaps you imagine Buddhas are somehow like Superman, I'm really > not sure. I don't imagine Buddhas as anything. I've seen many statues of them, but havent' met one yet. >You just seem angry to me. Where is THAT coming from?? Its too bad we don't have videocams- I've been chuckling over this all morning! I finally realized, and I'll admit I'm not too bright at times, that the most consistent critics on this board derive their spiritual growth from if not a failed, then a marginal, spiritual tradition. Just supremely ironic is all, and very funny! > > > Oh, except that there are what, several hundred pundits > > here, and several hundred thousand Tibetan exiles, perhaps millions? > > > > Yeah, Tibetan Buddhism sure looks after its people. >
