I do think Tibetan Buddhism has been played out by both sides.  I can see how atheistic Chinese Communist Party would have generated negative propagenda against it to suppress any empathy or uprising for independence. 

But I also see how Hollywood/University liberal intellects have proped them against Chinese human rights record.Isn't it funny how the West didn't give a rat's behind about them until China has become more competitive?

That is not to, of course, take anything away from Dalai Lama as a spiritual person and leader.  There was a line from 'Kundun', that caught me.  I don't know Dalai Lama actually said this or not, he probably was quoting a Buddhist scripture;  So he fled Tibet as an young man chased by Chinese Communist soldiers.  He goes over Himalayas(the biggest physical obstacal on Earth) on a donkey's back, reaches to narrow mountain path China/India(Nepal?) border exhausted.  An Indian guard who might have heard about his possible exile walks up to him and asks him, "Are you Buddha?  Dalai Lama barely lifts up his head and replies faintly,

"I am like the Moon on a surface of water, If you see me and I try to be good, you see Yourself."

wow, he’s quite the sharp shooter. In 1985 he shot a hornet. I am not sure but I believe you have to be a pretty damn good shot to be able to hit one.

In any event, I want to dispute some of this article http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-09.htm%20/%20DL14 - http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Part-2-09.htm#DL14

It mentions his fascination for weapons and machines of war...all I can say is big deal. I mean comeon...what’s wrong with observing how nice military informs looks? What’s wrong with fascinations of artillery or other things. All of us have fascinations in that area and while the Dali Lama is supposed to be a reincarnation we have to remember that he is human with no memory of his former lives (If you believe that sort of thing, personally I don’t) and thus subject to the natural elements just as normal people are.

Yo,Scytho, it all depends how you define 'terrorist groups'.  I'm pretty sure many Buddhists picked up arms to fight what they mghit define as evil or foreign regimes.  I don't think Shaolin Temple monks went through that kind of training just to lose some weight. 

I know for sure that many Korean monks fought against Chinese or Japanese invasion/occupation.  Were they terroists?  Well they weren't part of Korean regular army.  They were more likely to fought next to bunch of farmers with pitch and forks just to defend their family and land.  I don't think these stories are rare in places like Vietnam or Thailand.  To the invading/occupying force maybe they were 'terrorists' not unlike the Middle East today. 

Btw the only nation ever have been convicted of 'International Terrorism' in the World Court sanctioned by U.N. is U.S.A. for atrocities we have commited in Nicaragua in the 80's.  U.S. was ordered to pay billions to Nicaragua but they ignored the ruling and vetoed it in Security Council.  Of course the 'Liberal Media' ignores it, too. Don't believe it ?  Look it up, plz.  How is that for defining 'Terrorist Groups'?  

Yeah the US was the only nation to commit international terrorism...Never mind what the North Koreans have been doing to Japan and South Korea since the end of the Korean war...Or how about what France did in Algeria...you know...mowing down groups of refugees ect ect...What BS. The Europeans have a real sexual fascination about convicting America in their courts...I think it is the only way for them to get off.

Originally posted by Maju Terrorism is not forbidden in my religion but I still have to know of a Pantheist terrorist.  Maybe the problem is to put too much emphasis in useless moral prohibitions, while not emphasizing enough the cultivation of reflexive wisdom. Note: the IRA is not Catholic: it is Marxist.

There is/was more than one IRA - the original, the Provisional, the Real and maybe some others. The genesis of the movement was religious/tribal. But I agree some of the latter-day versions were Marxist.

My first mother-in-law was an IRA supporter during WWI, but she was as anti-Marxist and devotedly Roman Catholic as they come.

(And in fact one of the major supporters in the seventies was Ghadaffi, who is Muslim - or at least claims to be.)

My opinion on this issue is actually very similar to yours. I despise the Hollywoodized "sanitized" and "fuzzy" version of Tibet as much as the PRC's version (i.e. they so-called "liberated" Tibet from feudalism and superstition).

I think none of us can really say for sure what the motivation behind another person's action is. On one hand, one can argue, like you, that the Dalai Lama's "inaction" is an act of poor leadership and even cowardise. On the other hand, one can equally argue that he's only sticking to his principle of "non-violent resistance" and trying to avoid bloodshed at all cost (especially the blood of his fellow Tibetans) by making compromises and accommodations.

I think whether you agree with his decision or not, his actions are at least consistent with his beliefs, unlike many other religious leaders who, while preaching love and peace, would not hesitate to incite violence.

I would never go overboard and see the Dalai Lama as a "holy man" because in my opinion, no man is holier than another. But I like this guy and have a lot of respect for him.

I am MOST impressed by how much (strange information) my fellow forumers know ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_Hao - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoa_Hao

It's not so much WHAT you know, it's WHO you know.

You can find out a lot of amazing things about peoples' histories that you probably wouldn't find anywhere else if you get to know people from various backgrounds.

It would be a little misleading to describe the Buddhist groups in S. Thailand that you are mentioned as "terrorists."  They are actually local people provided with arms and training by the Thai army so that they can serve in self-defense militias.  Beyond that, I don't have much more information.  If anyone does, please provide it, so maybe we can get to the bottom of what is really going on over there.

Thank you jfmff. I couldn't have said it better myself. It seems Leonidas prefers some kind of armed conflicts or resistance organized by some more militant leaders. Do you think that would be good for the Tibetan people? Do you think in the end, the Tibetan people would gain MORE after a prolonged and bloody arm conflict? And what tactics could the Tibetans use? What options do they have? If you talk about conventional warfare, Tibet wouldn't stand a chance against the PLA. So are you talking about guerrilla warfare? Terrorism? Sabotages? But at what cost? For how long? And even if they DO gain their "independence" after a prolonged bloody conflict (which I doubt if it would happen), it would only tarnish the image of Tibet internationally. Have you also considered the will of the Tibetan people?

Again, the old saying, "Hasn't history taught us enough?"

The Dalai Lama may look like a simple-minded and naive man with its assertion for non-violence and peace, but I am sure he is a lot wiser than he appears to be.  Pragmatism is the word here. Just to quote jfmff again here:

"If you want a perfect solution you will end up with noting. If you try a good solution, at least you will acomplish important things, although not the ideal ones."

As for the separation of religion and state, there is probably no one here in the forum more adamant on it than me (actually I am sure there is ...). But listen, this is the reality of Tibet now. Imagine what confusion it would create if the Dalai Lama decided to "quit" as Tibet's leader now. And given how consistent his actions and his beliefs have always been, I believe he really means it when he says if he ever comes to power in Tibet, he would make elections. This guy has credibility, something that is rare to find in today's world leaders.

Omar if you know more about the subject, could you explain more? When I was "researching" on Buddhist terrorism (using the internet only), I also got the impression that the Sri Lankan case may come closest to "Buddhist terrorism" (at least at the state-level).

This thread has been started out of ignorance, but at the same time the author of the initial post showed much ignorance. Buddhism has no dark side whatsoever, it is the ignorant minds that can hardly comprehend a sophiscated doctrines will spread lies and confusion about such matter.

To start with Buddhism is an esoteric religion, rooted in reality, claiming to be a Buddhist doesn't make one such. True buddhism is practiced only by the initiates or the monks and each of the monks learn according to his level of intelligence (and karma (let take that point out for the sceptics)). Zen buddhism is sort of heresy and a corruption of the real Buddhism as taught by the Conqueror, the Buddha. Zen buddhism has embraced many tools of buddhism like Meditations which will have many benefits even to vile individual like a cruel Samurai. With meditation a samurai will control his emotion and improve his memory and will be more efficient in the terrible act of destroying life. (note I'm not condemning the act myself (I'll be an hypocrite if I do), I'll just warn how offensive it is and tremendous effect it will have on one karma, killing is a foul practice, not even the lowest life form). Tibetan Buddhism has also been corrupted but a few initiates still pass  the proper tradition. Buddhism doesn't claim to be eternal and can become corrupt and extinct with time. (But the seeds of knowledge remains for ever in those who has done good and had come into contact with the dharma (the knowledge) and can be revived aeons after a system has been destroyed (sceptics and atheists should ignore this part) An ignorant man will deduce Buddhism claim one to be imortal, on the contrary no one or  part of entity is imortal) .

I'm not a buddhist, and neither I'm I an initiate but I'm well acquainted with the doctrines. But as the buddhist say, "ignorance is the first poison and knowledge (afflicted intelligence is infact ignorance despite the fact that it passes as knowledge among most layman) the cure to ignorance."

As for human skin, skull mumbo jumbo, a weak mind will not understand the meaning of it, but it simply symbolise the impermanent nature of man.

Violence is a big no in buddhism as I've hinted above, only a fool will embrace terrorist acts and claim he is a buddhist (he/she not only commiting an atrocious repulsive act but discrediting the dharma. Buddhism has absolutely no relationship with a religion like Islam but it has many similarities with Christianity, both preach about compassion but I consider christianity a religion while Buddhism isn't. Buddhism is like an experiment (trial and error with many paths some well established by predecessors some corrupted), a constant search for perfection inside and at time one must abandon doctrines learned to find new ways (acting like a pioneer of some sort or trying to revive lost knowledge).

In other word Buddhism is not for layman, it will only lead to confusion. And one need to have a rather high IQ to grasp a few of the sophiscated concepts.

In making these statements in proclaming other people's ignorance and exalting your own intellectual sophistication and superiority, I think you are giving everyone here an excellent example of what Buddhist teaching preaches AGAINST. Thank you.

In a way, we all are ignorant, aren't we? And those who think they are not are actually the ones that Buddhist teaching sees the biggest fool of all.

Actually most forumers here, including the ignorat me, know that Buddhism is more a philosophy than a religion. However, it is always seen as a religious institution from a social scientific perspective.

Buddhism, just like every "philosophy" or religion, is not immune to misinterpretation. Muslims claim their religion is non-violent and peaceful and so do Christians and Jews. But look at the reality. Claiming that Buddhism can defy human misinterpretation and abuse exhibits an even more incomprehensible level of ignorance in regard to human nature. One may be excused for being ignorant about Buddhism which is, afterall, a very complex system of beliefs. Yet not understanding such a simple phenomenon in human nature is really mind-boggling, and shall we say, a sign of real ignorance?

When I read your reply, you immediately hit me as someone who is trying to mask his confusion behind bombastic words -- and confuse you really are.

To start with, ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of; one cannot know everything and is exposed to afflictive intelligence all the time. So ignorance is natural if one doesn't cultivate his mind, open his mind to the world and have the ability to discriminate between wrong and right.

Exalting my Intellectual sophistication and superiority? May I remiind you that we are in the intellectual discussion section, therefore, I'm in my right to correct a wrong or a misconception.  And before commenting about one's post in such pompous language and attitude please try at least to read and understand the post thoroughly; for I'm not a Buddhist (and i've made it clear above) and as such you are not to associate my thoughts with Buddhism but with matter being discussed.

See my  reply above concerning ignorance.

I think you should try to read my post above again, infact, I've clearly metioned that buddhism is corruptible and can even become extinct. However, nowhere have I mentioned Buddhism as a philosophy; buddhism isn't a religion or a philosophy; it is a path and the dharma (knowledge) and dharmahood (Buddhists) provide guidance. Buddhist doctrines are adaptable and always changing. Doctrines can be rejected if an initiate finds it no longer suitable for his spiritual progress.

You have every right to correct a misconception, and as you correctly pointed it out, that's the very purpose of us coming here for discussions. But Quetzalcoatl, before you even started pointing out where the misconceptions were, the entire first paragraph of your post was unnecessary put-downs on not the message itself, but the messanger. Was that really necessary? The only reason why I see you doing that was simply to make yourself look smarter and more enlightened than the persons whom you're going to talk with (e.g. calling someone whom you don't even know having a "weak mind" - what purpose does that serve except self-congratulating your own "superior" and "strong" mind?). Constructive comments and even criticisms are the basis of intellectual discussions, but bad attitude and intellectual snobbishness are not. I would have reacted entirely differently to your comments (some of which do make sense) if you had not put them in such a pompous and offensive manner. 

By the way, even though you THINK what you wrote makes good sense, for me I think a large part of it was confusing and deciphering it requires effort - you have inadvertently confounded the sociology of an issue with the spiritual teaching of a great school of thoughts in your haste to show off how much you "know".

My ignorance is as deplorable to you as your arrogance to me.

The answer lies in the fact that it has taken this long to even come up with a viable example.

Bhuddism is a state of mind rather than a box u tick under religion. The thai primeminister may call himself buddhist, but is he in practise?

Oh please, it's not my fault if I'm straight talking type of guy.  I've defined what I mean by ignorance and never claimed I'm superior to anyone. Perhaps you are not weighing my seemingly blunt words adequately. I just going straight to the point not wasting time to sound polite. If I've offended you I apologize. You can of course disagree with me but please don't think it's personal. Words like ignorance and weak minds are not used as insults but as a state of mind that can afflict anyone.

It's just I'm intense in everything I do, my use of vocabulary reflects the intensity of my thoughts. But I'm not claiming superiority on anyone or never I'm saying I'm right and your are wrong full stop. If I say you are wrong, I mean I disagree with you but tomorrow I may find out you were actually right. So it is a debate and I'm exposing my thoughts with conviction; you don't necessary need to agree with me or feel offended if I disagree with you.

• the west will never actaully back them or do so in any relaible way
  
• the chinese will eventually kill off the tibetan culture/relgion/people
• the chinese will intervene and influence his replacement

I need to apologize to you too as my initial reaction to your post also appeared to be blunt and harsh. Getting overly defensive is an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that most of us have, and I am definitely not an exception to that. I should have taken more time to read your post and chew on it instead of reacting to the few words that I didn't like to see.

Obviously you're much more knowledgeable in Buddhism than me and a lot of us here, and please don't allow this brief confrontation to distract you from correcting my mistakes and sharing with us your insight. Actually this thread started off as a question, not a definitive statement, so in a way I was pleading ignorance on the topic and your observation was indeed correct.

Tubo, I can understand many Tibetans' resentment against Communist China. But your language is clearly inappropriate here. You can make your point without making such derogatory remarks about people - any people, even those you dislike intensely. I don't see any humor and fun when you're describing people getting killed.

There have been too many insults, insensitivities, lack of civility, and rudeness going on here lately. Do you really want to turn every thread here into a senseless battleground for mutual hatred????

People, please try to restrain yourselves. Be sensitive all the time and be apologetic when it's timely.  

I know most people don't find the PRC very trustworthy. But you don't find the idea of "limited autonomy" of Tibet within China feasible at all?

Take Hongkong and Macau as examples. Even though the Chinese central government do attempt to intervene in their local politics since their return to Chinese rule, overall (in its crudest sense), China has still been able to restrain itself from OVER-intervening. Due to the greater difference in culture, maybe Tibet COULD enjoy an even higher degree of autonomy and self-determination??? I know China is not a federal country, but I can see Tibet being something like Quebec in the Canadian confederation.

I am pointing this out just as an alternative to a blood fight for independence.