Presented with a golden opportunity to explain some of the many ways taught by Buddha to improve our compassion the Dalai Lama instead says that he doesn't really know how to. He also says he is liable to lose his temper and hit people.

I'm not a Buddhist but I have seen some benefit in it's teachings, and have viewed it as being helpful and less harmful than most religions. I like the way it's mostly atheistic in many ways, for example, and teaches compassion (or at least, it did!). Having this incompetent fuckwit as leader really lower's Buddhism's admittedly limited appeal even further. Time for a new pope Dailai Lama methinks.

The only thing I can say that's positive about Buddhism is that it contains fewer dangerous and backwards ideas as some other religions out there. But in practice, it's still as divisive as any other religion and based entirely on conning (grieving and desperate) people out of their money, because you have no legitimate use to society. For all of its claims of lack of materialism, I've never seen a Buddhist temple without a collection box, and I've never seen monks turn up to someone's funeral for free. And you only have to ask a Sri Lankan Hindu or a Burmese Muslim just how likely Buddhists are to abhor violence. Like every other religion, it becomes another excuse for simple in-group/out-group thinking.

On the other hand, I think it's refreshing to see a religious leader who admits that his status gives him no special knowledge or input into questions of morality.

It's kind of refreshing that he admits to it, but someone please get this guy a pinball machine so that he doesn't hit people. Surprisingly, Stern makes some rather good ones these days.

The annotations in that video seem to completely miss the point. The question was about how to increase compassion in someone else who is not very inclined to it. As far as I'm aware Buddhism doesn't make any claims on how to change other peoples' behaviour. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he admits he's not an expert in that area, - he's not a psychiatrist. But that whatever method you may attempt to make, it's likely to require patience.

minininja wrote:The annotations in that video seem to completely miss the point. The question was about how to increase compassion in someone else who is not very inclined to it. As far as I'm aware Buddhism doesn't make any claims on how to change other peoples' behaviour. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he admits he's not an expert in that area, - he's not a psychiatrist. But that whatever method you may attempt to make, it's likely to require patience.

Well, shouldn't his obvious answer be "introduce them to Buddhism - specifically this teaching etc"?

Keep It Real wrote:

minininja wrote:The annotations in that video seem to completely miss the point. The question was about how to increase compassion in someone else who is not very inclined to it. As far as I'm aware Buddhism doesn't make any claims on how to change other peoples' behaviour. I think it's perfectly reasonable that he admits he's not an expert in that area, - he's not a psychiatrist. But that whatever method you may attempt to make, it's likely to require patience.

Well, shouldn't his obvious answer be "introduce them to Buddhism - specifically this teaching etc"?

Don't be stupid. You have to discover your own truth. Please, a little respect?

I'm With Stupid wrote:The only thing I can say that's positive about Buddhism is that it contains fewer dangerous and backwards ideas as some other religions out there. But in practice, it's still as divisive as any other religion and based entirely on conning (grieving and desperate) people out of their money, because you have no legitimate use to society. For all of its claims of lack of materialism, I've never seen a Buddhist temple without a collection box, and I've never seen monks turn up to someone's funeral for free. And you only have to ask a Sri Lankan Hindu or a Burmese Muslim just how likely Buddhists are to abhor violence. Like every other religion, it becomes another excuse for simple in-group/out-group thinking.

On the other hand, I think it's refreshing to see a religious leader who admits that his status gives him no special knowledge or input into questions of morality.

I actually bought a book on Buddhism; I guess I was looking for a path of sorts. Unfortunately it turns out they pretty much teach belief in hell just like Chrislam. I stopped reading at that point TBH. I guess I have a slight soft spot for Buddhism because I was introduced to it as a child by my parents as being wholly peaceful. I also quite like meditation...but now think Buddhism is crazy...not quite evil yet though still. Maybe I've got a hangover indoctrination. One thing taught is to cherry pick - discard that which doesn't seem helpful. I guess that fits with most people's religious lives but still it just dilutes and invalidates the religion as a whole. I reckon I've got very little time for Buddhism but it's still sad when it's leader comes across as such a cretin.

In response to the question posed to the Dalai Lama I would just say practice compassion. Compassion is hard, and like anything hard you only get good at it with constant practice. And the practice also teaches by demonstration. If someone is pleasant it evokes a pleasant response in the same way unpleasantness evokes an unpleasant response. So if you want a compassionate world respond to unpleasantness with compassion and pleasantries and you engage in the struggle. And if you are good at it you should seek out unpleasant people just for your own benefit. If they don't respond you get the opportunity to practice patience, another difficult thing that needs constant training.

Very informative, he learns!
Here, the scientists say that children are more malleable. Adults not so.

1hr:44 min

cavarka9 wrote:
Here, the scientists say that children are more malleable. Adults not so.

As you age you develop habits. Since they are not optional make the effort to make them good ones.