What is the soul? - Page 9

"Tibet is NOT the epitomy of what I describe, Tibet is "anti China authority", which is why they are under authoritarian China. Tibet is the epitomy of what you describe... fighting against something."
The Dalai Lama won the Nobel Peace prize for his lack of resistance. He goes about trying to round up sympathy, and gets no practical help. Tibet is anti-China, but extremlely passive, just as Britain and France were passive in the face of Nazi Germany. It gets you nowhere, but it helps those who abuse you.


"The point is, as long as I have been in this state, no one has ever beat me up, and never will."
Only because you are in a free country. Dont assume that by playing Ghandi you will be safe, or by turning the other cheak you can pretend you're invincible.

I mean, the only reason it did work for Ghandi is because the British were a relatively reasonable people, Empire wasnt about ideology, but about profit. It wasnt profitable to hold on to India, so Britain let go.

But when your foe is not rational, then look at Czechoslovakia, they had a puppet regime who took orders from the Soviet Union. The Czechs resisted replaced their government, and then didnt fight. The soviets just came, replaced the gov again, and the Czechs responded by putting flowers into tank cannons.

In the end it didnt help them, they were just as oppressed.

I should clarify... perhaps from a spiritual perspective Tibet is what I describe, but from a political perspective they are not. The Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibet, speaks against China's authority, political, environmental and justice practices all the time.

Having a "foe" is a choice. And if you choose an existence with a "built-in" or already established foe you can't possibly live the ideal to the point described, because you've started the entire experiment with an enemy.

You first have to create an existence with no "built-in enemies" or change your current situation or perspective to eliminate the whole idea of "enemy" in order to make this a reality.

" The Dalai Lama, the leader of Tibet, speaks against China's authority, political, environmental and justice practices all the time."
Yes but he's not DOING anything, he's not FIGHTING back. Hence the peace prize, he's an ineffective Ghandi because the Chinese are much more motivated then we British were.

"You first have to create an existence with no "built-in enemies" or change your current situation or perspective to eliminate the whole idea of "enemy" in order to make this a reality."
Oh, so the Jews made their own Hitler?

Flower power, passive resistance, and monks who say "omh" work in few situations.

How is speaking against the Chinese not fighting back? It's just a different method but it's still a form of "fighting".

The Jews, they chose to live an existence where an enemy existed, yes.

Passive resistance...what about no resistance.

No resistance? Well then either thieves rob you, or the nazis kill you, or the jihadists send boeings into your buildings, or the commies conquer you or anything else.

Fuck's sake you gotta fight sometimes, this seems obvious to me, surrender is a mistake.

I think the stability of the USA and Europe has spoiled people. It gives people the idea that hippy flower power is the solution to anything, when it solves nothing.

If the Dalai Lama shut the fuck up, China would still enslave his countrymen.

Again you're hearing what you want to hear. I never said it was/is an option in every situation. If you have chosen an existence with a built in enemy then you have chosen an existence where you have to fight. Not everyone chooses to live that kind of an existence, which is why I don't live in Tibet.

The fact remains that you get what you give and you have the option to give and receive love.

Passive resistance was never a term I used, that was DT's interpretation of what I was getting at. The "new ideas and new methods" that the solution entails is exactly what I'm talking about... finding a way to live in love.

Again, I go back to the idea of... (and sorry if I'm repeating myself but this is the point of the entire discussion) find me a problem in the world, any problem, that isn't solved by one or more of the following: peace, respect, forgiveness, trust, truth, understanding, compassion, appreciation, acceptance, courage, freedom, patience, care, awareness, etc.

I can't find one, if you can PLEASE let me know.

Working "against" the problem has never worked effectively... we may take baby steps with it but it requires having the "perpetrator" (that's in quotations because I don't believe in the concept of perpetrator or victim, we are all co-creators in my view) listening to the person or group of people who are pointing the finger at him or her saying "you suck, you're wrong, stop what you're doing!" Who's going to respond to that? Have you ever responded kindly to that kind of an approach?

Working on promoting the above ideas... the idea of (to sum it all up) love, is the solution to every single problem that exists, promoting the ALTERNATIVE is the definitive solution.

We dont choose our enemies or our existence. The Jews didnt choose Hitler, the Negroes didnt choose the whites, the Poles didnt choose the Russians, the Tibetans didnt choose the Chinese, the Russians didnt choose Ghengis Khan.

That's a matter of opinion DT.

I dont think so, that's like saying, the Indians invented England.

I think it's more like saying they chose to be Indian with English influence.

What you think they chose to have the English come to them and kill them? I suppose you would have them run away.

That is no solution, eventually the English would call themselves Americans. And then Americans would chase them from THAT land and there would be no land left.

Retreat and surrender are cowardice and death.