• Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      1 day ago

      The stuff he tells to the world is very different from what he tells his own followers. Let’s not forget that he comes from a very long tradition of repressive theocracy.

      • Gloomy@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Show me one example, please. In my experience the message for his followers is absolutely the same. He speakes about Buddha, about kindness and wisdom and how to apply the Buddhas words in the modern world.

        I have seen quite a few events now that he has held for Tibtain monks and nuns and that were provided with English subtitles. I see no different message there, than he has for his western audiences. Of course, there is a difference in how he speaks about things, but not what he is saying.

      • Cypher@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 day ago

        Not to mention that he’s setting up a child to be indoctrinated their whole life.

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 day ago

      The religions where you chill on a stone all your life and meditate are basically the only ok religions.

      • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        Nothing wrong with meditating on a stone all your life, but where does a monk’s meal come from? Who grows the food? Who weaves the cloth? If it were all just charity, that would be one thing…

        Before China, Tibet was a feudal society, with the monastery at the top of the hierarchy. They wielded power; religious, political, and physical. The punishment for disobeying a monk was to have your hands cut off. And this wasn’t just some ancient state of affairs, it was happening in the 20th century.

      • yunxiaoli@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        If that was the version of Buddhism he’s advocating for Tibet would still be an autonomous region instead of under direct control.

        They had child sex slaves and a caste system that would make some parts of India blush.

        • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I didn’t realise that human rights violations were justification for invasion and conquest.

          Imperialism is wrong no matter who is doing to conquering or being conquered.

          • AES_Enjoyer@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            I didn’t realise that human rights violations were justification for invasion and conquest

            Dumbest take ever. The British and the Americans were right to send troops to France under Nazi rule because it was a mission to liberate French people. The USSR was right to send troops to Czechoslovakia to liberate people from Nazi rule. China was right to send troops to Tibet to free the people from their brutal feudalistic rule.

            I fucking wish that my homeland (Spain) had been “invaded” by English and French troops to fight fascism in the 30s rather than ending up with a homegrown fascist dictatorship.

            • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Ahh yes, a literal state of war is equivalent to an unprovoked invasion.

              Wasn’t expecting your dumbest take ever line to be about what you’d written. But thanks for the heads up.

              I’m sorry for the harm, the scars, and legacy of fascism that Franco left. The USSR and Germany helping him are more to blame than the UK and France not invading, but I sympathise with wishing something had been done (can’t see them supporting the Communists or Anarchists though, so probably not involvement is due to seeing the Nationalists as the best of the options) . From the way that Franco’s legacy and supporters are, at best merely controversial does make me think that it’d’ve been a very bloody and destructive continuation of the Civil War.