So today...

ren wrote:

If you are happy with your religion, then why seek to change religions?

because there's a need for it? It was in the question. Maybe he didn't understand it?

If there's a need, then you are not happy...

ren wrote:

If you are happy with your religion, then why seek to change religions?

because there's a need for it? It was in the question. Maybe he didn't understand it?

Actually I interpreted it very differently. But also I got to hear the rest of the conversations too. I think what he was trying to say was that the religion you choose is less important that the ethics with which you live and that making a change to your religion is an unecessary stress because it doesnt change the underlying values that are needed.

"I think it’s better when people stay within the traditions that they have. Changing religions is a big thing that can create much worry. The religion is not so important but the secular ethics of compassion, connection and love, based on humanities design, should be present in everyone's lives."


I think it’s better when people stay within the traditions that they have. Changing religions is a big thing that can create much worry.

In this statement I believe he is saying that people who have a long lineage of a particular religion should stay within it. The traditions of their families and their community are what hold them together. By changing your religion, you change the structure of your family traditions, values, ethics, and beliefs. It will cause conflict within the family unit. This conflict should be avoided, as should ALL conflict. In my studies, I have found that Buddhist teachings require us to give up our egos. The idea of changing religions is a concept that contains the thought of self or selfishness…”I don’t believe, I want something different, What am I getting from this religion?”


The religion is not so important but the secular ethics of compassion, connection and love, based on humanities design, should be present in everyone's lives.

This is the part that I believe coincides with a teaching directly attributed to Buddha. It is not the religion that is important, but the teachings of Love, Compassion, and Kindness within the religion, and your adherence to the teachings.


“I have no religion; Kindness and Compassion are my philosophy” - Buddha

If he was the real Dalai Lama he would've answered:
“Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” ~Buddha

You met the prop actor guy they send around the world. The stunt double. :dry:

Whyte Horse wrote: If he was the real Dalai Lama he would've answered:
“Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” ~Buddha

You met the prop actor guy they send around the world. The stunt double. :dry:

Im going to assume that you are being funny.

Brenna wrote:

Whyte Horse wrote: If he was the real Dalai Lama he would've answered:
“Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” ~Buddha

You met the prop actor guy they send around the world. The stunt double. :dry:

Im going to assume that you are being funny.

I'm being funny and ironical. What's really going to bend your mind is this: would he be any more or less wise if he wasn't the actual Dalai Lama and was just a stunt double? Or what if he really was the Dalai Lama and just says these things from a scripted list of generic answers?

Whyte Horse wrote:

Brenna wrote:

Whyte Horse wrote: If he was the real Dalai Lama he would've answered:
“Everything changes, nothing remains without change.” ~Buddha

You met the prop actor guy they send around the world. The stunt double. :dry:

Im going to assume that you are being funny.

I'm being funny and ironical. What's really going to bend your mind is this: would he be any more or less wise if he wasn't the actual Dalai Lama and was just a stunt double? Or what if he really was the Dalai Lama and just says these things from a scripted list of generic answers?

I would be pretty irate if I paid to see Netrebko perform live only to discover that they'd used a stunt double, even if she was performing the exact same songs.

Whyte's got a point though: what was said should not be more or less wise just because the person who said it is the Dalai Lama.

ren wrote: Whyte's got a point though: what was said should not be more or less wise just because the person who said it is the Dalai Lama.

It is if your interested in Tibetan Buddhism, for obvious reasons. Beyond that I do not know, but he has traveled a lot and spoken to a lot of spiritual and political practitioners including leaders so it might be potentially more wise then most people, as a result.

ren wrote: Whyte's got a point though: what was said should not be more or less wise just because the person who said it is the Dalai Lama.

No I agree with him there. My point was that the content would be the same if it was someone else saying the same thing. The message is amazing and valid, but I went because I wanted to hear him say it. I wanted to hear it from his perspective.

To use the singing metaphor again. A tutor once told me that it didnt matter if you were singing something that had been sung by a thousand people before you. No one has ever heard it done in your voice. Nothing he said was new or a revalation but I wanted to hear it in his voice.