- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 103 Hour
- Reading permission
Originally posted by seneca at 2010-4-20 18:07
Yes, what exactly were you trying to 'say'? It's not clear, and the claims you made about the DL's 'politicising' of life were a chalice full of opaque holy water. Lucky me I don't have to drin ...
Dalai Lama is a living saint for some Tibetans.
Even today some people would prostate on the floor, and kiss his feet.
He is a living saint and a semi-God.
So, of course, even if the conditions were bad, some people would accept it.
He is not only a king, but a religious king. So he combine 2 powerful things, from religion, and from governmental structure.
In that condition, we should not be surprised if some people "accept" his rule.
Lamaism itself, maybe should be separated with a "religion" or "religious teaching"
Lamaism is more of the clergy.
For instance, one can be a Christian, and follow Christianity, and believe in it, but the clergy can be good or bad. And despite the clergy being good or bad, people who are Christians would still remain Christians. Does this make sense?
And if we read in European history, some Popes were bad, and they even launched wars and led armies.
But many European Christians are still Christians.
To me the main problem in Tibet at that time, is the strong entrenchment of the lama class and the feudalism which is intertwined with the lamaism.