>I'm grateful for Nathan's getting me up to speed on the controversy.
>However, I have a less generous interpretation (maybe I'm just biassed):
>
>On the one hand the Dalai Lama's meeting with gay activists sounds like
>good tactics: ride out the storm by promising to listen to the critics.
>(I don't suppose even the Dalai Lama is in a position to overthrow
>Buddhist teachings at the drop of a hat.) It costs him nothing to
>listen, after all. But it doesn't mean that he will do anything.
>
>But on the other hand, what is fascinating in all of this is that DL
>even bothered to meet his critics. After all, one imagines that the
>movment for gay liberation is not so strong in Tibet (prove me wrong).
>The pressure that DL bent to was pressure amongst his contemporary
>contituency: sexually-liberal, cosmopolitan America. After all the DL's
>social base in the US has great deal more social weight than his
>backward kingdom in Tibet.
>
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
I am with Jim on this one. (christ that hurt!)
The Old Charlatan's base is outside Tibet. After all someone like Richard Gere could hardly support a homophobe so some window dressing was needed. Shame on those gay activists who gave the Great Fraud credibility by agreeing to meet him.
It is deeply insulting for gay people that the problem which is The Dalai's backwardness somehow becomes owned by gay people. It is as if they actually believed the nonsense that the Lama is the fount of wisdom or is a deeply spiritual person.
At least with the pope you know you are dealing with a fascist. The Dalai Lama is a total phoney.
regards
Gary