Celia, a few simple questions.
Who started the ban?
Who can end the ban?
Who officially started the ban?
Was it the 14th Dalai Lama or was it the CTA?
The answer is, it was the 14th Dalai Lama and not the CTA.
You Celia stated in part to me in your reply the following quote.
Quote
Just as you are entitled to want to blame Dalai Lama based on your perceptions and views...
Unquote
That Celia is simply wrong.
I do not base my statements to you on my "perceptions and views" as you have claimed.
I Celia base it on a historical facts.
The facts are that the 14th Dalai Lama publicly started HIS BAN in 1996.
After that the CTA endorsed HIS BAN.
Can the CTA independently end the ban without the consent of the 14th Dalai Lama.
No, only the 14th Dalai Lama has the power to end HIS BAN.
If the CTA's wishes it can publicly state that it no longer endorses HIS BAN but we know they will not do so.
Puppets answer to their "Puppet Master" and not the other way around.
If I am so wrong in my "perceptions and views" do please enlighten me on my errors and the true FACTS regarding HIS BAN.
Or if I am so wrong, THE CTA'S BAN.
@Harold Musetescu
Please understand that the point is that whilst you are entitled to your interpretation of facts which led you to decide on the path to condemn Dalai Lama, I and so many others are entitled to pursue a different discussion.
Bottomline is that no one has the right to belittle or overbearingly condemn another for not subscribing to the other's views. There is such a thing as "agree to disagree". It is just common decency and people are entitled to different views.
Just to be clear, I am not judging whether your interpretation of the facts is right or wrong. (Btw, there are scientific as well as Buddhist scriptures which denotes human being’s interpretation of facts as perceptions or views). It is also clear from all my posts that I have never condemned anybody's views regardless of whether i agreed or disagreed with them. Freedom of speech allows for people to have their views and I reiterate by all means make your points based on your interpretation of the situation as you understand facts. But that does not mean you can disrespect other people’s views and be overbearingly patronising and even rudely condemning others for not subscribing to your views or agreeing with your stance.
Regardless of your view that Dalai Lama has to be condemned, does it invalidate our views that CTA is corrupt and unscrupulous? Of course not, considering you also have mentioned about CTA’s wrongdoings in so many other occassions (albeit you attributing them to the Dalai Lama). There are also facts that reveal CTA’s corrupt and unscrupulous nature which support our views. Just like how you use facts to support your stance against Dalai Lama.
So, what gives you the right to dictate what people want to focus on or how people want to discuss?
Unlike certain people, I am not here to judge other people’s views or interpretations of the situation but to talk about things decently and respectfully on things which matters. The point for me is not to convert people to my thinking but to raise attention to issues and consider the different perspectives. And I sincerely believe people here are mature enough to think and evaluate the value of any perspectives different from their own without the need of shoving down people’s throat, so to speak.
After all, if the alternative points raised are convincing then such points will speak for itself.
Incidentally, even Buddha Shakyamuni who knew everything does not seek to impose or convert people to His views but allow them to come to their own conclusion whether to accept His words or not.
I look forward to your reply.
Respectfully Celia, please do let me at this time apologize to you for any offence I may have committed.
As I am not enlightened, admittedly, I am still bothered with things like rudeness, superciliousness, overbearingness and hence would speak up to ensure people do not cross the line. However, your apology is very much appreciated if you truly meant it.
