Dalai Lama is a beacon of humbleness

I watched a few documentaries about the 14th Dalai Lama, and what I notice was the extent of humility shown.

The approach the Dalai Lama uses when in speaking to others is the showing of true humbleness and always smiling with an infectious giggle, just like a little schoolboy.

It is interesting that the Dalai Lama noticed and mentioned this that whilst all spiritual organisations and its leaders all try to give good and benefit to the people which of course is positive and righteous, its leaders are often above its very own people. What you see with the Dalai Lama is that when he is motorcade or when he is surrounded by bodyguards, he will break away from the bunch and go towards the people in the crowds, without pretence. i.e. he goes to them, in amongst them, instead of the crowd needing to come to him.

I never see this with the Dadis. They like to ride in rasied chariots lifted above everyone else and covered in garlands and glitter. They take first class trains and planes. Is it fear for their lives and safety ? The Dalai Lama, even with such an international status both on the spiritual AND political stage, still takes economy class. You'll find Dadis would like to take a photo with famous people, but it is not the other way round.

So it is therefore not surprising that a spiritual leader without a home of his own, and whose peoples also have no abode, would be able to achieve a Noble Peace Prize even during the Kaliyug. Their abodes, refugee status and in exile, are temporary in the north part of India. Just imagine what such souls can achieve in the so-called Satyug.

What I love most about the Dalai Lama is that he talks WITH the people. I often feel that Dadis talk TO the people.

BTW, the money from the Nobel Prize was immediately donated to charity by the Dalai Lama.

In one of his interviews, the Dalai Lama was asked why the world, and even spiritual places, were being degraded, it did not matter whether you were in a developed country such as the US or Europe or in a developing country such as China or India.

In simplicity, he answered with one word : Greed (i.e. desire).

In Buddhism, "desires" are not allowed.

He stressed that a desire even for a better tomorrow is a desire. Whilst hundreds or thousands may be campaigning for a "Free Tibet" on his behalf, the Dalai Lama interestingly is detached from this issue in that being since being in the form of the "Buddha" has no abode and is free, and repeatedly says that if Tibetans want a Tibet and/or they want a 15th Dalai Lama, then it is their wish or desire.

The practice of detachment and of nongreed is so ingrained in this man's soul it is really no wonder of how much he is appreciated worldwide, in addition himself also emphasising that non-violence (a message to Tibetans) was the only way forward, a similarity with Gandhi.

I reflect that whilst the teachings of the BKWSU has some elements of truth in them, but are they also a victim of their own success in that when the Murlis say do not have any desires, they are asking for desires of inheritance. The paradox of unlimited disinterest in the old world, but unlimited interest in the new world, is itself creates desire.

I hardly feel any of the BKs who have "left their bodies" are truly karmateet or free or in any subtle form, because that means there is an attachment still to the old world (i.e. this world). So whilst there SEEMS to be something like a future dream inheritance for BKs, the so called "new world" is simply just another "old world-revamped", i.e BKs will inherit the same old lump of lands which will be called heaven. Then they will go about destroying it, as per their Gyan. "Nothing new", as it is said in the Murlis. World benefactors or world destroyers go hand in hand.

The difference I see in this spiirtual leader Dalai Lama and any other spiritual leaders (inc BKWSU or Pope) is how simple this soul is. I don't know what exactly is his way or form of teaching is, I may research it one day. The other difference is that this spiritual leader really does move around the world freely even under intense political situation, other so-called spiritual leaders have a very limited sphere to move around, as is their scope for true world teaching. i.e. Shiva ONLY coming into India (Bharat) ? How limited a sphere is that ?

That is the difference, for me, between what is a religion and spirituality.

Finally, as regarding purity, the Dalai Lama is willing to go into crowds and be with both male and female, holding hands, touching faces. No thought at all. Ever seen a Dadi pinch the cheeks of a Brother ? Too much sex. On a smaller scale, there is a male school teacher who teaches part time evenings to students, and on one class he holds with 4 teenage girl students. On one occasion, three of the girls were sick, so it was only him and her in the classroom. The following day, other teachers were furious about this. I was perplexed about why this should be so. It is hard to understand where impurity comes to others minds.

I recall I was walking down a street when on a foreign business trip with a lady friend, and we did not really notice the people standing at the windows as we were passing through chatting and simply chatting. It was only when we sort of stopped at a crossing, looked up, that we noticed it. My colleague asked, "what are they doing, why do they stand half naked ?" in a really open gawping way. It occured to me then how different then it was between my mind and hers.

When the BKs teach about purity, they are also teaching really about impurity. Why have I been taught about Kans and Kali when I did not know about them in the first place ? Talk about planting seeds of love, the BKWSU also likes planting seeds of fear. It cannot be removed, it is ingrained.

Maybe the way to remove such impurities is to have and think of "nothingness", i.e. Buddhism, or Zen Buddhism.

The practice of detachment and of nongreed is so ingrained in this man's soul it is really no wonder of how much he is appreciated worldwide, in addition himself also emphasising that non-violence (a message to Tibetans) was the only way forward, a similarity with Gandhi.

Although I think the Tibetan and Dalai Lama's context is much more complex than is obvious, I appreciate a positive example of "detachment" as it is a hard concept to teach as being positive. In this case, a letting go of false personal identifications.

Of course, that would also challenge patriots ... but I do believe it is a way forward. If just not used by by others to their ends.

Omshanti.

I have not studied much about Dalai Lama in detail, but I can accept that he is humble from my observation of his speech and actions when he visited Madhuban, Mt. Abu in the early 1980s (it was probably his first visit to Madhuban and he addressed the BKs in the presence of Dadi Prakashmani in the small meditation hall located beside Baba's hut). I don't remember what he said because I was a small child at that time.

I heard in the news yesterday that he is thinking of announcing his successor so as to avoid a fight among his disciples after his demise.

Regards,
OGS,
Arjun