7 ms·

Perhaps you should give the article at least a cursory glance, as this question is addressed in the opening paragraph. "I suspect that our voracious appetite f

by spicy 11y ago

Perhaps you should give the article at least a cursory glance, as this question is addressed in the opening paragraph. "I suspect that our voracious appetite for the daily routines of cultural icons is fueled by a deep yearning to glean some insight on and practical help with this impossible balancing act, from people who seem to have mastered it well enough to lead happy, productive, creatively fruitful, and altogether remarkable lives."

torgoguys 11y ago
Yes, I read that, but I don't have any particular reason to think the Dali Lama would provide insight. Should I? Right now I hold him somewhat (perhaps unfairly which is why I'm asking) in the same regard as Deepak Chopra. Deepak often provides "deepities," things that may sound profound, but are intellectually hollow.
- Panoramix 11y ago
  Very unfair comparison. Chopra is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit, whereas the Dalai Lama has notably stated that “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
  - torgoguys 11y ago
    I know I'm getting downvoted here, but I don't think I'm being unfair, @Panoramix. Yes, I'm also aware of his statements with regards to science trumping religion. That's a much better position than other religious leaders. Kudos. But in the meantime, he thinks I should believe stuff unsupported by evidence. Going back to the Pope. If he had made a similar statement as the Dali Lama, that would be a huge step forward, but it doesn't mean I'm going to spend a long time contemplating the "mystery" of the Trinity, even if science can't definitively debunk God. See what I mean? I'll ask it again, again earnestly. Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to know. I have not read the Dali Lama's writings. What is so good about them? Right now I think of the Dali Lama as someone famous for being "wise" in a generic sense. He loves talking about compassion. That's great. But that doesn't answer my questions. I am curious for the answers and certainly can be swayed to believe he might have great insights I should pay attention to, but as I said, I haven't read him, and haven't encountered anything in popular culture to make me think that's the case. Present some reasons, please.
    - hariis 11y ago
      He is an embodiment of the highest human vales that others can only talk about.
    - codingdave 11y ago
      Somehow you have jumped from asking why you should care about his daily routine into why you should care about his beliefs. Those are different questions, with different answers. People have given you reasonable answers to the first question. Take them or leave them. This string of responses telling everyone that the answers still aren't good enough and demanding more... it is making me ask a new question -- why we should care whether you appreciate the Dalai Lama or not? (BTW, the article answers that question, too.)
    - crpatino 11y ago
      > Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? That is the whole point. If you do not share his spiritual beliefs, then you should not care any more or less than any other public person of similar standing. Others have pointed about the worldly achievements of this guy, so... let's say. You should care about as much about him as about any other Nobel laureate. Now, if you happen to care about him (or the Pope) less than other more secular Nobel laureates... there is a bias you should acknowledge. Not to say that you should not be biased, but you owe to yourself to at least be honest and know why you feel the guy is pointless.
    - cgio 11y ago
      I don't think anyone suggested everybody should or should not care or should or should not believe. It is not a question of need to care but rather one of want to. I also do not subscribe to Buddhism and I am also almost not practicing at all the religion I deeply believe into. Some spiritual discoveries started with turbulent anxious indifference, subsisted by confrontational curiosity.
    - mentat 11y ago
      The thing is, the basis on meaning in your life is always stuff unsupported by evidence in the scientific sense of the word. You're not going to get very far with reasoning if you can't see the black hole of logical positivism. (My favorite quote from philosophical logic, "self referentially incoherent".)
  - crimsonalucard 11y ago
    The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion. Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.
    - k-mcgrady 11y ago
      >> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion." Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. >> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO." Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
      - crimsonalucard 11y ago
        >>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
        Nadya 11y ago
        Everybody believed it because of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod... E: The important takeaway: "It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
- curo 11y ago
  He's a Nobel Peace Laureate and recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. He's been meditating on compassion and the self for several hours a day for 77 years (since he was 2), almost 200,000 hours of meditation. He's authored over 50 books. And he's a very charismatic, joyful, warm spirit--I saw him speak and I can see why many want to learn from and emulate him. But I guess that's a question you can ask of any posting on HN, "why should I care about so-and-so's opinion, daily routine, life, etc?" So perhaps the burden is on the person asking to question to say why we shouldn't care. Also, I would say that the Dalai Lama's teachings aren't meant to be intellectually rich. He does have a high regard for science, but I wouldn't say his teachings are intellectual. They are practical and meant to help you observe the world without the intellect.
  - torgoguys 11y ago
    Thank you. Somebody willing to work at answering the question. Those are some possible reasons. Not good enough for me in this case, but definitely worth pointing out. I've seen him in person too. Yes, charismatic. I don't think it is my burden to say that you shouldn't, because it is fine with me that you do care. Obviously lots of people care about him. The whole point of my questioning is to get at, "why?" I don't know and so I ask the question. Really, no other motive. He seems to transcend and earn respect from people outside of his religion in a way that other spiritual leaders do not. I want to understand that.
    - andrepd 11y ago
      I think it mostly has to do with Buddhism being seen by the majority of people, especially in the western world, as an oriental philosophy and less as a religion like Christianity or Islam. So people outside of Buddhism feel sympathetic to the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in general, in a way that, for instance, an Islamic does not feel for the Pope. It also helps that his messages are in general agreeable. The whole peace and meditation and good-will stuff has a very low potential for controversy. EDIT: Also let me add that I don't see why you are being buried. You aren't being disrespectful or rude or in anyway breaking the guidelines by asking these questions. You even stated in the first post that you if you came across as snarky it wasn't intended.
- someone8932759 11y ago
  Look at the word. Where do you think insight comes from? Not from another. The words are only there to go as far as words can take this insight - only pointing in the direction, leaving it for you to follow. I mean this genuinely: for you to be asking this question is to say you are still stuck considering the merits of beginning in that direction. From that position, there is nothing to do but to begin. What he is doing is beyond what intellect is capable not because of one or the other being inferior, but because it goes where intellect cannot. My takeaway from this is to start getting up earlier and meditating for a solid block of time each day - when I was unemployed, it was easy to do it whenever, any time of the day.

by spicy 11y ago

torgoguys 11y ago

Yes, I read that, but I don't have any particular reason to think the Dali Lama would provide insight. Should I? Right now I hold him somewhat (perhaps unfairly which is why I'm asking) in the same regard as Deepak Chopra. Deepak often provides "deepities," things that may sound profound, but are intellectually hollow.

Panoramix 11y ago
Very unfair comparison. Chopra is full of pseudo-scientific bullshit, whereas the Dalai Lama has notably stated that “If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
- torgoguys 11y ago
  I know I'm getting downvoted here, but I don't think I'm being unfair, @Panoramix. Yes, I'm also aware of his statements with regards to science trumping religion. That's a much better position than other religious leaders. Kudos. But in the meantime, he thinks I should believe stuff unsupported by evidence. Going back to the Pope. If he had made a similar statement as the Dali Lama, that would be a huge step forward, but it doesn't mean I'm going to spend a long time contemplating the "mystery" of the Trinity, even if science can't definitively debunk God. See what I mean? I'll ask it again, again earnestly. Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult. I really want to know. I have not read the Dali Lama's writings. What is so good about them? Right now I think of the Dali Lama as someone famous for being "wise" in a generic sense. He loves talking about compassion. That's great. But that doesn't answer my questions. I am curious for the answers and certainly can be swayed to believe he might have great insights I should pay attention to, but as I said, I haven't read him, and haven't encountered anything in popular culture to make me think that's the case. Present some reasons, please.
  - hariis 11y ago
    He is an embodiment of the highest human vales that others can only talk about.
  - codingdave 11y ago
    Somehow you have jumped from asking why you should care about his daily routine into why you should care about his beliefs. Those are different questions, with different answers. People have given you reasonable answers to the first question. Take them or leave them. This string of responses telling everyone that the answers still aren't good enough and demanding more... it is making me ask a new question -- why we should care whether you appreciate the Dalai Lama or not? (BTW, the article answers that question, too.)
  - crpatino 11y ago
    > Why should I care about the beliefs of the spiritual leader of a religion I don't subscribe to? That is the whole point. If you do not share his spiritual beliefs, then you should not care any more or less than any other public person of similar standing. Others have pointed about the worldly achievements of this guy, so... let's say. You should care about as much about him as about any other Nobel laureate. Now, if you happen to care about him (or the Pope) less than other more secular Nobel laureates... there is a bias you should acknowledge. Not to say that you should not be biased, but you owe to yourself to at least be honest and know why you feel the guy is pointless.
  - cgio 11y ago
    I don't think anyone suggested everybody should or should not care or should or should not believe. It is not a question of need to care but rather one of want to. I also do not subscribe to Buddhism and I am also almost not practicing at all the religion I deeply believe into. Some spiritual discoveries started with turbulent anxious indifference, subsisted by confrontational curiosity.
  - mentat 11y ago
    The thing is, the basis on meaning in your life is always stuff unsupported by evidence in the scientific sense of the word. You're not going to get very far with reasoning if you can't see the black hole of logical positivism. (My favorite quote from philosophical logic, "self referentially incoherent".)
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  The problem is religion is a constantly moving target for falsifiability. Religion constantly transforms itself to fit the world as science describes it. Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion. Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO.
  - k-mcgrady 11y ago
    >> "Heck, the earth use to be the center of the universe according to religion." Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. >> "Personally religion is a non-scientific thing that really has no place in science at all. As a result, it's really not relevant on hacker news either , IMO." Of course that's your opinion but this is Hacker News, not science news. If your interested in how someone runs a large company it can be relevant to look at religious leaders like the pope of dalai lama as that is essentially what they do and on a bigger scale than any company.
    - crimsonalucard 11y ago
      >>Em, didn't everyone believe this? Sure religion was slow to adapt when proof the Earth wasn't the centre was brought forward but at the time that was a pretty big claim. Everybody believed it due to religion, even when the science described a different reality.
      - Nadya 11y ago
        Everybody believed it because of science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model#Ptolemaic_mod... E: The important takeaway: "It has been determined, in fact, that the Copernican, Ptolemaic and even the Tychonic models provided identical results to identical inputs. They are computationally equivalent. It wasn't until Kepler demonstrated a physical observation that could show that the physical sun is directly involved in determining an orbit that a new model was required."
curo 11y ago
He's a Nobel Peace Laureate and recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal. He's been meditating on compassion and the self for several hours a day for 77 years (since he was 2), almost 200,000 hours of meditation. He's authored over 50 books. And he's a very charismatic, joyful, warm spirit--I saw him speak and I can see why many want to learn from and emulate him. But I guess that's a question you can ask of any posting on HN, "why should I care about so-and-so's opinion, daily routine, life, etc?" So perhaps the burden is on the person asking to question to say why we shouldn't care. Also, I would say that the Dalai Lama's teachings aren't meant to be intellectually rich. He does have a high regard for science, but I wouldn't say his teachings are intellectual. They are practical and meant to help you observe the world without the intellect.
- torgoguys 11y ago
  Thank you. Somebody willing to work at answering the question. Those are some possible reasons. Not good enough for me in this case, but definitely worth pointing out. I've seen him in person too. Yes, charismatic. I don't think it is my burden to say that you shouldn't, because it is fine with me that you do care. Obviously lots of people care about him. The whole point of my questioning is to get at, "why?" I don't know and so I ask the question. Really, no other motive. He seems to transcend and earn respect from people outside of his religion in a way that other spiritual leaders do not. I want to understand that.
  - andrepd 11y ago
    I think it mostly has to do with Buddhism being seen by the majority of people, especially in the western world, as an oriental philosophy and less as a religion like Christianity or Islam. So people outside of Buddhism feel sympathetic to the Dalai Lama and Buddhism in general, in a way that, for instance, an Islamic does not feel for the Pope. It also helps that his messages are in general agreeable. The whole peace and meditation and good-will stuff has a very low potential for controversy. EDIT: Also let me add that I don't see why you are being buried. You aren't being disrespectful or rude or in anyway breaking the guidelines by asking these questions. You even stated in the first post that you if you came across as snarky it wasn't intended.
someone8932759 11y ago
Look at the word. Where do you think insight comes from? Not from another. The words are only there to go as far as words can take this insight - only pointing in the direction, leaving it for you to follow. I mean this genuinely: for you to be asking this question is to say you are still stuck considering the merits of beginning in that direction. From that position, there is nothing to do but to begin. What he is doing is beyond what intellect is capable not because of one or the other being inferior, but because it goes where intellect cannot. My takeaway from this is to start getting up earlier and meditating for a solid block of time each day - when I was unemployed, it was easy to do it whenever, any time of the day.