Don't pray to God and the politics of non-violence

Bridget said:To be honest, it actually surprises me that the Dalai Lama is the one signing off on these statements. I mean, nobody really has the right to sit there and try to measure out how someone else should live their life...

But honestly, what’s so surprising about that? For years now, the Dalai Lama has been sitting pretty in his "temporary home," advising Tibetans to preserve their culture at any cost—all while insisting they shouldn't resist or resort to violence. It’s a bit much when you consider that this entire culture has been systematically disappearing for years, yet he keeps preaching non-violence and discouraging resistance—which is easy enough to do after you've already escaped and left your people to deal with the chaos on the ground.
Instead of just stepping away from his role as a monarch, he plays the saint, even though people back in Tibet are facing ten-year prison sentences or brutal beatings just for something as simple as holding up a picture of him or flying the Tibetan flag.

Then, on the flip side, he acts all fascinated by science—sending his people off to top-tier research institutes for fMRI scans to study the meditative mind... it sounds wonderful on paper, doesn't it? But when asked if he’d be willing to "lend" his own brain for some testing, he just coolly brushes it off, claiming he hasn't got any special "abilities" because he "hasn't had the time to train."

So, what is the Dalai Lama actually doing? He isn't exactly a master of his craft, and his version of fighting for peace seems to involve running away from the mess and telling everyone else to stay peaceful while they get mistreated.

If you ask me... I wouldn't give him three seconds of airtime on my TV. ☕

Edward Flores4 said:But honestly, what’s so surprising about that? For years now, the Dalai Lama has been sitting pretty in his "temporary home," advising Tibetans to preserve their culture at any cost—all while insisting they shouldn't resist or resort to violence. It’s a bit much when you consider that this entire culture has been systematically disappearing for years, yet he keeps preaching non-violence and discouraging resistance—which is easy enough to do after you've already escaped and left your people to deal with the chaos on the ground.
Instead of just stepping away from his role as a monarch, he plays the saint, even though people back in Tibet are facing ten-year prison sentences or brutal beatings just for something as simple as holding up a picture of him or flying the Tibetan flag.

Then, on the flip side, he acts all fascinated by science—sending his people off to top-tier research institutes for fMRI scans to study the meditative mind... it sounds wonderful on paper, doesn't it? But when asked if he’d be willing to "lend" his own brain for some testing, he just coolly brushes it off, claiming he hasn't got any special "abilities" because he "hasn't had the time to train."

So, what is the Dalai Lama actually doing? He isn't exactly a master of his craft, and his version of fighting for peace seems to involve running away from the mess and telling everyone else to stay peaceful while they get mistreated.

If you ask me... I wouldn't give him three seconds of airtime on my TV. ☕

They tried armed resistance too, and the Chinese crushed them like a cheap toy. This approach, which wins sympathy from the international community, is probably the best—if not the only—way to save whatever can still be saved.

bluemason3 said:They tried armed resistance too, and the Chinese crushed them like a cheap toy. This approach, which wins sympathy from the international community, is probably the best—if not the only—way to save whatever can still be saved.

But what exactly is being "saved" here? Is it this deep attachment to culture, customs, and religious beliefs? It’s the same kind of stuff the Dalai Lama critiques when he looks at things through the lens of marriage... that same intense grip on identity, on owning a sense of individuality and uniqueness... the culture, the language, the traditions, the spouse, the kids...

Total bullshit!!

If he truly wanted to save people, he would tell them that nobody can strip away what they carry inside themselves—a flag in the street could just as easily be Chinese or Polish... an official language could be Bantu for all we care... none of that is worth getting thrown in prison or beaten over. Nobody in America feels more American than they did back during the era of strict federal oversight... and the same logic applies to Tibetans.

But playing the political strategist from the safety of asylum—basically waving someone else's authority around just to preserve a "people" who view him as a sort of demigod—all while protecting his own status as a supreme monarch and a national saint... well, that's worth something, sure, but only in terms of pure ego.

He can talk about non-violence all he wants once he's actually put his own skin in the game. Until then... look, being non-violent is really only a choice when you actually possess the strength to be violent but choose not to. If you don't have any power at all, you aren't being "non-violent"—you're just stuck. It's not the same thing. Just like peace is the foundation of any meaningful action, strength is the foundation of true non-violence.

Edward Flores4 said:But what exactly is being "saved" here? Is it this deep attachment to culture, customs, and religious beliefs? It’s the same kind of stuff the Dalai Lama critiques when he looks at things through the lens of marriage... that same intense grip on identity, on owning a sense of individuality and uniqueness... the culture, the language, the traditions, the spouse, the kids...

Total bullshit!!

If he truly wanted to save people, he would tell them that nobody can strip away what they carry inside themselves—a flag in the street could just as easily be Chinese or Polish... an official language could be Bantu for all we care... none of that is worth getting thrown in prison or beaten over. Nobody in America feels more American than they did back during the era of strict federal oversight... and the same logic applies to Tibetans.

But playing the political strategist from the safety of asylum—basically waving someone else's authority around just to preserve a "people" who view him as a sort of demigod—all while protecting his own status as a supreme monarch and a national saint... well, that's worth something, sure, but only in terms of pure ego.

He can talk about non-violence all he wants once he's actually put his own skin in the game. Until then... look, being non-violent is really only a choice when you actually possess the strength to be violent but choose not to. If you don't have any power at all, you aren't being "non-violent"—you're just stuck. It's not the same thing. Just like peace is the foundation of any meaningful action, strength is the foundation of true non-violence.

Seriously, any excuse to start an argument, right? 😁
I'm just saying it's the best form of resistance they have right now. And honestly, it’s up to the priests and monks to stay out of this, unless I want to get dragged into a debate myself.😛

bluemason3 said:Seriously, any excuse to start an argument, right? 😁
I'm just saying it's the best form of resistance they have right now. And honestly, it’s up to the priests and monks to stay out of this, unless I want to get dragged into a debate myself.😛

Let’s just say I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy.

I'm just saying it's probably their best way to push back right now—but honestly, I'll leave it to the priests and monks to decide if it's even my business to weigh in.

The whole point of ANY religious or spiritual institution is pretty much just to meddle in politics, fuel wars, and chase profits.

They turn beliefs into formal institutions just to grab legal legitimacy and, by extension, political clout. Then, they use their massive followings as "proof" of how meaningful they actually are, all while lining their pockets along the way.

Edward Flores4 said:Let’s just say I have a very low tolerance for hypocrisy.

I'm just saying it's probably their best way to push back right now—but honestly, I'll leave it to the priests and monks to decide if it's even my business to weigh in.

The whole point of ANY religious or spiritual institution is pretty much just to meddle in politics, fuel wars, and chase profits.

They turn beliefs into formal institutions just to grab legal legitimacy and, by extension, political clout. Then, they use their massive followings as "proof" of how meaningful they actually are, all while lining their pockets along the way.

I can't really get on board with that. Especially when it comes to monastic orders. You might see that pattern more clearly in organized, mainstream religions, but most monastic institutions are founded primarily to help members focus on their spiritual practice. Sure, they often slide into corruption over time... but they also reform. Just look at groups like the Benedictines—they undergo constant reform (think Cistercians or Trappists) whenever the core group gets too loose and some newcomers show up wanting to live a more intense, ascetic lifestyle...

Nothing is ever black and white. 😉

Edward Flores4 said:But what exactly is being "saved" here? Is it this deep attachment to culture, customs, and religious beliefs? It’s the same kind of stuff the Dalai Lama critiques when he looks at things through the lens of marriage... that same intense grip on identity, on owning a sense of individuality and uniqueness... the culture, the language, the traditions, the spouse, the kids...

Total bullshit!!

If he truly wanted to save people, he would tell them that nobody can strip away what they carry inside themselves—a flag in the street could just as easily be Chinese or Polish... an official language could be Bantu for all we care... none of that is worth getting thrown in prison or beaten over. Nobody in America feels more American than they did back during the era of strict federal oversight... and the same logic applies to Tibetans.

But playing the political strategist from the safety of asylum—basically waving someone else's authority around just to preserve a "people" who view him as a sort of demigod—all while protecting his own status as a supreme monarch and a national saint... well, that's worth something, sure, but only in terms of pure ego.

He can talk about non-violence all he wants once he's actually put his own skin in the game. Until then... look, being non-violent is really only a choice when you actually possess the strength to be violent but choose not to. If you don't have any power at all, you aren't being "non-violent"—you're just stuck. It's not the same thing. Just like peace is the foundation of any meaningful action, strength is the foundation of true non-violence.

🙏

Man, that’s actually a rare gem of a thought—honestly, I wish more people would just stop and actually listen to something like that for once.

bluemason3 said:I can't really get on board with that. Especially when it comes to monastic orders. You might see that pattern more clearly in organized, mainstream religions, but most monastic institutions are founded primarily to help members focus on their spiritual practice. Sure, they often slide into corruption over time... but they also reform. Just look at groups like the Benedictines—they undergo constant reform (think Cistercians or Trappists) whenever the core group gets too loose and some newcomers show up wanting to live a more intense, ascetic lifestyle...

Nothing is ever black and white. 😉

That’s great. Seriously though—give me just ONE single reason why "helping people find their spiritual path" requires turning those beliefs into a formal institution?

Look, you don't need legal legitimacy or tax breaks from the IRS just to guide someone toward spiritual growth.

Think about all the non-profits and community groups out there—groups working with veterans, addiction recovery, or domestic violence survivors—that provide massive support without needing to be some rigid, legally codified entity. I just don't see why religious or spiritual convictions require that kind of corporate or legal stamp of approval just to help an individual soul. Honestly, the argument doesn't hold much water to me.

It seems pretty obvious to me that legal and corporate status serves one main purpose... it creates leverage. Unlike the foundation run by Anne Hathaway, a church can funnel its money wherever it wants, own vast amounts of real estate, take out loans with interest, or even fund political campaigns. That’s what the legal legitimacy is actually for—not for "spiritual guidance."

p.s. Of course, nothing in life is strictly black and white—I get that—but a few enthusiasts or a rogue theological faction deviating from the norm isn't enough to turn black into gray... it was already white, and then some. We usually call those the exceptions that prove the rule.

The whole "it's not black and white" defense has become a universal get-out-of-jail-free card in almost every debate these days. But if we applied that logic everywhere, we could argue that terrorism isn't purely "black and white" either... and while maybe it isn't perfectly binary, that argument certainly doesn't carry enough weight to stop the discussion, the precautions, or the heavy-handed sanctions used against those who use terror as a tool for coercion or power.

I was talking about monastic communities—essentially, focusing on self-improvement rather than charity work. Contemplative orders are established to help people engage in spiritual practice through an institution that provides the ideal environment. This means access to teachings and texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find), physical space (usually quiet, nestled in nature, and tucked away from the social noise), and basic necessities like food and shelter so a person can devote themselves entirely to a contemplative life.

Even within the religious hierarchy, the humanitarian work you mentioned isn't the primary mission. Sure, individual priests might do great work, which is commendable, but the core function of the institution is religious and liturgical—conveying specific spiritual principles. Humanitarian efforts are more of a byproduct.

And how else do you think all those nonprofits and foundations exist without being formal legal entities? Nonprofits and foundations *are* legal entities; they have their own structures, hierarchies, revenues, and expenses.

Look, the Church isn't a charity; it's primarily a religious institution. I'm not defending it—let’s be clear, there is plenty about it that I dislike—but the existence of an institution isn't inherently a problem. Foolishness is bound to happen in any organized group. The real issue usually arises when it merges with secular power. For its own spiritual good, the fundamental principle should be staying out of politics... though, the Church is a bit of a special case. Other religions have strong monastic institutions, but they rarely have such powerful, hierarchical lay leadership. That probably changes the whole approach. 🤷

I wouldn't say there is that little good left. It's just that someone like Kacunko will get billions of times more media coverage than an entire monastery full of humble monks. Those guys aren't doing anything "interesting" for the public; they just focus on their spiritual practice and manual labor day after day for decades, hoping nobody ever hears about them. Performers are always more interesting to us and the media, so it ends up looking like there are more of them. They just make more noise. 😁

bluemason3 said:I was talking about monastic communities—essentially, focusing on self-improvement rather than charity work. Contemplative orders are established to help people engage in spiritual practice through an institution that provides the ideal environment. This means access to teachings and texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find), physical space (usually quiet, nestled in nature, and tucked away from the social noise), and basic necessities like food and shelter so a person can devote themselves entirely to a contemplative life.

Even within the religious hierarchy, the humanitarian work you mentioned isn't the primary mission. Sure, individual priests might do great work, which is commendable, but the core function of the institution is religious and liturgical—conveying specific spiritual principles. Humanitarian efforts are more of a byproduct.

And how else do you think all those nonprofits and foundations exist without being formal legal entities? Nonprofits and foundations *are* legal entities; they have their own structures, hierarchies, revenues, and expenses.

Look, the Church isn't a charity; it's primarily a religious institution. I'm not defending it—let’s be clear, there is plenty about it that I dislike—but the existence of an institution isn't inherently a problem. Foolishness is bound to happen in any organized group. The real issue usually arises when it merges with secular power. For its own spiritual good, the fundamental principle should be staying out of politics... though, the Church is a bit of a special case. Other religions have strong monastic institutions, but they rarely have such powerful, hierarchical lay leadership. That probably changes the whole approach. 🤷

I wouldn't say there is that little good left. It's just that someone like Kacunko will get billions of times more media coverage than an entire monastery full of humble monks. Those guys aren't doing anything "interesting" for the public; they just focus on their spiritual practice and manual labor day after day for decades, hoping nobody ever hears about them. Performers are always more interesting to us and the media, so it ends up looking like there are more of them. They just make more noise. 😁

Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

I can see your point regarding Tibetans. Their isolation from the outside world and their focus on impersonalism from such a young age really shapes them.
Not necessarily! Edward Flores4, you’re really overdoing it with this refusal to learn or even look at information worth paying attention to. No one is forcing you to accept any specific spiritual teachings; that's entirely up to you and your own preconceived notions. Everything comes to us if we act like bees, moving from flower to flower to gather pollen and make honey. Otherwise, we just end up dry like a cake made without oil. Attachment and weakness are what derail us when we're trying to build integrity and character. If you refuse to consider information from any outside source or authority, you're going to walk right off a cliff just because you didn't bother to ask what was waiting behind the bushes. Relying solely on your gut won't get you far—senses are inherently limited and unreliable.
It's not all black and white. You say people crave having more options, but I don't really buy into that concept. I know exactly what I want, and I stick to my one choice regardless of what I read or hear.
Sure, plenty of people just soak everything up and wait to be told what to believe. But trust me, there are others who actually process it all—comparing ideas, making connections, and doing the work to build their own conclusions to get ahead.
Sacred texts are "sacred" because they hold pure, untouched spiritual wisdom derived from the lives of holy figures or direct encounters with God—the Source from which everything flows and eventually returns. The insights found there are light-years beyond our mere speculation, offering a fundamental foundation to fast-track spiritual growth during this brief life. Anyone who has actually studied them knows exactly what I mean. It’s a completely different matter when people try to twist that truth just to grab power and fame, effectively staining and corrupting the scriptures.
Look, reading and studying isn't about being passive. It’s more about observing and experimenting—connecting new info to what you already know. Then you can judge for yourself if you have the skills. You're better off trusting your own logic than some massive institution pushing its own version of the facts.

I know... I know I'm probably going to be silenced for life now. 🙂 I just wanted to point that out to you. I felt like saying it because I want us to be able to share a lot more ideas here without those kinds of biases getting in the way.

I agree with some of your points regarding the Dalai Lama. The fact that he started eating meat was essentially the end of his spiritual path. I can't stand hypocrisy either. Honestly, fighting for Tibet seems pointless now because those temples need a formal state structure to function. They need tax revenue to maintain the monasteries so people can actually focus on Buddhist teachings instead of worrying about where their next meal comes from. Plus, who is going to protect them in the long run? It’ll just be the same old story once someone finds oil nearby and things shift again. A truly spiritual person doesn't care about flags when they view the whole Earth as home. That's a leader's job. When a King loses his battle or his kingdom, he passes the torch—it means he either failed to protect his people or his time is simply up.
I don't have nearly as much info as you guys do, but here's my two cents on the matter. 🙂

Look, this is a heavy topic and there aren't any easy answers here.
Take Chechnya, for example.
War. Dzhokhar Dudayev. A population of 3.5 million. After four years of fighting, only 1.6 million people are left.
The Russians who lost those early battles have become so powerful they can basically just carry out a pogrom.
What do you even do when things hit that point? You've got justice, truth, and world opinion on your side—but you're staring down the barrel of someone literally trying to wipe you off the map.
Naturally, that left them with only one way to fight back: terrorism. Just look at what happened at that theater in Moscow.
It’s the same story with Tibet. Either submit or cease to exist. Even terrorism doesn't work there.
That’s exactly why I think the Dalai Lama is doing the only thing he possibly can: keeping the Tibet issue in the global spotlight. That public pressure indirectly forces the Chinese government to watch how they treat Tibetans. Look at the Olympics as an example.
That’s precisely why America needs to be fully committed to NATO and integrated with Europe. You don't want some Russian or someone else coming along tomorrow and knocking you out with a single blow.
What good is freedom if you aren't around to enjoy it?

Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

If you start with that mindset, I guess you’re never going to see things any other way.
But honestly, that assumption is kind of unshakeable, which makes it pretty arbitrary. Like, no matter how many examples someone brings up—saying people founded hospitals or universities just to help others—you could always twist it and claim they did it for some personal gain. You can basically argue that personal interest is the motive for anything. So, the whole idea feels a bit forced to me.

Personally, I actually believe people can build institutions with the best intentions for others, and yeah, sometimes those institutions actually do what they were meant to do.

As for the Dalai Lama, it’s pretty obvious that’s a political institution, and it doesn't really have anything to do with levels of mystical insight. Whether that organization—which is supposed to be working for the good of the Tibetan people—is actually effective or not? Man, I wouldn't even try to judge that. I think it's probably too hard to tell.

Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

Looking at it from your perspective, of course 😉 It’s such a shame that we don't have any actual monks posting on this Forum to give us some true "insider" insight. While I am naturally skeptical of systems when it comes to spirituality, claiming that structure is inherently bad is just as much of a fallacy as claiming it's the only way. For instance, I could find plenty of reasons to be "against" organized spiritual communities, just as an honorable monk might provide me with compelling reasons "for" them... It is impossible to offer truly objective arguments for or against because every side approaches the matter from a deeply subjective standpoint...

One can contemplate anywhere, really. That means even in a prison cell, let alone a monastery. Or do you believe that contemplation isn't "real" if it happens within walls, or worse, behind iron bars?

Edward Flores4 said:Look, any institution ever created was designed by someone to serve their own interests, not the public good. When people build an organization and then act under its official "brand," they’re usually just serving as the engine that drives profit back to the original designer. Most followers and employees end up working against their own best interests without even realizing it.

Contemplative orders are established to make spiritual practice easier for people by providing an institutional framework that offers the best possible resources—everything from access to teachings and sacred texts (which used to be incredibly hard to find) to physical space (usually somewhere quiet, tucked away in nature, far from the noise of society) and basic necessities like housing and food. This allows a person to devote themselves entirely to a life of contemplation.

That’s a beautiful fairy tale, but there are some issues... maybe even two:
1) The only actual requirement for contemplation is having a brain that functions without physical distraction. Honestly, you have the conditions for contemplation while you're washing dishes... having free time certainly helps, but it isn't a prerequisite. At the end of the day, it comes down to the sheer will to contemplate.

2) Having easy access to texts actually sabotages contemplation. Once you read something, you create your own "version of someone else's image"—essentially, you adopt someone else's perspective on a subject. If that "model" is more complex than what you currently hold, you'll naturally perceive it as superior because a more complex model always offers more choices than a simpler one... and people tend to equate freedom with having more options. BUT!!! That "new" understanding of yours isn't actually the fruit of your own contemplation; it's just pure mimicry of what you read, interpreted with a tiny bit of subjectivity... and yet, you mistake that for your own opinion.

So, what these organizations "provide" is actually a way to prevent genuine contemplation. You end up surrounded only by people who share your exact convictions... which means that's the only "thought model" present in your environment. Consequently, what you think is knowledge or your own opinion is really just a reference to someone else's model, performed in your own style. Now, you possess the "ultimate truth" and you defend it as if it were your own lived experience, when in reality, it's just your personal interpretation of someone else's experience.

In other words... It's a marriage of futility with illusion. You delude yourself into thinking you're thinking just because you're referencing "sacred texts." You ignore the fact that the very need to debate it suggests you don't actually believe it at all—you just need to convince yourself that you're certain. You end up acting on the principle of extracting benefit from mistakes without wasting energy defending obviously "harmful" ways of thinking. 🙂

Then how do you explain all those associations and foundations that weren't formed by legal institutions? Associations and foundations are legal entities; they have their own structure, hierarchy, income, expenses, and so on.

Sure, they have revenue and expenses—that much is true—but they aren't turning a profit. All those funds are earmarked for the specific mission the nonprofit supports, which means they can't just cut checks to political campaigns; consequently, they lack that kind of political leverage. Now, technically, any small business owner is a legal entity... but I’m talking about actual legitimacy and the real capacity to "influence" policy, legislation, and so on.

The clowns are always entertaining for us and the media, so it feels like there are way more of them than there actually are... it's just that they make the most noise at the start.😁

That's the truth. You also have to realize that even monasteries act as one of the biggest "sideshow attractions" in this massive circus. The essence lies in the occurrence itself—the "happening"—and a happening is just what unfolds naturally, regardless of what you think about what took place. The event happens all on its own... without your intervention... just existing. You should really just live rather than try to intervene. Honestly, trying to interfere isn't even important, and besides, it has absolutely nothing to do with the event itself.

A map of the terrain isn't the actual terrain... in the same way, your opinion about an event isn't the event you're forming an opinion on. Memory is always the past. An opinion about a memory is just a projection of that past memory "painted" over the living image of the present moment. As long as you hold an opinion about Buddha... it's obvious you aren't actually awake... you're just dreaming during the day about "Buddhas" that others described to you in their "scriptures" and stories.

Nevertheless... you're quite well-informed compared to the "average" person (whatever that implies), though it seems like you're still just gathering data as a way to delay reaching a "verdict"—using that verdict to finally form an opinion on everything that is, and everything that isn't...? I say that based on my own experience, so it may or may not be right... but I personally believe that 🙂

Why would you assume everyone in those places shares the same convictions? If that were true, then we here in the Spirituality section would all be thinking exactly alike too... and you know better than anyone how far from the truth that is... 😍

Wherever there are people, there is conflict... or cooperation. Dialogue, or monologue. Just because monks or clergy agree to live under the same roof and share the same infrastructure doesn't mean they think in unison. Perhaps they gathered around the teachings of Jesus or Buddha, following certain house rules that apply to everyone... but you simply cannot claim they hold identical beliefs regarding Jesus or Buddha...
Let's set aside their centralized organization and how it dictates or restricts certain things; that shouldn't be the metric used to judge the quality of their work or their actual thoughts...

Edward Flores4 said:Every single institution out there was built by people looking out for their own damn interests, not to actually help anyone else!

James Lee77 said:If you start with that mindset, I guess you’re never going to see things any other way.
But honestly, that assumption is kind of unshakeable, which makes it pretty arbitrary. Like, no matter how many examples someone brings up—saying people founded hospitals or universities just to help others—you could always twist it and claim they did it for some personal gain. You can basically argue that personal interest is the motive for anything. So, the whole idea feels a bit forced to me.

Personally, I actually believe people can build institutions with the best intentions for others, and yeah, sometimes those institutions actually do what they were meant to do.

As for the Dalai Lama, it’s pretty obvious that’s a political institution, and it doesn't really have anything to do with levels of mystical insight. Whether that organization—which is supposed to be working for the good of the Tibetan people—is actually effective or not? Man, I wouldn't even try to judge that. I think it's probably too hard to tell.

Edward Flores4 is spot on here, but honestly, James Lee77 is saying the exact same thing.
Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we do, absolutely everything, is driven by pure, unadulterated self-interest, especially those times when we pretend we're acting "for the greater good." It’s all a facade because helping someone else usually ends up feeding our own egos or lining our own pockets, and honestly, that selfish streak is the only reason we even bother to step up and act like we care in the first place.

Let’s be real for a second: giving to others in this world is nothing more than a high-level, sophisticated way of being selfish—it's all just a calculated move to serve your own interests. Honestly, whenever you hear someone prattle on about having "the best intentions toward others," it’s always rooted in having the best intentions for themselves.

Brian Foster3 said:Edward Flores4 is spot on here, but honestly, James Lee77 is saying the exact same thing.
Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we do, absolutely everything, is driven by pure, unadulterated self-interest, especially those times when we pretend we're acting "for the greater good." It’s all a facade because helping someone else usually ends up feeding our own egos or lining our own pockets, and honestly, that selfish streak is the only reason we even bother to step up and act like we care in the first place.

Let’s be real for a second: giving to others in this world is nothing more than a high-level, sophisticated way of being selfish—it's all just a calculated move to serve your own interests. Honestly, whenever you hear someone prattle on about having "the best intentions toward others," it’s always rooted in having the best intentions for themselves.

Okay, let's say you're right. If that's how it works, then saying "he's doing it for his own benefit" becomes totally pointless.

Like, look at it this way. Someone has a bunch of cash, and before they die, they decide to spend it. If they choose to buy weapons and bomb some small town, according to your logic, they're doing that for their own benefit. But if they decide to feed the hungry, they're also doing that for their own benefit under your theory. So, the actual difference between "bombing innocents" and "feeding the hungry" isn't whether we're being selfish or not—it's something else entirely. If you're right, then in every single scenario, it's meaningless to say "they're doing it for themselves."

The real question is: can an institution actually serve anyone other than its founder? I personally think they can.

wiredcanyon6 said:I can see your point regarding Tibetans. Their isolation from the outside world and their focus on impersonalism from such a young age really shapes them.
Not necessarily! Edward Flores4, you’re really overdoing it with this refusal to learn or even look at information worth paying attention to. No one is forcing you to accept any specific spiritual teachings; that's entirely up to you and your own preconceived notions. Everything comes to us if we act like bees, moving from flower to flower to gather pollen and make honey. Otherwise, we just end up dry like a cake made without oil. Attachment and weakness are what derail us when we're trying to build integrity and character. If you refuse to consider information from any outside source or authority, you're going to walk right off a cliff just because you didn't bother to ask what was waiting behind the bushes. Relying solely on your gut won't get you far—senses are inherently limited and unreliable.
It's not all black and white. You say people crave having more options, but I don't really buy into that concept. I know exactly what I want, and I stick to my one choice regardless of what I read or hear.
Sure, plenty of people just soak everything up and wait to be told what to believe. But trust me, there are others who actually process it all—comparing ideas, making connections, and doing the work to build their own conclusions to get ahead.
Sacred texts are "sacred" because they hold pure, untouched spiritual wisdom derived from the lives of holy figures or direct encounters with God—the Source from which everything flows and eventually returns. The insights found there are light-years beyond our mere speculation, offering a fundamental foundation to fast-track spiritual growth during this brief life. Anyone who has actually studied them knows exactly what I mean. It’s a completely different matter when people try to twist that truth just to grab power and fame, effectively staining and corrupting the scriptures.
Look, reading and studying isn't about being passive. It’s more about observing and experimenting—connecting new info to what you already know. Then you can judge for yourself if you have the skills. You're better off trusting your own logic than some massive institution pushing its own version of the facts.

I know... I know I'm probably going to be silenced for life now. 🙂 I just wanted to point that out to you. I felt like saying it because I want us to be able to share a lot more ideas here without those kinds of biases getting in the way.

I agree with some of your points regarding the Dalai Lama. The fact that he started eating meat was essentially the end of his spiritual path. I can't stand hypocrisy either. Honestly, fighting for Tibet seems pointless now because those temples need a formal state structure to function. They need tax revenue to maintain the monasteries so people can actually focus on Buddhist teachings instead of worrying about where their next meal comes from. Plus, who is going to protect them in the long run? It’ll just be the same old story once someone finds oil nearby and things shift again. A truly spiritual person doesn't care about flags when they view the whole Earth as home. That's a leader's job. When a King loses his battle or his kingdom, he passes the torch—it means he either failed to protect his people or his time is simply up.
I don't have nearly as much info as you guys do, but here's my two cents on the matter. 🙂

It’s one thing to sit down and read some deep text—that’s just learning. But there’s a massive difference when you start labeling those figures as "saints" and treating their every word like some ultimate, unquestionable authority. Honestly? You aren't even forming your own perspective at that point. You’re just taking someone else's portrait, painting over it to suit your tastes, and then claiming the finished product is your own unique opinion. There’s nothing groundbreaking about it... it’s just a loop. It’s a constant cycle of repeating what was already written down—*re-ligare*, right?—and that, in its simplest sense, is exactly what religion is. 😉

Attachment and weakness—those are the two things that can really throw us off course when we're trying to build up our own integrity and shape who we are as people. It’s like trying to build a solid foundation for a house while the ground underneath you keeps shifting; if you're too tied down to certain things or let your own vulnerabilities dictate your moves, you lose that steady footing you need to actually grow.

When people start clinging to those "sacred" texts—you know, the ones they treat like they're infallible—they end up building this entire, massive foundation for their own personal metaphysics. They take a few lines here and there, twist them just enough to fit their worldview, and suddenly they’ve built a whole philosophy that they claim is divine. But honestly? It's a stretch. Most of the time, there isn't even a real connection between what's actually written and the complex spiritual structures people build around it. It’s more about the person doing the interpreting than the actual words on the page. 😁

If you go through life refusing to even consider information from any kind of reliable source or authority—just flat-out ignoring everything before it hits you—you’re basically walking yourself straight into a ditch. It’s like wandering blindly into a thick forest without ever bothering to ask anyone what might be lurking behind the next tree. You can't just assume the path is clear; if you don't seek out the facts, you're just setting yourself up for a fall.

I don't feel like I need to lean on some big-shot authority just to have a conversation, ask a question, or even just sit back and read. When I pick up a book, I basically strip away the cover—the fancy title, the author’s credentials, all that noise—and just dive straight into the meat of it. Honestly? I couldn't care less who actually wrote the thing or whether they have a PhD or a massive following. To me, the only way to judge if an idea actually holds water is to test it against my own life. If those concepts actually work when things get real—if they provide actual utility or a sense of purpose in my day-to-day—then they have value. If not, then it's just ink on paper.

Look, if you try to navigate life relying solely on your gut feelings, you aren't going to get very far—honestly, it’s a bit of a dead end. Our senses are incredibly flawed and limited by nature; they only give us a tiny slice of what's actually happening. It’s like trying to drive through a thick fog in a blizzard using nothing but your headlights—you might see what's right in front of you, sure, but you're completely blind to everything else surrounding you until it's already too late.

So, where does knowledge actually come from then? If we’re all this helpless—if we really have to go running to someone else just to get an answer for everything—then who exactly taught those "first people" what they knew? It’s a bit of a loop, isn't it? And honestly, why do you think I can't reach those big, essential conclusions on my own? For me, it feels pretty straightforward... so why do you assume that's not the case for me?

Look, things aren't always that black and white. You mentioned how people crave having endless options—but honestly, I don't really buy into that whole concept myself. For me, it’s much simpler than that. I know exactly what I want, and I stick to that one choice I've made, regardless of all the noise out there or whatever else I might happen to read or listen to.

Come on, give me a break—with all due respect. 😁 So, you went ahead and opened up a poll—and instead of just sticking to two straightforward options like "I'm interested" or "I'm not"—you decided to split them into four different answers. It feels like a bit of a tactical move to manipulate the results, doesn't it? It’s like when someone adds extra layers of complexity to a simple question just so they can control the outcome... because, let's face it, more variables mean more room for interpretation and more ways to twist the data to fit a specific narrative. 😉

So now you're telling me you won't even shave before the election... that's just precious, really. 😁

Believe me, there are definitely people out there absorbing all this—thinking, comparing, reflecting, and weaving all this knowledge together to draw their own conclusions to fuel their own progress.

But let’s set everyone else aside for a second. Do you actually consider yourself a follower of an ideology, or do you truly believe you have your own "original" perspective that just happens to overlap perfectly with what others think—people who, by some wild coincidence, happen to be Kabbalists?

Sacred texts are deemed "sacred" because they hold untainted, pure spiritual wisdom derived from the lives of holy figures or the manifestation of God on Earth—the Being from whom everything flows and to whom everything eventually returns. The information found within them is aeons beyond our mere speculation and is fundamentally essential for rapid spiritual advancement during this brief lifetime.

Honestly, I don't see anything sacred about them. Sorry... they seem sacred to you only because someone told you they were. They could have presented any other books with that same level of care and "sanctity," and you would have perceived them as equally holy, regardless of what was actually written inside.

Real quality doesn't need a marketing campaign. Just look at things like grass, LSD, or MDMA... not only is there no advertising for them, it's actually banned—there's active anti-propaganda against them—and yet, they remain popular and in demand. When I have to be convinced that something was written by some specific saint or authority figure, when we start talking about the "holiness" of the content... it's clearly just a way to mask content that is either lacking or simply bad.

I really don't get you guys... you cling to books filled with ancient cosmologies, you believe mythical figures were actual historical people, you take metaphors literally, and you derive value solely from how old the writings are... sorry, but that's just plain stupid.

James Lee77 said:If you start with that mindset, I guess you’re never going to see things any other way.
But honestly, that assumption is kind of unshakeable, which makes it pretty arbitrary. Like, no matter how many examples someone brings up—saying people founded hospitals or universities just to help others—you could always twist it and claim they did it for some personal gain. You can basically argue that personal interest is the motive for anything. So, the whole idea feels a bit forced to me.

Personally, I actually believe people can build institutions with the best intentions for others, and yeah, sometimes those institutions actually do what they were meant to do.

As for the Dalai Lama, it’s pretty obvious that’s a political institution, and it doesn't really have anything to do with levels of mystical insight. Whether that organization—which is supposed to be working for the good of the Tibetan people—is actually effective or not? Man, I wouldn't even try to judge that. I think it's probably too hard to tell.

It looks like you might not be all that familiar with Parkinson’s Law—which basically suggests that any institution once it's fully established is going to keep pushing itself forward and justifying its own existence, even if the original reason it was ever created has completely vanished into thin air. It's like those massive corporate bureaucracies we see in places like DC or New York—they just keep expanding and spinning their wheels regardless of whether they're actually accomplishing anything anymore.

It really speaks volumes about the institutions themselves—and I mean this in a way that’s pretty independent of their actual intentions. Even if their initial goals weren't necessarily bad to begin with, you can see how things have drifted. It's like when a small, well-meaning local charity starts growing too fast; they might start out just wanting to help the neighborhood, but once they become this massive, bureaucratic machine, the original mission gets lost in all the red tape and systemic momentum. You end up looking at the structure of the organization rather than the heart of why it was built in the first place.

But look, that whole assumption is basically unshakeable—even if it feels pretty arbitrary when you really sit down and think about it.

So, let me get this straight—you’re suggesting that because gravity is non-invertible, it somehow makes the whole force arbitrary? That's an interesting way to look at it. But it raises a massive question: does this "arbitrariness" actually weaken the pull, or does it still slam you into the ground just as hard regardless of whether we call it random or divine?

Look, here’s the thing—no matter how many examples you throw at me of people setting up institutions like hospitals or universities specifically to help others, you can always twist the narrative to claim they were actually just looking out for themselves. It’s one of those things where, if you try hard enough, you can argue that personal gain was the underlying motive behind any act of charity or public service. Because you can always find some way to frame it that way, I just think the whole thesis is pretty arbitrary. It really comes down to how you choose to spin the story.

You really have a way of keeping me on my toes... I mean, you're pointing out that in one thread I’m arguing schools are basically just indoctrination machines for the masses, but then in another, I’m holding them up as a prime example of the "greater good." It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?

I’ve always felt that schools function more like state-run temples than actual centers of learning—where the classrooms are basically just the priest's vestments. The reality is that the students themselves? They aren't even the priority. At no point in this whole setup has their actual benefit been the main focus. Instead, everything seems to be secondary, arbitrary, and frankly, pretty hit-or-miss.

I actually see things a bit differently—I truly believe that people can build institutions with the best possible intentions toward their fellow citizens, and that, from time to time, those organizations actually end up doing exactly what they were designed to do.

Just because a slap to the face might occasionally wake someone up—doesn't mean I have any business going around slapping people whenever I feel like it.

When it comes to the Dalai Lama...
Honestly, I don't think it's even that easy to put a finger on exactly what we're looking at here—it’s one of those things where you try to wrap your head around it, but the more you dig, the harder it gets to make a solid call.

Hypocrisy is one of those things you can spot from a mile away—honestly, it’s practically glowing under a spotlight. It’s just so incredibly easy to see when someone isn't walking the walk.

Brian Foster3 said:Edward Flores4 is spot on here, but honestly, James Lee77 is saying the exact same thing.
Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we do, absolutely everything, is driven by pure, unadulterated self-interest, especially those times when we pretend we're acting "for the greater good." It’s all a facade because helping someone else usually ends up feeding our own egos or lining our own pockets, and honestly, that selfish streak is the only reason we even bother to step up and act like we care in the first place.

Let’s be real for a second: giving to others in this world is nothing more than a high-level, sophisticated way of being selfish—it's all just a calculated move to serve your own interests. Honestly, whenever you hear someone prattle on about having "the best intentions toward others," it’s always rooted in having the best intentions for themselves.

And hey, please don't try to "defend" me here—I'm talking specifically about institutionalized beliefs, whereas you're talking about altruism in a broad sense, which includes individual people rather than just big organizations.

James Lee77 said:Okay, let's say you're right. If that's how it works, then saying "he's doing it for his own benefit" becomes totally pointless.

Like, look at it this way. Someone has a bunch of cash, and before they die, they decide to spend it. If they choose to buy weapons and bomb some small town, according to your logic, they're doing that for their own benefit. But if they decide to feed the hungry, they're also doing that for their own benefit under your theory. So, the actual difference between "bombing innocents" and "feeding the hungry" isn't whether we're being selfish or not—it's something else entirely. If you're right, then in every single scenario, it's meaningless to say "they're doing it for themselves."

The real question is: can an institution actually serve anyone other than its founder? I personally think they can.

Yes and yes.