![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastSomething that fascinates me is the extent to which people value a message based on the messenger rather than on the message itself. Sometimes that makes sense: one can't have much respect for a politician who rails against homosexuality whilst engaging in same-sex acts himself. At other times, however, it seems surreal to me to see a message ignored when one person says it, and described with glowing praise when another person says it. So if i say "We need to learn to empathise with one another, to try to understand where other people are coming from", it's no big deal; but if the Dalai Lama says it, suddenly it becomes profundity that clearly demonstrates what a wise and caring person the Dalai Lama is. (And fwiw, the Dalai Lama and i apparently occupy similar positions on the Political Compass - i re-did the test earlier today, and scored -6.12 on the Economic Left/Right scale and -7.54 on the Social Libertarian/Authoritarian scale.)
Now it may be argued that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of millions upon millions of people, whereas i'm barely the spiritual leader of myself. :-) But that doesn't change the message; it merely says that the message comes from a 'trusted source' in the former instance, and an 'untrusted source' in the latter. And what makes the Dalai Lama a trusted source? To my mind it's his words and actions, faith in him as a spiritual leader, or a combination of the two. If it's his words, well, again, that should mean that people should rank me as a trusted source also. If it's his actions, well, i think many of us would be able to do some impressive things if we were granted the position of power granted to the Dalai Lama - a grant based on faith (i.e. that he's the reincarnation of a particular bodhisattva etc.) And if it's based on faith, that he should be taken seriously due to his status as a reincarnated bodhisattva, whereas i'm merely a common oik, well, who's to say that i'm not 'merely' a common oik if i'm saying similar things to the Dalai Lama? (Although i suppose that it could be argued that even a broken clock is right twice a day. :-) )
But the issue here is not the Dalai Lama himself1; it's about people not really listening to a message unless it comes from a particular person. In his interview for Playboy magazine, not long before his death, John Lennon expressed frustration at people worshiping the messenger rather than actually listening to the message:
Personally, i think this is a problem that's endemic to Western culture, and that's sad, because to me that suggests that many people are missing out on some profound insights because they're waiting for them to come from the 'right' person. There are things people on my LJ friends-list have posted which have really made me stop in my mental tracks and think "Wow . . . . very interesting!", such that my perspective has fundamentally shifted. i treasure such moments - not only because of the learning experience they afford me, but because they demonstrate to me that wisdom is not just the province of an elite few.
1. There's an old saying that goes something like "I don't have a problem with God; it's his fan club I can't stand." Similarly, although i might disagree with the Dalai Lama on certain issues - e.g. sexuality - i have less of a problem with him than with some of his supporters: i find it a bit weird when people who probably think it's entirely reasonable to critique, say, José Luis de Jesús Miranda as a spiritual leader, then go on to demand that the Dalai Lama not face any critique or criticism.
Now it may be argued that the Dalai Lama is the spiritual leader of millions upon millions of people, whereas i'm barely the spiritual leader of myself. :-) But that doesn't change the message; it merely says that the message comes from a 'trusted source' in the former instance, and an 'untrusted source' in the latter. And what makes the Dalai Lama a trusted source? To my mind it's his words and actions, faith in him as a spiritual leader, or a combination of the two. If it's his words, well, again, that should mean that people should rank me as a trusted source also. If it's his actions, well, i think many of us would be able to do some impressive things if we were granted the position of power granted to the Dalai Lama - a grant based on faith (i.e. that he's the reincarnation of a particular bodhisattva etc.) And if it's based on faith, that he should be taken seriously due to his status as a reincarnated bodhisattva, whereas i'm merely a common oik, well, who's to say that i'm not 'merely' a common oik if i'm saying similar things to the Dalai Lama? (Although i suppose that it could be argued that even a broken clock is right twice a day. :-) )
But the issue here is not the Dalai Lama himself1; it's about people not really listening to a message unless it comes from a particular person. In his interview for Playboy magazine, not long before his death, John Lennon expressed frustration at people worshiping the messenger rather than actually listening to the message:
What happens is somebody comes along with a good piece of truth. Instead of the truth's being looked at, the person who brought it is looked at. The messenger is worshiped, instead of the message. So there would be Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Marxism, Maoism -- everything -- it is always about a person and never about what he says.And Lennon himself experienced this, with people seeming to be more interested in what John Lennon said rather than what John Lennon said.
[ http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinterviewwithjohnlennonandyokoono.htm ]
Personally, i think this is a problem that's endemic to Western culture, and that's sad, because to me that suggests that many people are missing out on some profound insights because they're waiting for them to come from the 'right' person. There are things people on my LJ friends-list have posted which have really made me stop in my mental tracks and think "Wow . . . . very interesting!", such that my perspective has fundamentally shifted. i treasure such moments - not only because of the learning experience they afford me, but because they demonstrate to me that wisdom is not just the province of an elite few.
1. There's an old saying that goes something like "I don't have a problem with God; it's his fan club I can't stand." Similarly, although i might disagree with the Dalai Lama on certain issues - e.g. sexuality - i have less of a problem with him than with some of his supporters: i find it a bit weird when people who probably think it's entirely reasonable to critique, say, José Luis de Jesús Miranda as a spiritual leader, then go on to demand that the Dalai Lama not face any critique or criticism.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-08 17:25 (UTC)