How should Paris look like
Since I have suggested France invite more Tibetans-in-exile to Paris to promote the spiritual level of the city, some of the French people might have been thinking that it’s not a bad idea. Therefore I’d like to show them some pictures of the “free spiritual” Dharamsala, where the “government” of the “Tibetans-in-exile” resides, so that they can start planning Paris in a similar fashion to make it more welcoming.
I’m sure French people would prefer the style of the free Dharamsala like that:
as apposed to the “repressive” Lhasa, China, like that:
Well then, it’s looking that it won’t be too “expensive” to create a Little Dharamsala in Paris. Except, of course, you always have to afford a much more luxurious place for the leader:
But no worry, as this can be sponsored by Reporters Without Borders!
The Weblog of Breaking Parity 
Interesting. It seems that you confuse spirituality with economic development. It’s possible to be spiritual in a developed or non-rural area, and just because the place they reside is rural doesn’t mean that it’s a requirement of their religion. Spirituality/religion has nothing to do with materialism, and it can exist with or without it.
It also seems like you’re contradicting yourself by first pointing out how “repressive” Tibet is better because it’s more developed, but turning around and accusing Dalai Lama of being “luxurious” just because his residence is more developed.
Are you trying to say that you want Tibet to be developed, but you don’t want the Tibetans to enjoy any of the development/improvements because they don’t deserve to be “luxurious” and should live in squalor?
deneb7
June 18, 2008 at 5:05 pm
deneb7, thanks for commenting. If you notice, I have not attempted to draw any conclusions but only presented some materials, and people are free to reach there own conclusions. You might argue that my sarcastic tone has its implications. Well, I admit it. But again, everyone is free to decide what they get from there. As to your last statement, I suppose you get the point that it’s the contrast between the living condition of average people and the leader that matters?
chiralanomaly
June 18, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Deneb7, excuse…but what r u saying?? Looks like that like sooo many other westerners, who doesn’t know much about their supposed “pets” (tibetan in these case), u’d like them to remain in a “primitive” state cause to YOU it looks more romantic in atmosphere, more traditional, charming in a touristic way of seeing it. It’s like when some europeans go to see northern african countries, or elsewhere in the world, and they’re just shown what they want to see..primitive, “traditional” place kept that way just for tourist sake. They see that, find them utterly romantic and charming (to their eyes), so exotic compared to where they daily live..and then go away. Don’t confuse spirituality with poverty, or tradition with poverty, for that matter..neither of them need to go hand in hand. I’m sure, and I have proof of it, that the slaves and serf in old Tibet didn’t much like their status, didn’t much like to live in misery and under the slash of their masters. As mush as Tibetan (as human beings) in those pictures in Dharamsala DO NOT like to live like that, in slum kind of places. Sprituality can also go hand in hand with a minimum of decent shelters and not “slum-like” surroundings..it’s not consequential, and one has nothing to do with the others.
If spirituality needed poverty and slums, then why Dalai Lama (who is SUPPOSED to be the most spiritual of them – the truth is quite different of course…as much as it is the case with the catholic pope -) live in such a luxurious place?
Don’t confuse simplicity with poverty and so on…Otherwise, if u really value and admire “their” spirituality and simplicity so much, why don’t u try and go living like that..I’m quite sure u’ll change ur mind on the issue in a few weeks.
Alessandro
June 21, 2008 at 4:41 am
chiralanomaly ~ actually you haven’t shown a contrast at all with those pictures as you didn’t show the actual living conditions of the commoners — only the outside environment vs. inside. And for all we know, the picture of the Dalai’s living room could be in some other country, and not a valid point of contrast.
Alessandro ~ Nice, you picked a very European name and yet you can’t seem to read/translate what I wrote adequately. Please consult a better translator or dictionary. I was saying that poverty and spirituality do not have to go hand in hand, as the ironic tone of chiralanomaly’s post seemed to suggest. Somehow you seemed to derive the opposite and proceeded to attack me.
Here’s my attempt at explaining this to you: by saying it will be easy for Paris to house Tibetans and that that’s how Paris will look, Chiralanomaly is implying that Tibetans are supposed to live in squalor. I pointed out that by saying that, and then contrasting it with Lhasa and the Dalai’s living quarters, he actually seems to be contradicting his point and reinforcing the idea that Tibetans should live in squalor.
deneb7
June 23, 2008 at 1:32 pm
deneb7, you completely misunderstood my point. I never implied Tibetan SHOULD live in squalor. They live in squalor because they are being misled by their leader who cares about nothing but his own political advantages. I have yet to see one instance Dalai Lama and his government struggle to lift the living condition of the Tibetans-in-exile except for letting them immigrate to the west. In fact, let me emphasize this again, and it should be emphasized 1 million times more because too many in the west are simply totally ignorant of it, “Tibetans-in-exile” don’t represent Tibetans. The majority Tibetans, the real Tibetans, live in China. Those who live in Lhasa today are the real Tibetans and they enjoy much better life there (except for less chance of immigrating to the west though, but that’s not our problem. They are totally free to go anywhere as long as they can get a visa). The only other thing they miss, and some of them seem to be bothered dramatically by that, is the “blessing” from Dalai Lama. I surely understand why some of the Tibetans are upset about that, but my understanding/sympathy to them can only go as far as to say that hopefully they, or at least their children, can learn better living as an independent person happily without being “blessed” by a corrupted monk.
If you noticed, I never said Paris should invite more Tibetans, in fact I don’t think at all they like the real Tibetans who live in China and do not support anti-China movements. Their “friends” are the “Tibetans-in-exile”. It’s important to distinguish the two concepts. It’s one of the dirty tricks the western politician/media play to confuse the two to misguide their people. Do I have to also remind you that the majority of the “Tibetans-in-exile” are the former landlords, slave owners, nobel priest class and their descendants. Is there anything surprising that they hate China?
chiralanomaly
June 24, 2008 at 4:44 pm
chiralanomaly is absolutlety correct, and deneb7 is totally misinformed. do you think tibetans like to live in squalors? a bet if tibetans lived in paris they would not live in them. i pretty sure they would live in normal homes just like the rest of France. Ps. deneb7 is riculously mis informed.
Daryl
September 17, 2008 at 5:00 pm