Header image header image 2  
anti-Buddhist?

 
 
INSIGHTFUL

Consider...

"Allowing lies to be spread in the name of 'free speech' is not helpful. Anyone can say, for example, 'Dorje Shugden is a demon' or 'NKT is in league with the Chinese Government against the Dalai Lama'. They are free to say this, but since it's a wrong view, it's not helpful to spread it around. The various accusations made against Dorje Shugden, NKT and the WSS by people who are misinformed or even malicious, as Middleway said, affects people's faith and therefore interferes with people's spiritual lives. We can therefore say that books containing these false claims are maras and every effort should be made to prevent such obstacles from arising."

Now switch it around:

"Allowing lies to be spread in the name of 'free speech' is not helpful. Anyone can say, for example, 'Dorje Shugden is a Buddha' or 'Dalai Lama is in league with Western Buddhist groups against the NKT'. They are free to say this, but since it's a wrong view, it's not helpful to spread it around. The various accusations made against the Dalai Lama by people who are misinformed or even malicious affects people's faith and therefore interferes with people's spiritual lives. We can therefore say that books containing these false claims are maras and every effort should be made to prevent such obstacles from arising."

What's the difference between these two statements?

NKT webcensors believe the former statement to be perfectly reasonable (they made it!). On the other hand, no one in the free thinking world has voiced the second, arrogant and malignant opinion and no one from the Dalai Lama camp attempted to prevent publication of the aptly titled 'Great Deception' So who has the moral high ground? And who really holds onto arrogant malignant views?