Here is the latest Internet hoax and the photo that comes with it. Facebook morons are pumping these out faster than the Franklin Mint pushes out worthless 9-11 memorabilia.
The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, answered, ‘Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.’ <—– FAKE!
This quote, printed over a photograph of the Dalai Lama, is floating around on Facebook. It is inspiring millions of simple-minded Facebookers — but there’s a problem. HE NEVER SAID IT! There is no record of the Dalai Lama ever saying this and on his website there is no mention of it. Devout followers of the Dalai Lama say it is not true, but we live in the day where all one needs to do is put something up on Facebook and it becomes the law of the land — at least where idiots are concerned.
Why do people on Facebook fall for this baloney? Last week it was the fake quote attributed to Betty White about testicles and vaginas and this week it’s about the Dalai Lama and his opinions about mankind and money. All you need is to be vaguely familiar with the teachings of the Dalai Lama to know that this is not true, He does not moralize like this. I hate to tell all you people who have been magically hoisted onto a heavenly plane by this quote that it is 100% not true. He never said it.
“We were surprised to see this quote in a handout we received as part of our fundraising for our cause,” said Laksmi Shamar, a devout Buddhist and a foot soldier in the battle against the Chinese oppression of Tibet.
When asked about the specific photo and the quote Shamar said that she had never heard of this quote.
“Moralizing is not the tone and has never been the intent of the Dalai Lama, but we live in the age of the internet and invention. In the past I have heard many people evoke the name of the Dalai Lama to bolster their own ideas, so this is not the first and I am sure that it will not be the last.”
Shamar is not a household name, but bigger names have not come forward to authenticate the quote simply because it’s not true and, according to inside sources, for them to mention it would serve only to add more steam to the engine of inauthenticty that drives quotes like this one.
The Tibetan Council of Northern California has not placed any credence on the quote and not a word of it has been leaked by the President of the council, Eva Herzer or chief advisor Phurpa Laden La.
Also, no authenticty was cited by Julia Shepardson who is on the council and has worked in a Tibetan refugee settlement in Nepal. She was regional Director of the Tibetan US Resettlement Project in the San Francisco Bay Area and a founding board member of the Committee of 100 for Tibet.
Tenzin Tethong, another prominent name — perhaps the most prominent — has not offered any credence to the validity of the quote. Tenzin Tethong is Chair of the Committee of 100 for Tibet, and President of the Dalai Lama Foundation. He is Distinguished Fellow, Tibetan Studies Initiative, and a member of the Center for Compassion & Altruism Research and Education, Stanford University. He is a former Representative of His Holiness the Dalai Lama in New York and Washington, D.C., and former Chairman of the Kashag, the Cabinet of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.
The list of names goes on and on and on. Sadly it does not go on as long as the list of millions of mindless Facebookers who pass this stuff along with nary a care. Last week TheDamienZone.com had to remind millions of Americans that actress Betty White, her baudy sense of humor notwithstanding, never said something that was attributed to her on millions of Facebook accounts.
“Sometimes a person will hear something that sounds in their mind like a certain person should have said it and they get some measure of comfort from believing it to be true. Perhaps they themselves invent a somewhat inspirational quote and know that it will have no legs or longevity unless they attribute that quote to someone more famous than themselves. Many of the New Testament Gospels may have been written this way.” [Dean Traherne, MD, UCMC Behavioral Health LLC.]
There should be a lot of laws implemented regarding internet hoaxes like this. Not simply because they are hoaxes, but because when something becomes this popular in the trenches of the day to day life of mouse clickers who don’t know any better, they can become a vehicle by which computer viruses are spread. The internet generation in the USA has become wise about clicking on links that seem suspicious or phony, but show them an inspirational quote by the Dalai Lama or a dirty joke from Betty White and they click away.
Look here and try to find any reference to the quote: http://www.dalailama.com/messages#Articles Then write to any of the people listed here and ask them about what I just told you — get back to me and say you’re sorry for spreading false information and misquoting a man who already has enough aggravation. http://www.tanc.org/about/advisory-council/
24 comments
#1JudyOctober 17, 2011, 6:06 pm
Even although it may be true that he never said this, I am sure His Holiness would wish you to treat your Internet compatriots with greater compassion than to call them “Facebook Morons.” Isn’t it rather lovely, in fact, how quickly this idea circulated, given that the motivation was to help others to have happier, healthier lives? I can’t help but think His Holiness would find it so.
#2DDMOctober 17, 2011, 6:31 pm
His Holiness? Let me tell you something, Judy. I don’t like your tone. It’s not “although it may not be true: — it’s simply NOT TRUE! Also — it is not “lovely” to motivate others with misquotes — that’s what one calls, manipulation. And let me tell you something about “his holiness” — he’s not some great thinker — he’s a celebrity, and you are just one of his fans.
Folks. Do you see what I have to put up with?
Damien
#3JWLOctober 18, 2011, 10:40 am
Hoax? OK, be that as it may. Why would you feel the need to call them names like “Facebook Morons?” Feel better now?
#4DDMOctober 18, 2011, 1:23 pm
People who mindlessly pass along misinformation on Facebook are indeed MORONS. I need not explain any further.
Damien
#5JWLOctober 18, 2011, 1:49 pm
Yes. Because everyone need to pass the “mindfulness” test and do a rigorous fact-check before they post anything on Facebook. And god forbid, If they fail, they should be prepared to be called a “moron” from some guy running a blog who calls Dalai Lama just a “celebrity” and yet seem to have some weird fascination with Robert Osborne from TCM who is not even a “celebrity” by any shape or form. Interesting indeed.
#6DDMOctober 18, 2011, 1:56 pm
I get ZERO letters about the Dalai Lama — I get about 100 a day about Robert Osborne. I don’t have a weird fascination — I am earning a living by responding to my fan base and addressing topics about which they express interest. Wait a second — aren’t you people supposed to be all peace and love and kindness or something? If you are a follower of the Dalai Lama, why would you want him to be misquoted by people who do not know him or understand his philosophy?
Damien
#7JWLOctober 18, 2011, 2:29 pm
No. I have absolutely no affiliation with Dalai Lama or his religion or philosophy. So I have no idea if “you people” are supposed to be all peace and love and kindness or something. Nor do I “follow” Dalai Lama but I know enough of him to know that he’s more than just a “celebrity” (as you put it) if not for myself or you but for a lot of other people like the Tibetans who are still fighting for their freedom. My original post was merely a curiosity on my part about your apparent dismissive tone not only towards the “morons” of the FB passing out the misinformation, but also Dalai Lama himself.
#8DDMOctober 18, 2011, 2:49 pm
If you have no affilliation with the Dalai Lama and you have no idea if “you people are supposed to be all peace and love and kindness,” why the hell are you bothering me? I’m the one who is being supportive of the Dalai Lama by protecting his integrity. You’re just some stupid pain in my butt who likes to cause trouble. Yes — the Dalai Lama IS a celebrity — look up the meaning of the word and then leave me alone. Go bother somebody else with your insane need to be heard. You should be at your desk working and not playing around on the internet. You made the huge mistake of trying to talk down to me — IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO TALK DOWN TO ME!
Don’t come back — your comment will NOT be posted.
#9NADFAOctober 18, 2011, 7:26 pm
Wow. With such an aggressive tone of writing, I’m guessing you’re; spotty, lonely, single, broke, depressed, angry?…
Has the world treated you unfairly?
Do you still live with your mother?
And you are suprisingly poor at forming coherant counter-argumunts btw. lol
#10DDMOctober 18, 2011, 7:45 pm
Folks, I allow coments like the one above because I want people to see what “open-minded” people are really like — just read the comment(s) above this one — I want you to see the nastiness from the Dalai Lama devotees and poseurs. This is their idea of love and understanding and harmony. It’s a simple case of shooting the messenger.
Kindly note that the ad hoc character psychological evaluation of me is entirely old and played out. If I had a dollar for every letter I get saying “Are you off your meds” “you are pathetic” “Do you live in your parent’s basement” — blah blah blah — The comment from NADFA (directly above this response) comes all the way from Merry Old England — Loughborough University to be exact. Here is the thing. I make money writing this blog. Commenting on my blog with something like this, however, is just something one does to shake time. So who is the one with an issue?
So, to stay in character and not let you down, GO FUCK YOURSELF! I would wager that you are not even a genuine Brit. You’re probably some greasy third-world squatter. Also, it’s past midnight where you are — shouldn’t you be studying or sleeping? What a fucking asshole.
#11MOctober 19, 2011, 11:03 pm
Just curious, having stumbled upon this in a Google search (looking, I’ll admit, for the genuine source of the quote, or whether or not the Dalai Lama had said something similar and was misquoted) — why is there hostility on BOTH sides of this argument?
To be clear: I don’t necessarily support the Dalai Lama, and I most certainly do NOT support misquoting, nor integrity, nor the general, completely viral idiocy that circulates Facebook for various reasons concerning the decline of the world’s mental state. I’m an academic, after all. I do agree, however, in that dishonest quoting must stop. (I lived over half my life thinking that Emerson wrote that fabulous quote on Success. He didn’t. I was really annoyed by this — HOW could my fifth grade teacher lie to me about such beautiful prose??! — but simultaneously relieved that I learned the truth.)
So here’s what I don’t understand: why not use kinder, less deplorable language? I find it most satisfying to outdo someone in an argument by catching my opponent in a circular argument and using dry wit — ultimately allowing him to embarrass himself. There’s no need to make equally base (cheap, simple, immature, et cetera ad nauseam) shots at them, Damien, when you can watch them slowly dig their own graves and smirk when they try (and fail) to dig themselves out. Remember: ignorance can be fixed; stupidity is forever.
With regards to your initial response to Judy: I see why she says “lovely” — she is referring to the meaning/concept of the quote, which poignantly draws attention to that which the Dalai Lama avoids in leading by example, because, like Shamar said: moralizing is not his tone. It does, however, give the reader cause to think. It’s a binary system: despite their opposites, the two poles of thinking DO have similarities. Right idea, Judy — needed much better clarification.
With regards to “His Holiness”: it’s a religious title. We use titles all the time, even if they don’t necessarily apply to us: Benedict is the Pope, Elizabeth is (Her Majesty) the Queen, Obama is the President, and Tenzin Gyatso is His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. The Pope is the best example here, because it’s a religious term and especially in that Benedict was a chosen name. Practically no one remembers Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (he’s Pope Benedict XVI !) these days, just like practically no one remembers Tenzin Gyatso (he’s His Holiness, the Dalai Lama!). Using that title does not *automatically* mean that one a priori assumes the traditions and beliefs of Tibetan Buddhism — I’m not Catholic, but I will still refer to Ratzinger as Pope Benedict. C’est la vie.
And, yes, the 14th Dalai Lama is a “celebrity” (literally, “a famous person”), but so is Miley Cyrus. Now, since when has *she* done the world any good? (No snarky quips from you — you know what I mean!) I would hope that one might consider a more distinctive term than MERELY a celebrity, because regardless of whether or not he’s the author of that viral quote (and we know he’s not), his life and work have impacted the world in, for all intents and purposes, a more-or-less positive manner on a relatively large scale.
Ultimately, I value that you have the right idea, but I’m a little disappointed in your delivery. Not the article itself — which is relatively civil and only minimally bitter and scathing — but in terms of sheer debating, you could have been more prudent (and likely more convincing) in your comments. Again, I’m not endorsing the dissemination of stupidity by any means, but a person of your intelligence and enlightenment ought to be able to use his words to sway *all* of the sheeplike Facebook masses to his opinion without reducing himself to a lower level…especially if he’s going to do the world the (nearly-selfless) service of disillusioning it.
Otherwise, not bad work — and glad I found the information I was looking for.
Cheers,
M
#12DDMOctober 20, 2011, 12:10 am
Dear M — WHY WHY WHY don’t I have more readers like you? Is it perhaps because I voraciously stoop to the level of the idiots who malign me? I can’t be sure. I know that I enjoy saying horrible things to horrible people. I wish that I could make this whole thing a video blog — I would be even nastier. I agree with you that I should sit back and watch my taunters slowly dig themselves into a grave, especially because I don’t really put much effort into any of these stories, but something inside of me feels the need to be nasty to stupid people. If you look at some of the other blog entries, and there are over 900 of them, you will see that I can also be very kind and caring. It’s some kind of perceptual gift that I have. Somehow I know when to be really nasty, when to be so-so and when to heap praise on a comment. I am content in the knowlede that the majority of people who bother to comment are people who want to cause a problem of some sort.
Damien
#13MOctober 20, 2011, 12:57 am
When I figure that bit out, I’ll let you know — though, it’s true, the population is overrun by people who are unable to defend, dissect, or even recognize things that demand a critical analysis. It’s ironic that most things people take for granted (viral Facebook posts, anyone? Tabloids? I could go on, obvs) are usually the same things that ought to be scrutinized.
I haven’t had the pleasure (or displeasure) of reading your other posts, but I suppose there can’t be much hurt in checking out a few more. Not about to add you to my blogroll just yet, but that’s just because as wary as I am of social media, I’m equally as wary of the self-proclaimed confident. It’s so much more appealing when you let the rest of the world acknowledge it. Have a little “perception,” will ya? ;-P
Cheers,
M
#14DDMOctober 20, 2011, 1:19 am
I know that in the giant beauty parlor where you keep your blog roll, I am just the shampoo girl, but someday I think I want to run my own salon.
Anyway, try watching a few of the Sarah Palin/Larry King action video cartoons I have made — they are at the bottom of the homepage. Actually if you search through the archives there are dozens of them. I think the cartoon where Palin talks about Joey Lawrence is funny — to me anyway. A link to that cartoon can be found on the bottom of the homepage. Kindly note that I do not mock Palin. I simply use her image as a muse through which I express my own opinions. Palin’s words are mine.
Damien
#15MOctober 20, 2011, 1:29 am
Clever. Not the beauty parlor type, though. I prefer debilitating heaps of student loan debt, thank you very much.
I’ll add it to my to-do list. You keep shampooing.
#16thelamaOctober 26, 2011, 4:08 pm
Yes, I think we all admire your massive googling skills, but maybe you should consider reading some pages of real Dalai Lama quotes yourself, and get rid of your obnoxious attitude, you massive gay shite of a cocksucker.
#17DDMOctober 26, 2011, 8:20 pm
You’re writing your vile filth from your office in Chicago — now I am going to copy this and mail it to your boss. Maybe you won’t have your job on Monday. I am sending a copy of this to your boss. Your fake email address does not change your very real IP address.
#18NBNovember 16, 2011, 1:37 pm
I don’t know if the Dalai Lama quote is genuine and it’s not important for my question. You’re calling some names: Laksmi Shamar, Julia Shepardson, Tenzin Tethong etc.. The quotes you pasted exist only at your page. Is there a way to verify their authenticity?
#19DDMNovember 16, 2011, 2:27 pm
The authenticity of the quote is indeed pertinent to your question — otherwise you would not be asking it. I’m sure that should be patently obvious — BUT — you’re just looking to make trouble — and you’re looking in the right direction. That aside, I do not quote Julia Shepardson or Tenzin Tethong except to say that both of them have not come forward to talk about the misquotes. I am implying that they might like the publicity and choose to neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the quote — I am not saying they do — it just seems that way. Laksmi Shamar can be contacted at Laksham1976@yahoo.com — do not be rude to her.
#20ShannonDecember 8, 2011, 7:30 pm
Dude, you rock. And I agree with your assessment. Too little fact checking going on and too much grandstanding.
#21Kemal S.December 27, 2011, 10:23 am
M and Judy, and others – you may not like Damien’s tone but it’s important to consider this
True Compassion sometimes might be appearing to be very blunt and even harsh.
Feeding a diabetic sugar cane may seem compassionate to one who knows nothing about the disease, it is certainly sweet and pleasurable, and also quite deadly.
Often we all have concerns with being ‘nice’ or ‘compassionate’ and in our culture this is conflated into the idea of not causing emotional discomfort and pain. I’ve also noted this is a greater concern among females than males, but both display it.
But realize that there may be times in which the most truly compassionate thing is to cause someone real emotional discomfort.
The human race’s tendency to not analyze, to not fact check, to accept on authority what appears to be pleasant, what feels like a nice sentiment, and to see that as a ‘greater truth’ that’s more important than strict literal facts, these tendencies are quite human, quite nice and naive, and actually are contributing to massive human suffering worldwide, much less than suffering of other species.
You see, we all demand rigor of things we disagree with, but rarely demand rigor of things we find agreeable, this makes us all absurdly easy to manipulate and control. Damien’s harsh tone might be objectionable to others, but in a real way he’s actually doing all of us a service. Albeit a sometimes thankless service.
Everyone, consider that.
#22DougDecember 31, 2011, 4:50 pm
So, explain to me WHY someone is a “moron” for posting this? Why do you demonize Facebookers as “simple-minded”? Is it because not every OCD-ridden guy with an agenda and attitude researches citations? If you are spending your time citing quotes, then you should work for Bartlett’s. Or, better yet, find a job as a professional insulter. It’s all you’ve got going for you, Damien.
#23damienJanuary 28, 2012, 6:02 am
Doug – I think you may have hit upon something. Yes, I should be a professional insulter. You are 100% correct! See how fair-minded I can be. I ignored all of your barbs and found a salient point that made a lot of sense. You prove to me that even a total fuck-face like you can, like the proverbial broken clock, still be right twice a day.
Damien
#24KennoFebruary 6, 2012, 9:41 pm
Damien,
Stick to your guns – the silent internet is laughing their asses off and loving every word!
Add your comment