I've read both of the editorial letters about Dalai Lama's visit to UB ("Dalai Lama coming to share philosophy, not force religion," Sept. 18; "Dalai Lama an inappropriate speaker choice," Sept. 20). I think there should not be arguments about whether the Distinguish Speaker lecture itself has worth or not, but there are certain other interesting points about Dalai Lama himself.
In the article "Dalai Lama an inappropriate speaker choice," the author does bring some good points. There are historical facts that reflect the history of Tibet and tradition of Dalai Lama as a "theocrat." To that I think many people might misleadingly follow or adore the Dalai Lama because he seems to be a benevolent exiled leader of Tibet as some propaganda has depicted him. Whether or not that's true, I think it's important to look at history objectively and go to his lecture on your own to get a good grasp about how he really is.
However, if political issues are not involved, such as Tibet's independence or his identity as the 14th Dalai Lama, I would say he has given me a deep impression as a humorous, sometimes philosophical and charming monk.
