Dalai Lama: Stern, not Cuddly
Dalai Lama, May 29, 2004, Glasgow, Scotland
Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
The problems here extend to the Tibetan freedom movement as well. The brutal polices and recent crackdown by Chinese authorities cannot be condoned or defended, but we cannot ignore what sort of society China occupied in 1950. It wasn't a peaceful, free, democratic paradise. If Tibet were, theoretically, made completely independent from China, what sort of society would develop? If it were very much like Tibet prior to 1950, it's hard to see how it wouldn’t be worse than Tibet currently is under Chinese rule.
Patrick French wrote a couple of years ago:
In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, he condemns homosexuality, and all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers prefer to ignore. His US publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear they would offend US readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.
When speaking to his people, the Dalai Lama is very different from the genial figure we see in the West. I remember a talk he gave in Dharamsala in northern India in 1990, after conflict between Tibetans and Indians there. He spoke in Tibetan, and his delivery was stern and admonitory, like a forbidding, old-fashioned father reprimanding his children. The crowd listened respectfully, and went away chastened.
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
Just as offensive to Western traditions of equality and autonomy is the Buddhist teaching about karma — or at least some of the common consequences are. Tibet was a fueudal theoracy ruled by monks, with the Dalai Lama at the top of the spiritual ladder. Central to this theocracy was the teaching of karma:
...which taught that serfs had to accept their imprisoned station as punishment while elites deserved their glorious wealth as reward for virtues in earlier lives. Debts were often passed down for generations, limiting social mobility. The famous Drepung monastery alone owned twenty-five thousand serfs, and out of Tibet's total population of 1.2 million people, an estimated seven hundred thousand were serfs.
Source: Free Inquiry, February/March, 2008
Just so we are clear, "serfs" were little more than slaves. The Drepung monastery wasn't simply a stern landowner, but an owner of human beings. Tibetan, Buddhist theocracy was a system that used religion to justify owning humans. Supporters of Tibetan independence should wonder what sort of society would replace Chinese rule. Even if there were guarantees that no theocracy would be imposed on Tibetans, the beliefs which cause so much misery have not been abandoned:
There is a soft-headed view among trendy Westerners that, while most religions have disturbing elements, Buddhism is a pure, simple, uncontaminated faith. Yet the Dalai Lama has suggested that Tibetans are being punished for their "bad karma". Can this be true, Your Holiness? "Yes. Of course. We are punished for feudalism. Every event is due to one's karma."
So, are disabled children being punished for sins in a past life? "Oh yes. Of course." Suddenly, one of his entourage - dormant until now - leaps up and speaks quickly to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan. He turns to me.
"This is for Buddhists! Only for Buddhists! Last question now, please. We must hurry." Now I glance at my watch. We are meant to have more time, but the entourage is vibrating strangely, whirling around the room, and talking in Tibetan.
Source: Johann Hari interview with the Dalai Lama, 2004 [emphasis added]
The Tibetan people are not having an easy time under Chinese rule, but if this is a just an appropriate punishment for past sins, why are they rebelling against it? Why should outsiders agitate for their liberation? I don't find the Dalai Lama's claim that karmic punishment is "only for Buddhists" — not even if we limit it to just the case of disabled children — to be the least bit credible. That's a bit like saying "sin" only applies to Christians. It looks much more like someone realized that the Dalai Lama made a critical public relations error by speaking the truth too clearly and unambiguously. Fortunately for him, it's a truth that doesn't get a lot of attention.
I find it very interesting, but not at all surprising, that people project into the Dalai Lama whatever it is they want to see there. Don't people do much the same with Jesus and various other religious leaders? People embark on a search for the "historical Jesus" and end up finding whatever they want to find — whatever fits in well with their religious, political, and ideological preconceptions.
Many in the West clearly perceive the Dalai Lama as a spiritual figure who won't tell you 'no' and who is the antithesis of the orthodox portrayals of stern figures from Western religious history. Just as people tend to invest both Eastern and Western religious figures with their own needs and assumptions, perhaps the real Dalai Lama has more in common with Western religious leaders than people want to acknowledge.
Comments
I doubt the Dalai Lama would be able to reestablish a pre-1950 style regime in Tibet even if he were put back in charge of the place. An independent Tibet would probably be far too dependent on its wealthy, happy little flower child backers to be able to get away with that.
As for his stern religious admonitions, I’ll bet a lot of people would ignore them because they don’t really take Tibetan Buddhism seriously. Therefore, they can take comfort in his happy nice talks while ignoring his harsher side because it’s based on a religion in which many of them don’t really believe.
The Dalai Lama has also railed against abortion.
So now you are making excuses for the crackdown of the Offically Atheistic Chinese Government?
I knew thats what atheists really thought.
Thanks for the proof.
Did you miss where I wrote that “The brutal polices and recent crackdown by Chinese authorities cannot be condoned or defended,” or are you deliberately ignoring it in an effort to rationalize your personal and petty bigotry?
So, you started out bigoted against atheists and were merely looking for an excuse to justify your bigotry? How could you “know” that all members of an entire class are thinking the same thing when none of them actually express the belief in question? The answer is bigotry.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Looks like we have a Jewish troll.
Actually, it seems to me that the Dalai Lama is the one excusing the policies of the People’s Republic: “We are punished for feudalism.”
In fact, it sounds like he is suggesting that every person who does a terrible act is merely an agent of justice, until someone comes along to impart justice for that act, and another for that act, and so on, and so on, and so on…
I heard someone say indignantly on the BBC World Service a week or so ago “Why shouldn’t Tibetan parents be free to send their sons to monasteries? Why shouldn’t they be free to send their daughters to nunneries?”
Interesting question. Why shouldn’t parents be free to send their children into life imprisonment? I can think of some reasons…
What the Rabbi points out, and what you ignore Austin, is that the Chinese Government is OFFICIALLY atheistic.
Atheists are in no position to pass judgment, so who do you think you are fooling?
Austin, you bigot, you routinely refer to theists, Christians and others in the general.
You hypocritical little sh**; and that is no ad hominem, it is an accurate description! LOL
I didn’t ignore it; it just wasn’t relevant to anything.
Feel free to support this assertion.
Can you cite any examples of where I have inappropriately generalized about theists, Christians, or others?
Feel free to support this accusation, if you can.
“What the Rabbi points out, and what you ignore Austin, is that the Chinese Government is OFFICIALLY atheistic.
Atheists are in no position to pass judgment, so who do you think you are fooling?”
Ahmadinejad’s Islamist regime is officially theistic. Theists are in no position to make judgement.
If I had said that in complete seriousness, you would consider me intellectually lazy and a bigot. Notice the double standards.
Steinmaster-
What the Rabbi points out, and what you ignore Austin, is that the Chinese Government is OFFICIALLY atheistic.
Atheists are in no position to pass judgment, so who do you think you are fooling?
The Chinese government is communist first, even if they are departing from that on some fronts. Not all Atheists are communists, far from it in fact. Many including myself are anti-communist.
You present the basic premise that China rules Tibet better than Tibetans, therefore you approve of China’s invasion. The rest is just noise. Buddhism is nontheistic, and Tibet is not a theocracy. Buddhism rests in metaphorical language and requires a teacher and years of meditation and study to grasp, thus the monk’s response that DL’s words were just for Buddhists. Like any philosophy, its verbiage sounds nonsensical to outsiders until one understands its basic terms. In Buddhism ultimate reality is the Void, nothingness. Heaven and Hell and morality rest in the mind. If you’re only trying to side with the atheist in this dispute, here either side will do, but Tibet’s is “righter.” Those who really care might check out the March 31, 2008 issue of the New Yorker re the Dali Lama.
That’s neither my premise nor my conclusion. Perhaps if you treated the “rest” as more than “just noise,” you wouldn’t misread it all so badly.
“If it were very much like Tibet prior to 1950, it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t be worse than Tibet currently is under Chinese rule…. Why should outsiders agitate for their liberation?” Of course, you mean outsiders should not agitate for their liberation and allow this small group to be swallowed without protest. Certainly Tibet would not be like Tibet prior to 1950. What country is like it was before 1950?
The rest of what I read in this article are unsupported statments, diatribe, and meaningless speculation. For a better perspective on the “warm and cuddly” Buddhist views on sex and homosexuality I refer to Wikipedia. For Dalai Lama’s views I refer to the New Yorker issue above.
Of course, you dishonestly used ellipses to link together two statements which originally appear in entirely different contexts.
The question is, what changes and what remains the same. The religious doctrines behind the problems which existed before the 1950s remain the same.
Feel free to support your accusations — and without dishonest tactics, like what you used above.