Comments on: Free Tibet to theocratic feudalism?

By: will shetterly

will shetterly — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:56:34 +0000

I wish I had a better sense of whether the Dalai Lama’s talk about Tibet’s past is only pragmatism. I did a series of blog posts about Tibet’s past, and some lovely people who are followers of the Dalai Lama told me they had never heard that most of the Tibetan people were slaves, and that the slave-owners included monasteries.

By: shaktinah

shaktinah — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:29:13 +0000

There is no doubt that the Tibetan govt in exile *IS* the Dalai Lama. There may be more people involved, but he is the ultimate authority, and it comes from their theocratic past.

But the current Dalai Lama has been upfront about Tibet’s past, which is one of the reasons why I trust him. For the record, *he* is not calling for Tibetan independence from China. He wants autonomy, allowing self-determination while still officially being linked with China, which was pretty much the relationship they had for hundreds of years until the West got involved.

My biggest beef with most Hollywood and liberal protesters is that they don’t even know the history of the region. No denying that Tibetans have suffered under the brutal rule of the Kuomingtang, but what Westerners usually forget is that *everyone* has suffered – Han, Mongolians, Manchurians, Tibetans, Hui… It wasn’t only Tibetan monasteries that were destroyed in the “Great Leap Forward.” Buddhist, Confucian, and Taoist monasteries all across China were destroyed. That said, the Dalai Lama is right to point out that Tibetan *culture* is under siege and in danger of irreversibly disappearing due to the “modernization” efforts of the communist govt.

As for the Dalai Lama’s goofiness, a lot of “advanced” Buddhists have been described in ways that could be considered goofy. Maybe because they know not to take themselves too seriously. I doubt his holiness would be offended.

By: will shetterly

will shetterly — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:08:01 +0000

On yet another hand (and apologies for being obsessed about this), when people say the government in exile is not or is more than the Dalai Lama, they hide the government in exile’s full name: the Central Tibetan Administration of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

I hope their intentions for the future can be trusted. But their history should not be forgotten.

By: chutney

chutney — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:56:46 +0000

When I saw the Dalai Lama in person last year, he was very goofy. Thanks for the info on the gov in exile. I feel better about that now. I wish their goals were more out front in the news.

By: James

James — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:11:34 +0000

No doubt the sins of feudal Tibetan theocracy were many. When I decry the oppression of the Chinese occupation of Tibet and the attendant cultural genocide, I am not, nor do I think many are calling for a return of a Tibetan theocracy. Rather the call is for self-determination.

The Tibetan government in exile is something more than the Dalai Lama, whom, like many, I find quite attractive in many ways, without buying the theological assertions about his person. He has turned out to be an astonishingly appropriate spokesperson for these suffering people.

On that note, considering the depth of suffering of the Tibetan people and the heroic and holy stance that the Dalai Lama has presented in response, the “goofy” line does appear to be a tad inappropriate…

Here’s a pointer to the Tibetan exile government and its connections to democracy.

http://www.savetibet.org/news/newsitem.php?id=120

By: shaktinah

shaktinah — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:30:19 +0000

THANK YOU for your post. I know there are few others out there who know that Tibet used to be a theocracy, but for the most part what I’ve been encountering is a romantic notion of peaceful Tibetan monks being tortured by the evil Chinese.

Daily Llama, your argument is a straw man. Theocracies are not ruled by “God” anyway; they are ruled by the religious institution. And Tibet was a theocracy, with an oppressive serf structure.

That said, the current Dalai lama has said that he would not return Tibet to a serfdom, that he promotes democracy, and I believe him.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:07:13 +0000

According to my professor, what makes a religion a “religion” is that they have a concept of Sacred Reality, something which usually but not always involves the existence of a deity. The Dharma is their sacred reality.

Mahayana Buddhism seems most likely to deify the Buddha and Boddhisattvas. Theravadans, not as much. The Vajrayana (Tibetan) Buddhists seem to be the most complex. Or maybe they just like rituals more. I’m still confused and have a final in 4 weeks. :)

By: chutney

chutney — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:22:01 +0000

Right. The notion of Buddhism being nontheistic is only true if you look at certain branches and not at others. This belies the usual contention that Buddhism isn’t even a religion, but just a philosophy.

By: will shetterly

will shetterly — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:53:40 +0000

What Kelly said. We use the adjective when speaking of Tibetan Buddhism because it’s not like other forms of Buddhism.

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:13:01 +0000

Depending on which branch of Buddhism you’re talking about, no Buddhists don’t believe in God. And yes, they do. Or many gods. Some branches have deified the Buddha, other not. It’s a religion that’s certainly as convoluted as Christianity.