First, if you're ever called upon to write an opinion piece for a newspaper, do a little fact-checking first. Andy Lamey's basic premise in "Stop the lama love-in" is that His Holiness the Dalai Lama is failing as the leader of the Tibetan liberation movement and should step aside. However, one could question whether His Holiness has ever functioned as anything resembling a leader of a "Tibetan liberation movement."
His role at this point is hard to pin down, I admit. The Dalai Lama is no longer a head of state, even a head of state in exile, except in a figurative sense. The Tibetan government in exile is now headed by the prime minister of an elected parliament, and His Holiness has stepped away from running a government. Further, the many pro-Tibet activists around the globe don't take orders from the Dalai Lama and often do not agree with him.
Yes, he has failed at winning any freedom for Tibet. But the Dalai Lama's "middle way" strategy is completely rational, especially given that China has the largest standing army in the world and Tibet is, um, Tibet. Armed rebellion would almost certainly end in a bloodbath.
Instead, His Holiness has attempted to gain some autonomy for Tibet while avoiding all-out warfare with China. For years he pursued a plan in which Tibet would remain a territory of China but with a status similar to that of Hong Kong -- largely self-governing, with its own legal and political systems. More recently he has said he is willing to allow Tibet to have a Communist government, but he still calls for "meaningful" autonomy.
However, where the Dalai Lama is concerned, the government of China is not rational. China's hysterical antipathy to His Holiness has no basis in reason. The truth is, the Dalai Lama represents China's only hope of persuading the Tibetan people to accept the rule of China. Beijing's refusal to work with him makes no sense.
So there has been failure, yes. But show me anyone else on the planet who could have done better dealing with China, especially since even the world's real heads of state won't stand up to China. Until some vast sea change occurs and China's power and influence diminishes, there is no realistic hope that Tibet will be free. As I said, not all pro-Tibet activists agree with his approach, but at least the Dalai Lama's influence has kept violence to a minimum.
But it's the rest of Mr. Lamey's article that puzzles me. Mr. Lamey can't seem to make up his mind whether the Dalai Lama is too dogmatic or not dogmatic enough. On one hand, Lamey gives His Holiness props for his famous declaration that if science conflicts with the sutras, then the sutras should be changed.
But Lamey dismisses the Dalai Lama's position on other issues as a "relativist mess." In other words, His Holiness is condemned for not sticking rigidly to dogmas and applying them to everyone, Buddhist and non-Buddhist alike.
Take, for example, the issue of homosexual sex. Some Tibetan texts say that homosexual sex is "sexual misconduct" and a violation of the Third Precept. This same teaching is not found anywhere outside of Tibetan texts, however. James Sheehan does a good job of explaining this issue in "Gay Marriage: What Would Buddha Do?"
Lamey puzzled that His Holiness does not condemn homosexual sex among non-Buddhists. Thus, it's a "relativist mess." But this is a Buddhist approach. The Precepts are not commandments, but training rules for people on the Buddhist path. In most schools of Buddhism, when people formally take refuge and become Buddhists, they vow to uphold the Precepts.
In other words, upholding the Precepts is a discipline one takes upon oneself voluntarily. People who have not sworn to uphold the Precepts are not bound by them. Note, of course, that non-Buddhists do follow similar rules, such as not lying and not stealing. But to Lamey, religious dogmas are religious dogmas, and it does not occur to him that Buddhism takes a different approach to ethical issues from other religions.
And let me repeat that the belief that homosexual sex violates the Precepts is not found in most schools of Buddhism.
I am not going to address all of Lamey's misunderstandings, but you get the drift. He clearly has rigidly narrow views of religion and is frustrated when a religion doesn't conform to his preconceptions.
That said, I agree with Lamey that Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism have been romanticized in the West, and that to some extent "Tibetan Buddhism functions as a spiritual Rorschach blot onto which Westerners project their hopes and desires." Lamey thinks Westerners should be less ga-ga over the Dalai Lama. But I think the Dalai Lama would agree with that. I suspect he'd rather people took a serious interest in dharma than make a rock star out of him.
[Comment deleted by Guide.]
Oh Ivy, get over it.
Thanks Lise. Unfortunately every time the offending word is mentioned it brings a cascade of thoughtless flamers. I’d be interested in a dialog but that is not likely to happen under current circumstances.
I read the article in Mcleans and thought it was a mish mash of misconceptions. Tough to read something like that about a man I have so long admired written by a rather smarmy journalist. Their editorial voice is one of superiority in all subjects though that is hardly possible, is it?.
I’m not sure where he got HHDLs interpretation on homosexuality but as I understand it the Tibetan proscription is about what organ goes where so anal sex in either combination is taboo, as well as oral. Nothing is mentioned as far as I know about gender specifically. Kalu Rinpoche explained it in this way and conceded that the proscription on sexual acts meant victimization without any reference to whether this takes place in a hetero or homosexual relationship.
Tibetan Buddhism has been of great service to so many people whose lives have been affected by AIDS. Attend any ceremony in the SF bay area and you will see lots of very, very skinny folks, often with their helpers. They don’t seem to feel any discrimination.
Barbara,
Ivys comment should be replaced. I think. She was polite and spoke from her heart, even though I disagree. Should any deletions take place it should be all of them. My opinion, anyway.
Fitz
TFitz — I do hate to delete comments, but I’ve had to adopt a strict “no ‘S’ devotee” policy for the blog comments and forums. They’ve caused way too much trouble here in the past.
If the comments to this post do disappear, it will be because I’ve had to close comments to the post entirely.
Hi Barbara- Yeah, I know. In that case you should go over my post (I can’t edit) and stretch out the offending word or delete the post entirely or they will be all over this.
Fitz
TFitz — you are probably right. I deleted your “S” post and Lise’s response to it. I hope we can leave everything else alone.
All is well.
Taking a long hard look at the situation I have to say from what I hear and read that SGI, for instance, has done more to propagate the dharma than anything that I have been involved in. They begin to crawl out from under all of that controversy with a good beginning. Maybe we’ll see that same effect with the s group.
Fitz
I have not read the article(s) in question, but I have to say that the Dalai Lama is in a no-win situation whatever he does. He can not call for a revolt for obvious reasons (not least that he does not believe in violence) and, at the same time, he can not simply call off the struggle. Like Israel/Palestine, Kashmir and any number of other struggles over territory, the China/Tibet situation has no solution in his, or probably anyone else’s, lifetime. Meanwhile, he is head of the Tibetans in exile through no original choice of his own. I think it is unfortunate that English speakers can not understand him when he speaks in his native language. I suspect that his halting English prevents us from getting a sense of who he really is.
Oh yeah, the subject at hand.
It’s impossible to be a pacifist and a head of state. That would be a ridiculous situation and HH has addressed that. How pacifistic is it to allow yourself and loved ones to be slaughtered by whatever group has a bug up its butt? It’s a paradox but it is a paradoxical world as in damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If one as an individual makes the choice to not resist violence it’s one thing, as a person with responsibilities to others like a chief, a mother or father, or a head of state, it’s entirely another thing.
Here’s a whole new idea. Lamey (the writer in question) is obviously under educated at least. Let’s just ignore him. Does that work? Maybe not.
Fitz
TFitz, Lovingly I advise you to review basics, wisdom and compassion. You may want to start very broadly. Remember to always keep a happy mind, you’ll get there. Keep trying.
Hi Tara,
There are two truths we are told, the conventional and the ultimate. The conventional truth, admittedly as I see it, is that this universe is a backwater sh it hole. I’m working on the ‘ultimate’ and I’ll let you know when I get there.
I do stand by my statement above.
Peace to you dear, I am glad for your happiness.
Fitz
What is SGI?
HHDL gave Tibet to the Chinese long ago. I do not know why this is never discussed very openly. They won’t negotiate with him on a conceded point.
Janie:
What is SGI?
Soka Gakkai International
HHDL gave Tibet to the Chinese long ago. I do not know why this is never discussed very openly.
It isn’t discussed openly because it didn’t happen. It is a figment of your or somebody’s) imagination.
A figment? I guess I will have to study that all over again. I did not think it was any kind of secret. Buddhists and non-Buddhists in my circle have been aware of this figment for years. Interesting. Thank you for the link. I suspect we are not a good fit.
Buddhists and non-Buddhists in my circle have been aware of this figment for years.
People believe all kinds of nonsense that isn’t true. If you will explain precisely how you think the Dalai Lama “gave” China to Tibet, we could then discuss whether this is true or not.
I suspect you are talking about the Seventeen Points Agreement. If so, you should be better informed about the history behind that document and how China used it to betray Tibet. Blanket statements about how the Dalai Lama “gave” Tibet to China are inaccurate.
In short, stop being a dupe.
The truth is, the Dalai Lama represents China’s only hope of persuading the Tibetan people to accept the rule of China. Beijing’s refusal to work with him makes no sense.
Barbara I totally agree.
Janie, you say something completely ridiculous, Barbara gently tells you this and she (or the site I guess) is not “a good fit”? Probably true but I am curious where you got this idea.
His Holiness was not even involved in the 17 point plan. They practically held a gun to the head of the man who was sent to negotiate. The reason HHDL was not in attendance is that they were sure he would be killed or at least imprisoned.
I never mentioned the 17 point plan. I refer to his wanting “autonomy.” This term shows he has quit looking for independence. You can quit defending Barbara.
Janie, you didn’t read the post at all, did you?
Thanks for the advice Janie but I kind of go my own way.
Would like to suuggest that Mr. Lamey (unfortunate name ?) has done his journalistic job by stimulating this amont of discussion. As have you barbara.