1 – 9 of 9
Blogger Greg Pandatshang said...

Nice article. Your account of the tülku tradition is very even-handed and makes a lot of sense. I'm glad somebody said it out loud. I've often wondered, what, if anything will become of the tülku tradition among Western Buddhists over the next few hundred years. For instance, will anyone ever suggest that any of the acaryas of Shambhala might come back as tülkus?

One minor factual point: the invasion of Tibet was not nine years after the Dalai Lama was enthroned as ruler. China invaded eastern Tibetan areas in 1949 and invaded the territory of the Tibetan state late in 1950. The Dalai Lama was actually enthroned as ruler shortly after that. What followed was tense collaboration during the 1950s. You're thinking of what happened in 1959, nearly 9 years later: the Chinese put down a huge popular uprising and liquidated what was left of the old Tibetan government, and the Dalai Lama fled to India. The invasion had long since already happened at that point.

Also, saying that "around 98% of the population was enslaved in serfdom" is tendentious. 98% of the population of Tibet had the status of commoners in a hierarchical, pre-liberal society. This meant different levels of oppression for different people, ranging from prosperous townspeople to what we would clearly identify as slavery. "Serfdom" doesn't do a good job of summing that up.

I'm a marginally more optimistic than you are about the future of Tibetan resistance after the current Dalai Lama dies. I doubt that, in the end, he will decide "not to have a reincarnation". I have generally assumed that there is some disingenuous motive in floatting this idea. I do somewhat feel that, to paraphrase what was said of George Washington, if the Dalai Lama can really pull off not having an official successor, he will be the greatest man in the world. Not that I'm sure it would really have a salutary result.

So, there will probably be a rival child Dalai Lama in Dharamsala. I think it will take a while before the Chinese-appointed Dalai Lama has much credibility to grant anybody any kind of legitimacy, if ever. Everybody outside China can help by making it a matter of course that the kid in India is "the Dalai Lama" and the one in Lhasa is "the puppet ersatz Dalai Lama". Just about the only form of political correctness that I've made a point of pushing on other people is to not refer to the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama as simply "the Panchen Lama". It's not that I think one or the other of these people has an essentially Panchen Lamaful nature and the other doesn't. By way of analogy, if the Soviet Union had occupied Rome during the Cold War and installed a pliant priest as the Pope, I would never call him simply "the Pope", not because I care who the Pope is, but because I oppose Soviet occupation of Rome.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Indrajala said...

Interesting analysis.

One thing I'll add is that I've frequently observed the curious phenomenon of western Tibetan Buddhists advocating Tibetan nationalism, seemingly as an extension of their religious beliefs and practices.

To be a proper Tibetan Buddhist seems to indirectly require advocating for a Free Tibet, and in practice this is what often happens.

Political activism like this counts for merit as well, since one is simultaneously advocating the interests of the Tibetan Church alongside ethno-nationalist interests of a 'Chosen People' (again, why are all these living bodhisattvas almost all reincarnating as Tibetans?).

Curiously though, these are not people anyway connected with Tibet, nor would they have been welcome in old Tibet. The other odd thing is that, so I've witnessed, they pay for all their advocacy activities out of their own pocket and hand over money to Tibetan institutions without getting any sort of recognition or reward for it. I've never heard of a Tibetan institution in South Asia paying for the visa fees and living expenses of their western volunteers (maybe it happens, but even with sangha most of the ones I know are broke and get nothing). Conversely, the expectation seems to be that they will raise funds and give money to Tibetan organizations unconditionally. It doesn't seem like many ask where the money goes or how it is spent.

The easiest way to explain this of course is that such political activism is deeply connected to religious hopes and aspirations, which for better or worse the exile Tibetan nationalists stand to benefit immensely from. Such activism is not just religious, it also touches on a tendency of post-WWII westerners (especially baby boomers) to believe in the inherit goodness of advocacy of the downtrodden (a Christian virtue no doubt).

Of course if you bring this up in conversation you'll likely be subject to a lot of abusive remarks and ad hominem attacks, but then when you get a lot of flak, you know you're above the target.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Hi Greg

I've altered part of the article to reflect what you've said about the handover of power. Thanks.

You say that the 98% figure is tendentious, but you don't really say what the agenda of the author was - if it is tendentious, ought you not try to show why you think that? Is it that the author has worked for the China Daily as suggested in the comments?

I see why you might be more optimistic, but the division itself will be detrimental if handled well, and now the Chinese have experience they're unlikely to make the kinds of mistakes they made previously. Divide and conquer. That the diaspora follow a different Dalai Lama will only strengthen the Chinese position. It will leave Western politicians in an impossible position - who is "His Holiness"? I don't know where you live, but here in the UK the politicians will acknowledge whoever gives them political leverage with China. The cold-bloodedness of our politicians lends credibility to the idea that we're ruled by lizards in human form.

The comparison with the Pope is unlikely to sway many Westerners outside the frame of those who take up Tibetan Buddhism. All sects of Buddhism are less that 1% of the population in the West. Who the Dalai Lama is or even who controls him (because the Tibetans want to control him as much as the Chinese do), is of no concern whatever to the majority of people.

Time will tell.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Hi Indrajala,

Yes, I also noticed that one must be a Tibetan nationalist as well as a Tibetan Buddhist. Though this is hardly surprising. By contrast I've also met students on Free Tibet stalls in my town who had no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism whatever. It was purely a political thing for them. They were more anti-Chinese than pro-Tibet. If I were to sum up your observation it seems to be that some of us prefer to back the underdog in any conflict. And the reasons for this seem obvious - we're all at the mercy of faceless bureaucracies. These days not only governments but the multinational companies that rule over commerce and our working lives. I sympathise. I really do.

Your observations about money would seem to hold true for most Buddhist organisations. We take money in and give money out for our own purposes. As far as I'm aware our UK tax exempt charities have to be set up with stated aims in mind, though these can be as vague as "spreading the Buddhist religion". The scale of money going to Tibetan causes is surprising. The PR and publishing output from a medium-sized group of refugee priests is staggering. Maybe I'm a bit jealous?

I think most religious organisations rely on volunteers to get most things done. The paid positions are most often for the inner circle. And the pay is seldom extravagant. Religious organisations demand a huge amount from their workers (paid and unpaid) and frame hard work for little or no recompense as exemplifying the virtues of the religion (whatever the religion). A few charismatic leaders do get wealthy of course (especially in America and the Chinese cultural sphere), but on the whole religious leaders who control the wealth and power must live modestly.

So far only two comments. Both constructive. Which surprises me, but sometimes it takes a while for word to get around. No doubt I'll be denounced as a Chinese sympathiser in due course.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Indrajala said...

Not so long ago I was accused of being paid off by the Chinese for speaking my mind on the Tibet issue, in particular pointing out that in the absence of the Chinese military in that region, Xinjiang would turn into another Afghanistan/Iraq and Tibetans would be defenseless.

The strategic reality of inner Asia is seemingly never discussed by people wanting the Chinese to leave Tibet immediately.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Indrajala said...

One other thing...

"Yes, I also noticed that one must be a Tibetan nationalist as well as a Tibetan Buddhist."

This is possibly because many think they were Tibetan in a past life and consequently in this life they have a deep interest in Tibetan Buddhism and culture, so they indirectly still ought to be committed to the Tibetan cause despite having a different embodiment this time around. I've seen this actually stated before.

While I don't reject rebirth personally, I think a lot of wishful emotions get mixed up into religious sentiments which feed into an urge for political activism. It helps to explain the sincerity in the absence of any rewards.

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Jayarava Attwood said...

Doesn't surprise me. I used to wonder about this sort of thing because I couldn't account for my adult affinity with Buddhism. I grew up in a small town in NZ where brown bread was considered exotic. Then about 5 years ago I purchased the box set of the TV show Kung Fu starring David Carradine. And it all came flooding back to me. That was my introduction to Buddhism :-)

Saturday, April 11, 2015

Blogger Greg Pandatshang said...

Apologies for not replying to your comments earlier. Regarding the serfdom issue, I don't know anything about Sorrel Neuss individually. His description sounds inaccurate compared to what I have read in other sources, primarily Goldstein's A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951 and in Geoffrey Samuel's Civilized Shamans (the latter of which I don't have on hand at the moment). On page 5 of the former, Goldstein writes "Tibetan serfs, however were not necessarily downtrodden, and some serfs, such as Pema's family, held substantial amounts of land and were quite affluent." To describe that status as "enslaved in serfdom" is tendentious. The English word serf here is translating the Tibetan word mi.gser, which could also be translated "commoner" or "subject" (or perhaps "slave" if one were so inclined). Translating it as "serf" is in itself a bit questionable, since most modern people don't really have a concept of what serfdom means.

My point is not that I envy them their social status or that they lived lives of utopian contentment. As I was saying, they were commoners in a hierarchical post-hunter-gatherer but pre-liberal society. That is not generally an enviable position. My concern is that "98% were enslaved in serfdom" is part of a deliberate rhetorical ploy to emphasise the badness of the pre-colonial other. A white American might see nuance in thinking about the life of a peasant in medieval England. No, we wouldn't want to go back to that, but there were some pretty okay aspects along with the sucky aspects of it (I'm talking about popular perception; who knows how accurate that is). Perhaps a Chinese person would tend to feel the same way about the lives of medieval Chinese peasants. I have no reason to think that Tibetans had in any better or worse, but there are people with agendas that call on us to see old Tibetan society as especially bad.

Probably the best thing that could have happened for Tibetan society ca. 1950 is that an outside power would come in, destroy the government and maybe the monastic establishment as well, and then leave. There was, I believe, a study that showed that the states in the Holy Roman Empire which were conquered by Napolean (a similar scenario: due to Napoleon's defeat, the states didn't stay conquered) were on average more prosperous fifty years later than the ones that he never conquered.

Sunday, June 28, 2015

Blogger Greg Pandatshang said...

As for the future of the Dalai Lama institution, it's all speculative, of course, but I think it will play out very differently than with the Panchen Lama. Although only a tiny % of people in the West identify as Buddhists, nevertheless the Dalai Lama is an extremely famous person, more or less the most popular person in the Western world. So, when he dies, there will be widespread interest in who will become the next Dalai Lama. The Panchen Lama is comparatively quite obscure; one normally has to explain who he is in terms of the Dalai Lama. You’re right that the Chinese government will pressure business and political leaders to embrace their chosen Dalai Lama, no doubt with successfully. I think it will take a long time before that starts to trickle down into public in the West taking the Chinese Dalai Lama seriously. The Tibetan exiles will presumably never turn their back on their Dalai Lama candidate if he’s living among them. The interesting thing will be to watch how Tibetans in Tibet react. There are some links between Tibet and the exiles, of course, so they don’t operate completely independently.

Whether this means good or ill for the Tibetan movement, it’s hard to say because it’s hard to picture what the Tibetan movement is ever going to accomplish no matter what happens. Or rather, what it is going to accomplish as long as the big picture remains roughly the same as it is now. So, the only strategy that makes sense for them is to bide their time and wait for the picture to change in a big way, and be ready to act if it does. Not that they strike me as very savvy about taking advantage of opportunities, but they ought to be because it’s their only chance. I suppose they will be in a better position to seize opportunities to the extent that they are in sync with public sentiment among Tibetans in Tibet. The Dalai Lama is a very important: the one thing that everyone can agree on. If the Tibetan exiles end up believing in a different Dalai Lama than people in Tibet do, then the exiles are doomed to irrelevancy.

Monday, June 29, 2015

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL
Please prove you're not a robot