h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Tibet is a nation and a people in crisis -- that's for all to see, therefore most pretend to know what they see. And good people around the world who are drawn to a pacifist religion like Tibetan Buddhism naturally see only the good and jump to defend the good -- good here being an attitude rather than study or analyses, which are distinguished by specific contents rather than mere attitudes, by facts rather than feelings.

Tibet as a nation or a people has political rights and Buddhism. It is losing both, but for different reasons. For the former, it can blame China. But for the latter, it has only itself to blame.

Traditonally, and tradition is a dear thing today, Tibet has 4 Buddhist schools or lineages [not just one] of equal status but one government, which is in reality unelected and exiled in Dharamsala, India.

The 'universal' moral appeal of and wide political support for its head of government, viz. the Dalai Lama, is such that he is able to openly force and deftly intrigue against the other 3 Buddhist lineages (his is Gelugpa) and make them submit to his rule -- all for the sake of, ironically, his new-conceived (well, since 1959) Tibetan nationalism, i.e. unity of the Tibetan people.

The truth is, there are a lot of soft hearts to exploit in the world, which may not be a bad thing. But the sad truth is a good religion is being politised and distorted to serve the worldly amibtion, obligation if you will, of a man who is supposed to be a shining example of true renunciation and spirituality.

A pure heart should know the distinction between politics and spirituality. A prelate-politician would not mind mixing the two: witnessed the rise of the Latin Church 2 millennia ago.

I really think you should go to China and do good with a clear conscience.

I think you're doing His Holiness an injustice. It's true that the lineage of Dalai Lamas doesn't represent all aspects of Tibetan spirituality. And it's fair to say that, to some extent, the rivalries between the Buddhist traditions in Tibet weakened the country in the face of Chinese aggression. But the present Dalai Lama has done a remarkable job, most would agree, of maintaining His credibility as a spiritual leader while balancing the need to keep fresh the awareness of the plight of Tibet... hence the Nobel Prize. Anyone who has had the good fortune to see the Dalai Lama in a purely religious context, however, would agree that He is entirely grounded in the responsibilities of His spiritual role, and that the politics of oppression and exile are not allowed to intrude into that realm. On the other hand, to most Western secular audiences, their principle point of contact with his Holiness is that He is the representative of a conquered people, forced into exile. It would be irresponsible for the Dalai Lama to reject any appropriate opportunity to advance concern for Tibet, particularly when lobbying by the PRC continues to deny Tibetans access to the UN and other venues of international diplomacy.

"I really think you should go to China and do good with a clear conscience." (?)

What would you suggest?

JTG

To answer the question “What would you suggest?”………..

The question to consider is not ‘what’ but ‘how’, because it is not a matter for utilitarian concerns, which have the habit of drawing on morality for their justification and ending up in power struggles of right over wrong, good over evil and, eventually, us over them.

The point is conscience. And regarding conscience, Buddhism – like all genuine spiritual paths which keep constructs of political systems and philosophies always at a distance – has much to say about it. Conscience is the concern of individuals. It is private, and not in any way collective and yielding to ideologies and -isms. In this way then – through not being disposed to moralizing on the narrow bases of rights and wrongs, one may yet come to see the dualities that govern our lives from a different or, if you will, spiritual perspective. Conscience is inclusive of differences and others, not exclusive.

The choice is one’s to make: To go to backward China (politically, morally or scientifically?) with high ideals that are eminently sustainable by the present generation, given the last hundred fifty or so years of power and wealth enjoyed by possibly only five percent of the world’s population (concentrated in Western Europe and North America) who had unquestioned control over as much as 66% of the world’s resources; or to go there in spite of the many advantages bequeathed by the legacy of colonial conquest, exploitation and prejudice, because you knew that, in spite of it all, humility and kindness is what the Buddha and Christ, and not least the good Lama himself, teach.

About the evil empires of this earth I cannot speak for the Buddha; though in this regard you seem to have no trouble speaking for the Dalai Lama, Buddha’s own Pontiff if you will, or reflecting his views generally. The problem is not the man, his rhetoric or his theocracy – who are we to quarrel with history or God any way? What I find troubling is the eagerness with which highly developed and militarized states, their citizenry included, embrace a foreign and hitherto little understood spiritual tradition and quickly reduce this civilization called Tibet lock stock and barrel into a fixed set of human-rights issues and a hostile political platform on which to castigate ‘Chinese aggression’.

Perhaps, the merit of the case is not so much the reasoned indignation of advanced societies over the injustices suffered by the world’s underdog. But rather it is their habitual and emotionally conditioned attitudes to both religion (chiefly monotheism but Tibetan spirituality can be included marginally) and what is called political activism (and here one begins to wonder if Al Quaida is not another variety of political activism).

This form of a concerted and politically motivated moral critique of an ‘aggressor’ nation or nations would be quite dull and incomplete but for the zealousness that is inherent in the movement, a zealousness that comes close to religious fanaticism that has been a dominant feature of the moralizing and proselytizing culture of Christianity.

I harbour no ambition to save the world but only the genuine, uncorrupted Buddhist teachings or what is left of it, in the hope that these teachings may yet remind the world of its own excesses.

To me - I can only speak of my own motivation - the issue is not one of the "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" ilk, but how many young Tibetans are being hauled off to jail, how many are likely to die there, and (more insidiously) how many young Tibetans are growing up thinking of themselves as Chinese untouchables?

None of us are immune from manipulation by various interest groups, including our governments, our religious leader, and the telly. So, to me, the question of conscience boils down to how well my interpretation of events, based on what I perceive, fits into my system of values.

The answer that I find most serviceable is this: The Chinese occupation of Tibet is wrong, because it is based on a military invasion of that peaceful country. It continues to be wrong 50 odd years after the fact because it continues to rely on violence to impose itself on the vast majority of Tibetans. This view is credible (to me) because I have met people who have been tortured for expressing dissent, and who have risked their lives to escape into exile.

The simple question of right or wrong is one of the most profound. Whatever one's system of beliefs, the measure of it's effectiveness is how well it helps one cope. After nearly half a century of groping through existence in my own comfortably slug-like way, my own conscience won't allow me to reconcile the image of young Tibetans, so quick to laughter and mirth, with that of half-dead political prisoners with grey skin and sunken, downcast eyes. My own view of the world, as naive as it no doubt is, is that this is wrong... And that something ought to be done about it.

JTG