I'm not going to enter in an argument on the many things this article gets wrong or mixed up about Buddhism (just I don't feel very good today), but just one quick note: The Dalai Lama can declare...
I'm not going to enter in an argument on the many things this article gets wrong or mixed up about Buddhism (just I don't feel very good today), but just one quick note:
The Dalai Lama can declare himself whatever he wants, and that doesn't make him less of a fallen absolutist monarch of a kingdom in which the monks lived off the peasants' labor, a fallen monarch which still clings to his lost throne. Just thought it's something worth noting.
I came across the argument that 'the Dalai Lama is an asshole who just wants his slaves back' years ago when watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit and something has always not sat right with me about...
The Dalai Lama etc.
I came across the argument that 'the Dalai Lama is an asshole who just wants his slaves back' years ago when watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit and something has always not sat right with me about it. The Dalai Lama himself was only 15 when China invaded, he was formally enthroned a month later, and he was 16 when forced to sign the agreement officially accepting Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. To lay the responsibility for not ending feudalism at the feet of a 15 year old who ruled for one year during an invasion is ridiculous. To hold that over him nearly 70 years later is beyond the pale.
Also, to say the Dalai Lama is a "fallen monarch which still clings to his lost throne" misrepresents the goals of current Tibetan independence movements, and more relevant to the issue at hand, ignores that the Dalai Lama no longer calls for independence and instead advocates autonomy within China. It also plays into the colonial justification for Tibet's annexation that they were a backward society in need of paternalistic Chinese rule to set them straight, and that any objection to this or current conditions are attempts to go back to the old days of theocratic rule.
Now, none of that is to say that the Dalai Lama is the saint (to mix religious metaphors) he's painted to be in western media. I know very little about him and the popular view of the Dalai Lama, Buddhism, Tibet, and China can be detached from reality and biased in any number of directions. Still, I think it's important to not buy into a counter-narrative that tries to absolutely discredit the guy because of a situation mostly out of his control that he was thrust into at an age we don't even consider mature enough to get a driver's license.
I'm not laying any responsibility of nothing onto him, nor have I said or implied people in Tibet were benefited by the PRC. What I'm saying is that a monarch isn't a Marxist regardless of what he...
I'm not laying any responsibility of nothing onto him, nor have I said or implied people in Tibet were benefited by the PRC. What I'm saying is that a monarch isn't a Marxist regardless of what he says, and neither is someone who would collaborate with the PRC, or who accepted CIA money.
Maybe he sees himself as a Marxist. Maybe I see myself as a Buddhist, and anyone would be right in pointing that I'm not, by any consistent definition of Buddhism. I'm not saying he's not genuinely sympathetic to Marxism, I have no way of reading his mind, and I guess he is. But being that Marxism isn't an academic discipline but a movement based on militant activity, I think we could agree he isn't Marxist.
On popular misconceptions of Buddhism that article has a few. I would know, I'm currently studying it (although of course I'm not an expert either). But, as I said, I'm not feeling very well and I can't have an in depth discussion about this, but I'm sure there will be more opportunities. That's why the only thing I'm saying is something that should be as little controversial as that the Dalai Lama isn't a Marxist. If it's controversial then okay, we'll surely will have occasion of discussing it.
I'm not going to enter in an argument on the many things this article gets wrong or mixed up about Buddhism (just I don't feel very good today), but just one quick note:
The Dalai Lama can declare himself whatever he wants, and that doesn't make him less of a fallen absolutist monarch of a kingdom in which the monks lived off the peasants' labor, a fallen monarch which still clings to his lost throne. Just thought it's something worth noting.
I came across the argument that 'the Dalai Lama is an asshole who just wants his slaves back' years ago when watching Penn & Teller's Bullshit and something has always not sat right with me about it. The Dalai Lama himself was only 15 when China invaded, he was formally enthroned a month later, and he was 16 when forced to sign the agreement officially accepting Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. To lay the responsibility for not ending feudalism at the feet of a 15 year old who ruled for one year during an invasion is ridiculous. To hold that over him nearly 70 years later is beyond the pale.
Also, to say the Dalai Lama is a "fallen monarch which still clings to his lost throne" misrepresents the goals of current Tibetan independence movements, and more relevant to the issue at hand, ignores that the Dalai Lama no longer calls for independence and instead advocates autonomy within China. It also plays into the colonial justification for Tibet's annexation that they were a backward society in need of paternalistic Chinese rule to set them straight, and that any objection to this or current conditions are attempts to go back to the old days of theocratic rule.
Now, none of that is to say that the Dalai Lama is the saint (to mix religious metaphors) he's painted to be in western media. I know very little about him and the popular view of the Dalai Lama, Buddhism, Tibet, and China can be detached from reality and biased in any number of directions. Still, I think it's important to not buy into a counter-narrative that tries to absolutely discredit the guy because of a situation mostly out of his control that he was thrust into at an age we don't even consider mature enough to get a driver's license.
I'm not laying any responsibility of nothing onto him, nor have I said or implied people in Tibet were benefited by the PRC. What I'm saying is that a monarch isn't a Marxist regardless of what he says, and neither is someone who would collaborate with the PRC, or who accepted CIA money.
Maybe he sees himself as a Marxist. Maybe I see myself as a Buddhist, and anyone would be right in pointing that I'm not, by any consistent definition of Buddhism. I'm not saying he's not genuinely sympathetic to Marxism, I have no way of reading his mind, and I guess he is. But being that Marxism isn't an academic discipline but a movement based on militant activity, I think we could agree he isn't Marxist.
On popular misconceptions of Buddhism that article has a few. I would know, I'm currently studying it (although of course I'm not an expert either). But, as I said, I'm not feeling very well and I can't have an in depth discussion about this, but I'm sure there will be more opportunities. That's why the only thing I'm saying is something that should be as little controversial as that the Dalai Lama isn't a Marxist. If it's controversial then okay, we'll surely will have occasion of discussing it.
Fair enough, I don't disagree about him not being a Marxist (or, more to the point, I don't have an opinion on that). Hope you feel better soon.
Thanks. I'll be coming back to the subject in the future, as I think it has some very interesting aspects (Marxism and Buddhism).
see also aeon's article on marxism and buddhism and how they complement each other (tildes discussion).