Letters to the Editor
-
Misguided
I can follow the logic of your argument, but it betrays a deep ignorance of Buddhist teachings. Another leader might have achieved a different outcome for Tibet by now. Even if that were certain, it's not a reason to dismiss an entire philosophy, one that's endured centuries of scrutiny, one meshes better with modern science than any western belief system I can think of, as "horseshit."
May you know happiness and understand the roots of happiness. I believe you can.
-
Poorly Informed
This is a disturbingly poor piece of journalism in a time when a much more thorough and informed analysis of this very difficult situation is sorely needed. It is precisely the kind of article that caused me to stop renewing my Salon membership – a simplistic, button-pushing, barely-informed piece that adds nothing to a real search for understanding or greater knowledge. In 2001, you wouldn't have seen this on Salon.
Don't get me wrong. This is a great topic. But why have a writer cover this large and serious topic who clearly has a total lack of comprehension of what Tibetan Buddhism is about at even the most fundamental level (Bayard’s article is littered with errors both large and small about Buddhism)? Furthermore, why have a writer cover this topic who has so little understanding of the long and complex history of Tibet and of the numerous controversial Dalai Lamas themselves? There are scholars out there, some of whom are critical of the Dalai Lama if you wanted that point of view, who could have written something rich, deep and worth contemplating on this subject, instead of just expressing a childish and philosophically naive display at the notion that real solutions don’t come at the end of a gun barrel.
It is difficult to even summarize what Bayard’s point is, other than the obvious fact the Dalai Lama, while living in exile without the ability to go anywhere near Tibet or China, and without the support of any allies or armies hasn’t been able to end a territorial dispute with the largest and one of the most heavily armed nations in the world. Duh. If only he were a little tougher and not so darned happy, Bayard seems to suggest, he’d have driven those pesky Chinese away. That, of course, is the height of silliness. No nation is going to go up against the Chinese Army in defense of Tibet and tough talk would only lead to more Tibetan deaths. So, what then, is the solution that the Dalai Lama (and more importantly, the teeming droves of Tibetan refugees in India) have missed?
If Bayard is indeed so concerned about the great suffering of the Tibetan people, I would love to see him research and report on what strategies might bring greater freedom to Tibet given the geopolitical realities. That would make for a much more interesting story - and might even dip below the simple surfaces.
-
Re: the Dalai Lama's "innate Catholicism"
"In part, we can attribute the Dalai Lama's transformation to his innate Catholicism."
I am aware of very few people (I am one) who are in the habit of calling the Tibetan form of Buddhism, "Tibetan Catholicism" (because of its resemblance, in many respects, to the Roman form of Catholicism), but I believe the author of the article was not referring to either the Tibetan or the Roman form of Catholicism when he typed those words.
The "c" in "Catholicism" should not be capitalized.
-
"Seduced by the Dalai Lama"
I was seduced by the Dalai Lama and had his secret love child.
-
Acutally ondelette
It's Avalokiteshvara (or Avalokiteśvara, if you're comfortable with diacritics).
Hope that helps!
-
The Real Test
The real test of the Dalai Lama's legitimacy is certainly not how many readers of Salon fawn over him (few of whom, I would wager, are actually Tibetan) but rather how many young Tibetans still follow his counsel. And judging by the rather sudden uprising within that country, I'd have to say: not many.
Debating Mr. Bayard's views of Buddhism seem irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is hardly a religious debate. What Bayard is expressing is the feeling that many Tibetans (you know, those people who actually have to live and die under the Chinese occupation, unlike the Dalai Lama or Richard Gere) have that the Dalai Lama has failed in every measurable way to do anything of material good for his people. The fact that the Dalai Lama uses his religion as an excuse for political failure shouldn't make us sigh with deep spiritual longing anymore than George W. Bush's religious excuses should.
And for all the talk in these comments about Mr. Bayard just not "getting" Buddhism, I wonder how many of you Buddhists, pseudo- and otherwise, realize that while Buddhism has given us the Dalai Lama, it also gave us the kamikaze and Japanese Zen-Fascism.
-
Let's get some things straight about Buddhism
I had a lot of trouble with both this article and the recent Salon article by Follath and Wagner on the Dalai Lama - not only in the misnomer "god-king," "god-child" and "god-man," etc. (as others have pointed out, while the Dalai Lama is considered an incarnation of a divine soul or bodhisattva, it is not the same thing as we in the West would consider a "god" by any means), but also in what seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of Buddhism, and specifically Tibetan Buddhism; as others have pointed out, in the attempt to apply Western notions of somewhat Cartesian philosophical values onto Eastern philosophies... it just doesn't work, and in places smacks of head-patting orientalism.
As others have pointed out, whether one disagrees with the idea of nonviolence is somewhat immaterial, though Chinese sympathizers will be quick to call the Dalai Lama a terrorist. Many people are quick to point out that the Dalai Lama "supported" nuclear weapons in India, but this assessment is overly simplistic and ignores the larger meat of his statements around that issue - in fact, he has consistently called for worldwide disarmament and he actually conveyed the notion that India should not be judged by nuclear powers for developing self-defense mechanisms when those countries are also doing so, while at the same time he called for a worldwide ban on weapons of mass destruction and eventual active demilitarization.
Bayard seems to be coming to this subject from a profoundly culturally and philosophically incompetent point of view. He may have studied Tibetan Buddhism for quite some time, but if so this doesn't show in the slightest.
As to the commenter who said:
And for all the talk in these comments about Mr. Bayard just not "getting" Buddhism, I wonder how many of you Buddhists, pseudo- and otherwise, realize that while Buddhism has given us the Dalai Lama, it also gave us the kamikaze and Japanese Zen-Fascism.
I'd like to get a few things straight.
First of all, Buddhism is at its heart a nonviolent religion. Blaming Buddhism for kamikaze pilots and "Japanese Zen-Fascism" is like blaming Islam for 9-11. It's ridiculous.
What gave us kamikaze pilots and zen-fascism was gross manipulation of idealism and cultural values, and a terrible misuse of power.
The reason Gandhi's mission worked was because the time was right for it; but let's not forget that half a million people died and millions others were displaced during Partition, which again was about power with religion as a convenient cover. Gandhi was also not perfect; there were plenty of views he held that I don't agree with, but he was nonetheless a great proponent of nonviolence. He depended on the humanity of the aggressors to end the violent struggle, and it worked for the most part because the culture, the context and the population numbers supported it. The Maoist machine is a far different animal, unfortunately, and without broad international support it's an impossible numbers game. There are certainly Chinese soldiers who have helped Tibetans, and Chinese people who have struggled to help Tibetans; but there are deep ideological, cultural and social divides that are exploited by propagandists on both sides who want to stir violence. As young Tibetans choose violence over peace, things will only get worse, and the Chinese will have a reason to stamp out the culture once and for all in the name of "squashing terrorism."
I am not a person who thinks the Dalai Lama is perfect. I am not a Buddhist. I am sure the Dalai Lama has had many personal struggles to figure out how to strike the right balance to continue to keep Tibet in the public eye. There are certainly plenty of his doctrines I don't agree with. He is human like anyone else. I don't think this should be at all shocking. But despite all of that, I deeply respect him for maintaining a solid stance of nonviolence in the face of impossible tragedy, and in the deep hope that inspires in the great majority of Tibetans, whose culture - let's remember - is far different from our own in the West. But seriously, criticizing him for struggling to maintain nonviolence? Calling cherished Buddhist principles "horseshit?" If you can't take the time to understand what the Four Noble Truths are, and what they mean to actual, practicing Buddhists, then how can you write this article?
I really expect better, more nuanced articles from Salon, from people who actually seem to know what they're talking about, even if they aren't Tibetan evangelists.