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.