The last Dalai Lama?

[Skybird]

the current Dalai Lama is 72 years old, and in August Peking made it a law that from now on it would need Peking's agreement in order to reincarnate (I posted a thread on that: "Request permission to reincarnate, Sir!" http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...ght=dalai+lama ). It is feared that after the Dalai Lama's death Pekind will try to impose a new, Chinese-controlled one on the Tibetans, as they already have done with the leader of another boy the Tibetans had decided to recognize as the legitimate leader of one of their four major lineages.

The Dalai Lama, or God-emperor, as he sometimes is understood to be in Tibet's rural places, now has thought about to brake tradition and not wait until he had died for starting a search for his new reincarnation, but to have a vote amongst Tibetans wether they leave it to the old tradition, or have the Dalai Lama decide about his successor, or let Tibetan's demoicratically elect a new one. All this of course is to prevent Peking from interfering. That's why Peking is once again very furious and outraged.

And then this, by which he probabaly will not make himself too many friends: he has put the whole institution of the Dalai Lama into question, saying that Tibetans should form an opinion on wether or not the institution of the Dalai Lama is any longer approriate and adequate in the modern time. If they find it is no longer needed in the modenr present, it should be abandoned. - In 1994 I already had seen a TV film on him, where he indirectly indicated to a French or British interviewer that he does not agree with the tibetan traditon saying that the Dalai Lama is a reincarnation and then is found and being declared god-emperor. He said, and I quote him by the word: "The Dalai Lama is a secular elected institution." That did raise eyebrows amongst many buddhists around the world, while most tibetans preferred to simply ignore and forget the comment and remain silent about it.

A sober, reasonable assessement by the man, coming from just healthy reason.

[Letum]

I think the important question is not whether there will be another Dali Lama, but
whether there will be another person who will be a figurehead for all good things the
current Dali Lama represents.


If the title was abolished tomorrow, H.H. the Dali Lama would be no lesser of a man, leader
or ambassador than he is today.

[Letum]

I rather suspect that if no official reincarnation is found, there will be many unofficial ones from both the genuine faith and China.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Skybird

He said, and I quote him by the word: "The Dalai Lama is a secular elected institution." That did raise eyebrows amongst many buddhists around the world, while most tibetans preferred to simply ignore and forget the comment and remain silent about it.

A sober, reasonable assessement by the man, coming from just healthy reason.

That just makes me respect him more. Power has not corrupted the man, he preaches kindness and humility and should be hailed as a true leader for it.

He was so peaceful that he abandoned his people. Thats not leadership, its cowardice.

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by waste gate

He was so peaceful that he abandoned his people. Thats not leadership, its cowardice.

You do realise he'd be dead if he stayed. It's hard to be a spiritual leader when your locked in a Chinese prison. (so i've heard )

[bookworm_020]

It's Beijing, not Peking. It was changed after the communists took power in 1949.

[kiwi_2005]

Originally Posted by waste gate

He was so peaceful that he abandoned his people. Thats not leadership, its cowardice.

The Dali lama is just a man (of peace) who lives like a peasant and is not currupt or has a desire for worldly things. There are probably plenty of Dali Lamas out there. As for the reincanation belief isn't it once you reach the path of wellbeing you no longer are reborn - you have reach the higher plane - perfection? How come he keeps getting reborn then. Man the tibetian path must be really narrow!

[Letum]

Originally Posted by kiwi_2005

isn't it once you reach the path of wellbeing you no longer are reborn - you have reach the higher plane - perfection? How come he keeps getting reborn then.

Apperantly he does it on purpose out of compassion for those who are stuck in re-birth
in order to help us exscape.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

Apperantly he does it on purpose out of compassion for those who are stuck in re-birth
in order to help us exscape.

Guys, one advise: do not worry about such things, it only makes your mind go crazy. Live your lifes, try not to intentionally do harm, help others, don't focus on yourself. that is of more worth than a thousand theories about reincarnation, Bodhisattvas, and Nirvana. The more you have in your heads, the farther you are away from what you are "searching" for. Nobody needs to go anywhere. You know how it is with the balance and solid stand if the centre of gravity is moved upwards.

Originally Posted by Reeves

You do realise he'd be dead if he stayed. It's hard to be a spiritual leader when your locked in a Chinese prison. (so i've heard )

On the man, he was urged by his advisors to finally flee after several years of Chinese occupation already had taken place, to escape being caught by the Chinese, and live on in exile as an unmanipulated representative for the Tibetan's cause. If somebody thinks that is cowardice and that he should have stayed, maybe even "fought", than he only illustrates how little he knows about Buddhism in general, and about the Dalai Lama's biography in special. He also does not know about the Chinese attempt to manipulate the Kagyu lineage by not letting them find their new leader (called Karmapa) themselves, but manipulating a chinese puppet and installing it as Peking's placeholder (that's why their are two karmapas now, one chinese imposter, and one a majority of the Tibetans follow), and that they intend to do the same with the Gelupa lineage and the Dalai Lama. they were unfortunately successful in causing rifgts, violance, confusion, and a general desintegration of the tibetan'c community, so the chinese tactic is dangerous indeed and directly aims at completing the ethnic cleansing of theirs.

And finally, from the Tibetan's perspective, violating their philosophy and start a fight against the Chinese would cause bad karma for all, for themselves and for the Chinese. For reasons of compassion, most Tibetan authorities, if not all, speak against that.

I wonder why Christians seeing themselves in the following of Jesus do not feel reminded of what Jesus taught. He also did not call for fighting and resisting. He said the opposite, in fact.

as a matter of fact, all world nations leave the Tibetan'S alone, rate their shortterm business interests as higher than deciding for the ethical correct choice to isolate the chinese, and turn a blind eye on the injustice the chinese brought onto the Tibetans of whom thy already have massacred over one million. In this light one maybe should remain silent about accusing their leaders of cowardice and "abandoning their people". Such arrogant self-righteousness is not appropriate in this situation.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by waste gate

He was so peaceful that he abandoned his people. Thats not leadership, its cowardice.

So are you saying MacArthur was a coward for abandoning the Phillipines?

Or the Polish Government in Exile were cowards during WWII?

[AntEater]

Regarding Tibet and the Dalai Lama.
I like the man, but he has his international reputation because of his personality, not because of his god-priest-emperor status.
I think he is realist enough to see that even if China suddenly gave Tibet independence, there would be no way to revert to the old theocracy.
The pre 1950s Tibet was actually a rather harsh place to live in, if you were not a priest. A theocracy stuck in the middle ages and isolated from the world.
Just because the priests happened to be bhuddists doesn't make that fact go away.
Also, the Lamas were not always that peaceful. Ancient Tibet fought was, exterminated other cultures and subjugated the whole population to bhuddism.
I suppose for some people the chinese occupation was just an exchange of rulers.
Also keep in mind that the other Himalayan states are economically less advanced that chinese occupied Tibet.
A dalai lama in today's Tibet could never enjoy the god-king status the current one had in his youth, no matter wether Tibet is chinese or independent.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AntEater

Regarding Tibet and the Dalai Lama.
I like the man, but he has his international reputation because of his personality, not because of his god-priest-emperor status.
I think he is realist enough to see that even if China suddenly gave Tibet independence, there would be no way to revert to the old theocracy.
The pre 1950s Tibet was actually a rather harsh place to live in, if you were not a priest. A theocracy stuck in the middle ages and isolated from the world.
Just because the priests happened to be bhuddists doesn't make that fact go away.
Also, the Lamas were not always that peaceful. Ancient Tibet fought was, exterminated other cultures and subjugated the whole population to bhuddism.
I suppose for some people the chinese occupation was just an exchange of rulers.
Also keep in mind that the other Himalayan states are economically less advanced that chinese occupied Tibet.
A dalai lama in today's Tibet could never enjoy the god-king status the current one had in his youth, no matter wether Tibet is chinese or independent.

I partially agree. When Buddhism was (peacefully!) brought to Tibet, it met the local culture, which was very much a state of worrying kings, some of whom took it upon them to convert to buddhism and spread it by enforcing it, which means that obviously they got some things wrong on it. It also is true that Tibet has been kind of a theocracy in deed, but not more or less in meaning than this is or was the case in many Buddhist nations. Point is that these theocracies mainly remained peaceful and non-expansive, nevertheless turned into institutions that ranked the support for monks and monasteries by local farmers very high, and gave medical and educational support and "spiritual caretaking" in return. However, the arrangement is as little supported by Siddharta'S teachings, than the existence of the church can be led back to Jesus teachings. Both men did not, neither in word nor in intention nor in deeds found a religious organisation. I have had my experinces with practicing Tibetan ways for some time, wanting to learn abiut it in order to assess it, but I found it not to be helping me, supporting me, or in any way helpful, in fact I found it to be focussed on rituals, ceremonies, and being very distractive in general - short: all the things that I attack in theistic religious institutions as well. I have been educated and trained in classical Chan anyway - and in a way one could say that "I went back to that". Not really that, but that is as close a description as it gets.

All in all, from a historical perspective, buddhist "theocracies" should be seen as less inhumane and more peaceful than the church has been in major phases of it's existence. On a general level, I give them that.

I dealt with Tibetans, monks for the most, and one thing struck me, no matter what I thought and think about Tibetan buddhism - and i see it quite critically: a certain natural unexcitement of theirs, and an underlaying, always present unwavering sense of humour. Think of them what you want, but if more people would behave like that, this world would be a much friendlier place to live in.

On the status of the term "God emperor", this is why I have started this thread, and another one as well. The current Dalai Lama ended a tradition of letting it go by unopposed to have people thinking of Dalai Lamas as "God emperors", which is another deviation from buddhas orioginal teachings. Buddha did not say there are gods and dieties, and even more no god-kings and -emperors. The simple man in Tibet very often has believed that nevertheless, and different 2aspects" of the Absolute, in the tibetan tradition get expressed in form of (symbolic) gods and goddesses (dhakas and dhakinis)). It happened, what had to be expected: these symbols were taken literally, and bang- there you had all of a sudden different buddhas and gods and godesses in Tibetan buddhism. That is a great trap, and westerns fall for it like flies. I know what I talk about, i lost almost all my student time's circle of friends when I left Tibetan buddhism, and saw them starting to "believe" in wonders where Buddha was abiut perceiving things like thex are, and exmaine them yourself. They also became very dogmatic. Tibetan buddhism leads many people to become simply this: miracle-believing, and superstitious. That'S why I do not support it. and it is also the major criticism I aim at Tiobetan buddhism: that it's representatives let this happen, either to make their culture surviving that way, or by inability to counter it and care for the students they attract: which would mean they have started more than they can handle. The teacher is to be blamed for that, it is his duty not to accept more students than he can handle. Today you have mass events, even trips to exotic countries for special rituals where one or two thousand people can agther. All this mass consummation of exotic spireituality is not what Buddha has taught, but is aberation, a fault, a dead end.

In the end, Buddhists are humans like all others, too, with strengths and weaknesses, and no spiritual supermen. This is also true for Tibetans. And for the Karmapa or Dalai Lama as well. where you can learn something valuable from buddhist tradition (and there is plenty), do it for your own benefit. Where man turns it into a state of holiness, break contact and get away.