7 ms·

Well, I can imagine things like what you describe (regarding Cherokee Nation) and I won't find that especially odd. But Tibetians are much more numerous and th

Well, I can imagine things like what you describe (regarding Cherokee Nation) and I won't find that especially odd. But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently, making their case incomparable to that of Cherokee. Your parable is shaky. You seem to think that Dalai Lama issue is either solely about annoying China, or solely about self-presentation. It is not. People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions.

awl130 11y ago
Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam. Let's not forget Buddha was "born" in present-day Nepal. Certainly, the Dalai Lama is no fool and uses his religion for his political agenda, seeking to perhaps to conflate the two. By your post it seems he is succeeding.
- jmagoon 11y ago
  The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only relatively recently. Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. Your claim that the "[Dalai Lama] is succeeding...at conflating religion and politics" is the direct Communist Party line, even though that is being directly contradicted by the source article. My personal reading of the article is that the Dalai Lama gave up on statehood in the 80s, and is primarily focused on preserving Tibetan culture, despite the persistent claim that he is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and that "every word he speaks is a lie".
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    > Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. It is hilarious how the maps in museums fail to show the Tibetan Empire during any of many, many periods when it was both theoretically and actually independent but to claim that Tibet has been sovereign since 1200 is insane. The Qing dynasty ruled for almost three centuries and they the Tibetans were their vassals.
  - justicezyx 11y ago
    Much like we discredit Cherokee's nation hood?
- atlantic 11y ago
  >What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet The Dalai Lama is considered by religious Tibetans to be the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Tibetan Buddhist deity that personifies compassion. So your question makes about as much sense as asking what Jesus has to do with Christianity.
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Yes, but the point is that Tibetan Buddhism is a small subset of Buddhism. It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism. And within that division, the Dalai Lama's specific sect is yet again another division. The Dalai Lama is to Buddhism what, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury is (possibly of even lesser historical importance) to Christianity. His only real importance came about as a result of clever marketing of the Tibetan 'cause'.
    - lawpoop 11y ago
      > It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? > Archbishop of Canterbury So, a world-recognized religious leader? Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism.
      - Mikeb85 11y ago
        > Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? Distance in terms of belief and time. The most 'orthodox' and also the oldest extant sect is Theravada Buddhism (mainly centred around Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, but also with historic temples in India and elsewhere), although there is also the argument that some of the older Mahayana sects may have some succession to the Mahasamghika, but strictly speaking the oldest references to the 'Mahayana' are from the 1st century BCE, and the Theravada can be traced to the 3rd century BCE. Anyhow, Tibetan Buddhism came as a result of various influences, including Indian Tantric Buddhist missionaries (Tantric beliefs, which originate in Saivism, a cult within Hinduism, appeared in Buddhist texts from the 3rd century CE onward, and of course don't appear in early Buddhist texts), the native Bon religion (animistic and shamanistic), and then-current Mahayana Buddhism. The origins of Tibetan Buddhism are fairly well documented, with Buddhism reaching Tibet in the 7th century CE, and it being adopted as the state religion in the 8th century CE. > Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Buddhism isn't supposed to have a central leader. It's supposed to be centred on the teachings of the Buddha, although there are prominent monks with fairly wide influence in all the major schools. It's kind of like in Christianity. Prior to the great schism, you had the unified Orthodox/Catholic church which had 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria). Rome split and became huge and monolithic, the Orthodox were less centralised so when they spread, they established more 'Patriarchates' with more or less equal importance to the historic ones; in addition to the Patriarchs of Constantinople (New Rome), Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, you also have Patriarchs of Moscow (3rd Rome), Georgia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, in addition to Archbishops and so on. So even though Orthodox Christianity is nearly as widespread as Catholicism (arguably more widespread in the 'old world'), they don't have a visible 'leader' because of the flat power structure. Tibetan Buddhism adopted a more vertical power structure because the Dalai Lama's sect eventually achieved political power over Tibet, whereas other schools of Buddhism maintained the flat power structure that existed in early Buddhism. > Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism. Familiarity yes, but not understanding. There have been many other Buddhist teachers who have actually brought the religion to the west (not only from Theravada, Mahayana, Ch'an, Zen and Vajrayana schools, but also from different sects of Tibetan Buddhism). Tibetan Buddhism contains some tantric beliefs which most westerners wouldn't even recognize as Buddhist, for example, consort practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81. Edit - should also add, Tibetan Buddhism/Vajranaya has the fewest adherents of the major schools, making it the least important Buddhist school as far as demographics go. Mahayana Buddhism (Zen/Ch'an, Pure Land, and other smaller Mahayana sects/regional variations) has the highest number of adherents, although is fragmented and many adherents may also follow other religions like Taoism and Shintoism. Theravada is probably the largest school with the most consistent teachings across its regional variations (150 million adherents). By contrast, there's 3 million people in Tibet, perhaps 10 million people worldwide who nominally belong to a Vajrayana Buddhist sect (including Tibetan exiles)...
- nemo 11y ago
  "The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state." The Dalai Lama has abdicated political leadership to the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and only retains a leadership role as head of the Gelugpa sect. He still speaks to the human rights abuses and political oppression of Tibetans but his proposal is a "Middle Way" which would preserve Chinese rule but give Tibetans some autonomy and representation in governing Tibet.
- GalacticDomin8r 11y ago
  > Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet Which seeks to be combined theological and political state in the vein of Russian czars, Japanese emperors, North Korea, and countless other ruling parties. You can even argue Great Britain still abides by this. > we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam Why would we not? They are 2 sides of the same coin. Religion is quite often the basis of political power such as in Iran.
Alex3917 11y ago
> People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions. Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.
- Silfen 11y ago
  I think this is fairly revisionist. This narrative undersells the influence that Buddhist thought had on enlightenment philosophers[0]. IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama: Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1] [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
- blinkingled 11y ago
  >Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
  - Alex3917 11y ago
    No, iirc the religion was constructed pretty much wholesale during the opium wars to convince people that the Chinese were an intelligent people with a rich cultural history who we shouldn't be genociding. There are a bunch of books about it, this blog post gives an overview of the situation and links to a bunch of the books: https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-religion/ https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-rel... I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.
DominikR 11y ago
> But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the majority of Tibetans were before the Chinese slaves in an absolutist monarchy/theocracy that used extremely cruel torture and punishments. (amputation of limbs, skinning, cutting off ears/noses) Let's be honest here, this whole Free Tibet business is just about pressuring the Chinese government and nothing else. If it advances the US governments strategic goals then they will even support barbarians like ISIS. Unfortunately for the US the Chinese government is quite resilient. They are not even trying to stir something in Tibet anymore, that one has failed. Currently they are trying hard in the Muslim Uighur regions, but apparently it doesn't work any better. The Chinese will just crush any externally supported resistance, they don't give a crap. Nor do the Russians.
- notahacker 11y ago
  The Free Tibet movement in the West has always had more to do with counterculture than the US government. I suspect most Tibetans were rather worse off during the Cultural Revolution than in the quasi-feudal system that existed before. I'm not entirely convinced they're necessarily worse off today, but the Tibetan refugees risking their lives walking across the Himalayas into an exile where they get to "meet the Lama" couldn't really be any less focused on geopolitics... I'm not aware of any parallel Cherokee diaspora. I don't think the Uighurs' preferences for their own cultural practices is anything to do with them paying any attention to the US either.
  - DominikR 11y ago
    Sure, I don't doubt that these people really want to secede, but undoubtably some rather large component of this is created by external support. Throughout history nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries, this is nothing new. I don't put any extraordinary blame on the US for this, it's what most powerful nations are doing in their quest for even more power. About the Cherokees: Don't know if it is due to their low numbers, or simply because the US is powerful enough to prevent this from happening. Maybe the Cherokees are happy as it is or the right people are payed off by the government. In general this can be exploited best when a country is in severe economic trouble. For example Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is not even remotely in a comparable state.

awl130 11y ago

Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam. Let's not forget Buddha was "born" in present-day Nepal. Certainly, the Dalai Lama is no fool and uses his religion for his political agenda, seeking to perhaps to conflate the two. By your post it seems he is succeeding.

jmagoon 11y ago
The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only relatively recently. Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. Your claim that the "[Dalai Lama] is succeeding...at conflating religion and politics" is the direct Communist Party line, even though that is being directly contradicted by the source article. My personal reading of the article is that the Dalai Lama gave up on statehood in the 80s, and is primarily focused on preserving Tibetan culture, despite the persistent claim that he is a "wolf in sheep's clothing", and that "every word he speaks is a lie".
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  > Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward. It is hilarious how the maps in museums fail to show the Tibetan Empire during any of many, many periods when it was both theoretically and actually independent but to claim that Tibet has been sovereign since 1200 is insane. The Qing dynasty ruled for almost three centuries and they the Tibetans were their vassals.
- justicezyx 11y ago
  Much like we discredit Cherokee's nation hood?
atlantic 11y ago
>What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet The Dalai Lama is considered by religious Tibetans to be the incarnation of Avalokiteshvara, the Tibetan Buddhist deity that personifies compassion. So your question makes about as much sense as asking what Jesus has to do with Christianity.
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Yes, but the point is that Tibetan Buddhism is a small subset of Buddhism. It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism. And within that division, the Dalai Lama's specific sect is yet again another division. The Dalai Lama is to Buddhism what, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury is (possibly of even lesser historical importance) to Christianity. His only real importance came about as a result of clever marketing of the Tibetan 'cause'.
  - lawpoop 11y ago
    > It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? > Archbishop of Canterbury So, a world-recognized religious leader? Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism.
    - Mikeb85 11y ago
      > Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? Distance in terms of belief and time. The most 'orthodox' and also the oldest extant sect is Theravada Buddhism (mainly centred around Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, but also with historic temples in India and elsewhere), although there is also the argument that some of the older Mahayana sects may have some succession to the Mahasamghika, but strictly speaking the oldest references to the 'Mahayana' are from the 1st century BCE, and the Theravada can be traced to the 3rd century BCE. Anyhow, Tibetan Buddhism came as a result of various influences, including Indian Tantric Buddhist missionaries (Tantric beliefs, which originate in Saivism, a cult within Hinduism, appeared in Buddhist texts from the 3rd century CE onward, and of course don't appear in early Buddhist texts), the native Bon religion (animistic and shamanistic), and then-current Mahayana Buddhism. The origins of Tibetan Buddhism are fairly well documented, with Buddhism reaching Tibet in the 7th century CE, and it being adopted as the state religion in the 8th century CE. > Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Buddhism isn't supposed to have a central leader. It's supposed to be centred on the teachings of the Buddha, although there are prominent monks with fairly wide influence in all the major schools. It's kind of like in Christianity. Prior to the great schism, you had the unified Orthodox/Catholic church which had 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria). Rome split and became huge and monolithic, the Orthodox were less centralised so when they spread, they established more 'Patriarchates' with more or less equal importance to the historic ones; in addition to the Patriarchs of Constantinople (New Rome), Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, you also have Patriarchs of Moscow (3rd Rome), Georgia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, in addition to Archbishops and so on. So even though Orthodox Christianity is nearly as widespread as Catholicism (arguably more widespread in the 'old world'), they don't have a visible 'leader' because of the flat power structure. Tibetan Buddhism adopted a more vertical power structure because the Dalai Lama's sect eventually achieved political power over Tibet, whereas other schools of Buddhism maintained the flat power structure that existed in early Buddhism. > Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism. Familiarity yes, but not understanding. There have been many other Buddhist teachers who have actually brought the religion to the west (not only from Theravada, Mahayana, Ch'an, Zen and Vajrayana schools, but also from different sects of Tibetan Buddhism). Tibetan Buddhism contains some tantric beliefs which most westerners wouldn't even recognize as Buddhist, for example, consort practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81. Edit - should also add, Tibetan Buddhism/Vajranaya has the fewest adherents of the major schools, making it the least important Buddhist school as far as demographics go. Mahayana Buddhism (Zen/Ch'an, Pure Land, and other smaller Mahayana sects/regional variations) has the highest number of adherents, although is fragmented and many adherents may also follow other religions like Taoism and Shintoism. Theravada is probably the largest school with the most consistent teachings across its regional variations (150 million adherents). By contrast, there's 3 million people in Tibet, perhaps 10 million people worldwide who nominally belong to a Vajrayana Buddhist sect (including Tibetan exiles)...
nemo 11y ago
"The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state." The Dalai Lama has abdicated political leadership to the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and only retains a leadership role as head of the Gelugpa sect. He still speaks to the human rights abuses and political oppression of Tibetans but his proposal is a "Middle Way" which would preserve Chinese rule but give Tibetans some autonomy and representation in governing Tibet.
GalacticDomin8r 11y ago
> Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet Which seeks to be combined theological and political state in the vein of Russian czars, Japanese emperors, North Korea, and countless other ruling parties. You can even argue Great Britain still abides by this. > we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam Why would we not? They are 2 sides of the same coin. Religion is quite often the basis of political power such as in Iran.

Alex3917 11y ago

> People are genuinely interested in Buddhism because it looks elegant and less stained than other major religions. Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years and designed to appeal to those with scientific mindset. I'm not saying that's bad, but it's a little propagandistic not to acknowledge it.

Silfen 11y ago
I think this is fairly revisionist. This narrative undersells the influence that Buddhist thought had on enlightenment philosophers[0]. IANAHistorian, and am likely well out of my depth here, but I'd venture a guess that the influence worked in both directions, due to overlap in philosophical positions. For example, from the Dalai Lama: Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last.[1] [0]http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-davi... [1]http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-crossroads http://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/science-at-the-cr...
blinkingled 11y ago
>Because it was basically invented by white folks in the last 150 years Invented by white folks? What? Did you perhaps mean they made it mainstream for white people by giving it a western flavor?
- Alex3917 11y ago
  No, iirc the religion was constructed pretty much wholesale during the opium wars to convince people that the Chinese were an intelligent people with a rich cultural history who we shouldn't be genociding. There are a bunch of books about it, this blog post gives an overview of the situation and links to a bunch of the books: https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-religion/ https://meaningness.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/a-new-world-rel... I haven't really spent any time reading up on it, but they talk about it all the time on the Buddhist Geeks podcast, and presumably they'd be in the know since they are/were students at Naropa.

DominikR 11y ago

> But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know the majority of Tibetans were before the Chinese slaves in an absolutist monarchy/theocracy that used extremely cruel torture and punishments. (amputation of limbs, skinning, cutting off ears/noses) Let's be honest here, this whole Free Tibet business is just about pressuring the Chinese government and nothing else. If it advances the US governments strategic goals then they will even support barbarians like ISIS. Unfortunately for the US the Chinese government is quite resilient. They are not even trying to stir something in Tibet anymore, that one has failed. Currently they are trying hard in the Muslim Uighur regions, but apparently it doesn't work any better. The Chinese will just crush any externally supported resistance, they don't give a crap. Nor do the Russians.

notahacker 11y ago
The Free Tibet movement in the West has always had more to do with counterculture than the US government. I suspect most Tibetans were rather worse off during the Cultural Revolution than in the quasi-feudal system that existed before. I'm not entirely convinced they're necessarily worse off today, but the Tibetan refugees risking their lives walking across the Himalayas into an exile where they get to "meet the Lama" couldn't really be any less focused on geopolitics... I'm not aware of any parallel Cherokee diaspora. I don't think the Uighurs' preferences for their own cultural practices is anything to do with them paying any attention to the US either.
- DominikR 11y ago
  Sure, I don't doubt that these people really want to secede, but undoubtably some rather large component of this is created by external support. Throughout history nationalism, religion and ethnicity has always been used to destabilise countries, this is nothing new. I don't put any extraordinary blame on the US for this, it's what most powerful nations are doing in their quest for even more power. About the Cherokees: Don't know if it is due to their low numbers, or simply because the US is powerful enough to prevent this from happening. Maybe the Cherokees are happy as it is or the right people are payed off by the government. In general this can be exploited best when a country is in severe economic trouble. For example Chechnya after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US is not even remotely in a comparable state.