A column by Andrew Lee in the UH Manoa campus newspaper, Ka Leo, caught my eye this week by expressing a contrarian view of the Dalai Lama’s appearance in Hawaii (“The Dalai Lama isn’t a rock star“).
The commentary was aimed at the Pillars of Peace Hawaii event.
The primary issue I had with the event, even before I arrived, was that there was going to be roughly two and a half hours of entertainment preceding the Dalai Lama’s actual lecture, not to mention a few musical acts after his talk. Anuhea, Taimane Gardner, Jake Shimabukuro, Jack Johnson and all the others did wonderful jobs. But do we need to be entertained for an inspirational and educational talk? Are our attention spans really that short? A Nobel Peace Prize winner, spiritual leader, and global advocate for peace should be enough to hold our attention.
More importantly, does the Dalai Lama really need a parade to ride in on? The length of the entertainment in whole was roughly three hours, while the Dalai Lama spoke for roughly two hours. That marginalizes his talk, making it come off as a segment, rather than a feature. It made it seem as if the Dalai Lama were a poster boy for advertisement purposes regarding the Pillars of Peace event.
I have to confess never haven “gotten” the Dalai Lama phenom. I’m still not at all clear what the Dalai Lama has done to deserve all the media hype.
Okay, I’ve never aspired to backpack to the nether regions of Asia, believing instead that there are plenty of problems as well as spiritual and political solutions, needing fuller understanding much closer to theme. I suppose that’s a personal deficiency of sorts.
And I’m also way too much of a skeptic to be drawn in by anyone who needs to be addressed as “his holiness,” or any similar secular title.
The Dalai Lama is certainly not without his critics, but you wouldn’t have known that from local media coverage.
Does he get a speakers fee for such public appearances? How does the Dalai Lama support the jet setting lifestyle of a traveling holy man? How much was spent on this event by the Hawaii Community Foundation and other sponsors? What’s a week in the life of the Dalai Lama like? Follow the money is always a good place to start.
And, of course, I couldn’t help thinking of this sequence from Monty Python’s “Life of Brian.”
Perhaps I should hope that the comment function is still broken….
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I find this whole discussion strangely negative.
A one who met and interviewed the Dalai Lama 25 years ago in Ka’u at a Wood Valley Tibetan temple, I found him refreshingly aware, not full of himself and with a nice touch of humor.
In my time I have meet and talked with Buddhist leaders from many denominations, high Catholic figures, Mormon leaders and officials of all sorts of smaller sects. Some turned out to be crooks and hypocrites.
None measured up to the man from Tibet in human values.
Others who shared time with him at the damp gathering in Ka’u had much the same perspective –not a Tibetan or Buddhist among them. This comes from a practicing agnostic who is not easily captured by theology — though 30 years or so ago I was struck by the positive vibes of a 3,000 person international youth convention of Baha’i followers in Hilo. Zero negativity.
I think the criticism of the circus atmosphere is justified. I think that he also over-played the accessibility and human-ness card (and the media took it even further).
I have read some of his written work; he is a serious spiritual philosopher. I am also quite certain that he has a force of will to be reckoned with. When he has private meetings with US Presidents he does not tell potty jokes. I am sure that he forcefully advocates for pressure on China.
There is a Buddhist saying, the meaning of which will probably be lost on those fawning over the Dalai Lama and, perhaps, the Secret Service:
“If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.”
It is provocative, of course. But is meant to provoke awareness that attachment to the personality of the Buddha, or to “Buddhism” itself, becomes an obstacle to enlightenment.
I think the “LIfe of Brian” clip sets an appropriate tone for this discussion.
The Dalai Lama may be sincere in his pacifism. But the contrast anthony aalto suggests between the DL’s path and that “chosen” by Yassir Arafat is a bit more complex than the public image. Years ago, the Dalai Lama was part of a broader Tibetan independence movement which included an armed guerrilla army, financed and supplied by the CIA to commit acts of violence against the Chinese. (I am not condemning them for resorting to force, but trying to dispell some of the myth some Westerners want to cling to. Here is a good source:
http://www.historynet.com/cias-secret-war-in-tibet.htm
As part of the Richard Nixon/Henry Kissinger Grand Strategy of strengthening relations with China in an alliance against the Soviet Union, US aid to Tibetan armed groups was curtailed. In this context, the Dalai Lama’s embrace of non-violence may have been a necessity dictated by external, Real Politick factors and not just internal, spiritual considerations.
The Palestinians are constantly being told by Americans, less so by people from other countries, that they must embrace non-violence or their struggle against the Israeli occupation is illegitimate. Many Palestinians are deeply committed to non-violent resistance, but those efforts are met with brutal suppression as well and too few of the American supporters of Tibetan independence make an effort to understand or extend solidarity to the Palestinian struggle regardless of the strategy or tactics employ.
The Israeli occupation of Palestine is more accurately a joint Israeli-American occupation and it would be good if a few of the Hawaii fans of the Dalai Lama would allow their compassion to extend to the Palestinians, would push OUR government towards a just path. We have little control over Chinese policy towards Tibet. We may have more control over “our own” government’s unjust policy towards Palestine.
Thank you to all who joined this discussion. I learned much.
(Also, thanks, Claire! *like*)
One of the cliches of the self-description in personal ads is that people typically describe themselves as “spiritual but not religious”. Religion is not what it used to be, to say the least. The younger urban population especially has turned to the “spiritual” alternative quite creatively, if you recall the fads of the 1990s like angels and crystals. You can throw in the Dalai Lama and Buddhism into that mix. Buddhism is especially appealing because it is more of a philosophy than a religion.
I have found that it is Westerners who have a family background that is particularly religious who turn toward Buddhism, like an alcoholic drinking near beer. Interestingly, one finds the same thing in Asian societies, especially countries like South Korea where one-third of the population is self-described as “Christian”. Really, they are not Christians as we would understand it, they neither think nor act like Christians (just the way materialistic Westerners who are “Buddhists” are not really Buddhist). But converting to Christianity (or at least identifying with it) is a way of casting off centuries of corrupt superstition.
Also, Christianity in non-Western societies has a certain cultural cachet, like having a Harvard degree or driving a luxury car. In fact, studies have shown that foreigners who convert to Mormonism are already the most inclined to embrace the American way of life, that is, materialism and ambition. I’ve heard that in Laie there is a high burglary rate and that the perpetrators are BYU students, and this might relate to the hollowing out of the LDS. In fact, here’s an article by the great scholar Harold Bloom that asserts that Mormonism is no longer a cult but has not become a religion, it is now a business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/will-this-election-be-the-mormon-breakthrough.html?pagewanted=all&gwh=8EFDAD2AEC51ED217BD021F8D6678D9E
One could compare this to the Chritianization of Hawaii. Upon first contact with the West, the Hawaiian religion and worldview began to disintegrate fast. Superficially, at least, the Hawaiians found a resonant religion that believed that “God is love”, but at a deeper level Christianity is a harshly ascetic religion, seemingly the opposite from a polynesian world view. But the Hawaiians, in converting, drank the Kool Aid in another way as well, because Christianity was itself dying (the materialistic behavior of the descendants of the missionaries is fairly ample proof of that).
In the 19th century, with the waning of religion, Westerners turned toward nationalism and ideology. But at this point, even that is a sham, underneath it all one finds materialism and a concern with lifestyle. (For example, one will note that with the UH, all those supposedly “left wing” academics have a faculty union that consistently endorses the most conservative candidates for public office — and for no apparent reason, and without any benefit to the faculty. That tells us something about both professors and modern unions.)
Kolea brought history into this discussion quite instructively. He mentions Tibet and Israel, and I want to roll with that.
I believe that, geographically, the largest empire in history was not the Roman Empire but rather the Tibetan Empire, of which China was once a subject state; the Tibetan royalty married into Chinese royalty and the Tibetans were that way introduced to Buddhism from the top down, which pacified Tibetan culture. But the monasteries that came to dominate Tibetan life were thoroughly corrupt, at least until the Chinese Communist takeover; so ironically, the integrity of the Tibetan religion has been restored to some degree because the Buddhist hierarchy has been dispossessed. Now it is the Chinese “Communists” who are are thoroughly corrupt!
As for Israel, most Israelis are Jews, but the classic European Jewish culture that one associates with Chagal, etc., is totally gone from Israel. Israelis, culturally, are a bit like Brundlefly in the movie “The Fly” — they have become some sort of new chimera. Religiously, they are Jews in identity, but even the ultra-orthodox element in that country has a reputation for corruption. Israelis are a lot more secular than their identity would permit them to admit to themselves.
The same is true for Americans who support Israel. Christian evangelicals as much as Jews have been the great supporters of Israel, but they have been silent for the past few years because … their numbers have fallen. In the 2006 documentary “Jesus Camp”, evangelicals themselves openly predict that over the next generation their number will fall by 78%. Also, American Jews intermarry with non-Jews at about 75%. Like Israelis, they are not that Jewish either culturally or religiously, but unlike Israelis, the identity is disappearing fast. BUT THIS IS PRECISELY WHY THESE PEOPLE SUPPORT ISRAEL! Israel becomes a kind of metaphor for their own loss of culture and identity, like one of those little atolls that are disappearing as sea levels rise. It’s kind of like Irish Americans who support the IRA because deep down the Irish Americans are pretty much a bunch of uncultured Americans in denial.
Same thing is true with Muslims, they are attracted to consumerism but are in denial (see William James’ essay “The Moral Equivalent to War” to understand so-called “radical Islam”).
Denial … it ain’t in Egypt. Actually, it is!
I find the following from Skeptical to be inflammatory and unacceptable language- I hope others are as disgusted as I am.
” deep down the Irish Americans are pretty much a bunch of uncultured Americans ”
– what the hell has that to do with the Dalai Lama!