Dalai Lama at UCLA


I spent over nine-years at UCLA and am (no surprise here) an avid alum supporter of the institution. Recently, I got wind that the Dalai Lama will be at UCLA next week.

A big part of the visit will be Dalai Lama’s participating in the symposium “Buddhism and Neuroscience: A Discussion on Attention, Mental Flexibility and Compassion,” with faculty and staff from UCLA’s Semel Institute.

Both UCLA and Harvard are my alma mater, and I have the highest respect for both.  But it is one thing for UCLA or Harvard to sponsor a controversial figure like the Dalai Lama, but quite another to sponsor controversial figures in the name of science.  Thus, if UCLA or Harvard were to sponsor Osma bin Laden – or even go back in time to sponsor Hitler, I’d be fine. It’s part of the process of pushing the boundary, if you will. But doing this dubiously in the name of science – this shocks my conscience.

Why cannot UCLA have picked Joe Shmoe, my neighbor, as the face of the symposium?  Do not the characteristics of attention, mental flexibility and compassion not exist in all of us?  Why does it have to be the Dalai Lama and why with such fanfare? Is this symposium about science or politics?

This symposium has gotten me thinking: is UCLA still a venerable institution of education and science, or has religion, politics, and cult personality bankrupted it? Should I be ashamed to be a UCLA Bruin? Is it time for me to sever all my financial ties with the institution, diverting my annual contributions to better causes elsewhere?

  1. April 29th, 2011 at 16:21 | #1

    I share your sentiments, Allen. If you divert, I recommend more to the Hope Project. Or be more selective in which department you donate to.

    Mixing religion into science is going to draw ire from a big swath of America. Our prior post on their views towards the Dalai Lama: American Humanist Association: “India vs. China”.

    The Dalai Lama gets airtime because of his “anti-China” politics. He cannot get too cute across America, and I think there is a limit to what America will tolerate of him. There are hardcore Christians who probably believe strongly this kind of stuff (though termed mildly in this instance):

    The Bible is true, therefore these doctrines of Buddhism are false.

    Conclusion

    Buddhism stresses self-dependence and self-salvation. It cannot be true because it is a religion from man (Matthew 15:8,9,13,14).

    Christianity is far superior to any other religion in the world. It offers forgiveness of sins through our obedience to Christ (Hebrews 5:8,9). The only hope this world has is through Christ (Ephesians 2:12; John 14:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:9).

    The Dalai Lama is probably always mindful of the limits to the sandbox he is given to play in.

    ———-

    Btw, has this guy ever donated money to build schools inside Tibet?

  2. April 29th, 2011 at 16:46 | #2

    yinyang wrote:

    Btw, has this guy ever donated money to build schools inside Tibet?

    My retort: has he done anything constructive inside Tibet? Before he left, he was a slave owner. After he left, he’s been trying to destabilize the political entity that reformed the slave system.

  3. Otto Kerner
    May 1st, 2011 at 18:22 | #3

    In the United States, the Dalai Lama is not considered to be controversial. He is considered to be a widely-beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner.

  4. Charles Liu
    May 1st, 2011 at 22:51 | #4

    Yup Alen, you better not contradict the official narrative by bringing up facts like His Holiness’ CIA cinnection, failed rebellion supported by the West.

  5. guest
    May 2nd, 2011 at 00:52 | #5

    widely-beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner

    . . . is only as politically expedient and skin-deep as Sharon Stone’s claim in him a “good friend.”

  6. May 2nd, 2011 at 06:38 | #6

    Otto Kerner :In the United States, the Dalai Lama is not considered to be controversial. He is considered to be a widely-beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner.

    The 2nd part is bit over stating it. DL is not very well known in the West, other than a name.

    DL is not controversial in the West, because people of the West do not know him that well.

    Western nations know DL as well as they know Tibet, which is not much at all. Which only demonstrate the superficiality of Western view of the world.

  7. Otto Kerner
    May 2nd, 2011 at 21:56 | #7

    I didn’t mean to sound quite so inflammatory. I’m just commenting on UCLA’s probably decision-making process. I was at a conference yesterday which had nothing to do with Tibet or Buddhism, but one of the presenters at one point introduced a segment by asking the crowd, “Do you want to hear something that the Dalai Lama says is important about the human brain?” She really hit the words Dalai Lama as if everybody would know who that was and it was a selling point, and the audience’s response was positive.

    Allen, you have a political disagreement with UCLA on this subject, and canceling your monetary contributions to it on those grounds would not be dishonorable.

  8. May 2nd, 2011 at 22:53 | #8

    @Otto Kerner,

    It’s not really UCLA that’s the problem. It’s certain people within UCLA. UCLA is a diseased body; it’s got an infection that has festered. I hope it will be treated soon. Amputation of some parts may be necessary.

    By the way, people close to me (from my temple) actively helped to start UCLA’s Buddhist Studies Center. I helped in my own ways … even though it has actively supported the DL…

    My thing about monetary contribution is rhetorical in nature, but thanks for your advice anyways. There are many causes out there worth attention. My money is only so much, but there are many other ways for me to give back.

  9. May 2nd, 2011 at 22:53 | #9

    For everyone, here ‘s the latest. http://www.international.ucla.edu/buddhist/article.asp?parentid=121036.

    The DL will not attend due to ill health. Too bad, I guess science will have to suffer….

  10. May 2nd, 2011 at 23:14 | #10

    Chancellor Gene Block recently wrote an op-ed arguing that UCLA should be a priority for the State despite the budget shortfalls and economic downturns. He really ought to take an objective look at the school too to see if it’s really the great institution it thinks it is.

    Any great institution is prone to capture by festering special interests … to be a host for others to advance their interests, not an engine that propels us forward.

  11. May 3rd, 2011 at 05:27 | #11

    ““Do you want to hear something that the Dalai Lama says is important about the human brain?” She really hit the words Dalai Lama as if everybody would know who that was and it was a selling point, and the audience’s response was positive.”

    I shudder at the sight of such “science” and “selling point”.

    I call that a Cult of Personality.

    Yes, what does a former serf-owner have to say about the “human brain”?

    Just for kicks, I really like to know what kind of pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo the Living God, the Ocean of Wisdom has to offer. (But I wouldn’t want to pay for it.)

  12. May 3rd, 2011 at 11:30 | #12

    Politics in America is such that Gene Block must scream hell for the cuts to funding. If he doesn’t, he accept responsibilities for all consequences. Internally to UCLA, he has to play ‘victim’ and then force the organization to internalize the $100 million shortfall.

    The students and parents are of course upset at the politicians for ‘forcing’ this upon them.

    It’s blame all around.

    No one is courageous enough to say, let’s size up how much the university should chime in to help with the California budget crisis.

    Rinse and repeat everywhere.

    It’s like America’s responsible leaders never survived to the top any more.

  13. jjilplpijj
    May 3rd, 2011 at 20:16 | #13

    It is not the fault of DL but USA government who want take some advantage to counter down chinese from all the sides more examples as Taiwang, east asian and so on. ULAC is just a gun hold in the govenment and also a shiled.

  14. May 3rd, 2011 at 22:15 | #14

    According to the DL, who showed up at ‘SC today, assassination of Bin Laden is ok.

    According to DL:

    Forgiveness doesn’t mean forget what happened. … If something is serious and it is necessary to take counter-measures, you have to take counter-measures.

    I can justify anything based on that type of childish logic.

    Um, hmm, I can’t forget what those guys did to my villagers when I was a kid. It was serious. They were loan sharks. Took everything we had. So I am taking counter-measures. So I killed them all today…

    Would be more genuine as a true Buddhist to say: the assassination pains me. Hopefully though something good will come of it, hopefully the cycle of violence, of you vs. me will end here. However big the pain people feel, pain that are real, that cause people to want to seek revenge assassination, I hope people will rise above that – that people will not counter attack – so we can break free of this cycle of pain. We are all human beings…

  15. May 3rd, 2011 at 22:54 | #15

    Also, notice how the LA Times article washes history on the little nugget they had to say about it:

    He fled Tibet in 1959 as Chinese forces consolidated control over the country, and has lived in India ever since, frequently traveling the world in support of the Tibetan cause.

    He fled Tibet because he colluded with the CIA in an uprising which failed.

  16. Charles Liu
    May 3rd, 2011 at 23:23 | #16

    For those people who say OBL had it comming, after all he did kill a lot of people, do we not also by extension believe states have the right to preserve sovereignty with violence? From arresting people for public safety reasons, to prosecuting against disloyalty, subversion, all the way to justifiable use of lethal weapon when met with violent riot and armed rebellion that weaken sovereignty and dibiliate society?

    I hope I am not the only one that see the hypocrisy in Western nations’ stance on the undemocratic, violent protests in the middle east.

  17. May 4th, 2011 at 07:16 | #17

    Allen,

    In DL’s defense, his logic is completely in line with the traditional Tibetan philosophy, of “we forgive you, but we will kill you any ways.”

    The documented story of a traditional punishment administered by Tibetan Buddhist Monks was that there is no capital punishment in traditional Tibet, in the sense that the convict is not technically executed by any person.

    The convict is stoned and beatened, then had hands and feet bound, stuffed into a cloth sack, weighed down by rocks, and thrown into a freezing river. The Result is always death.

    The rationale of the punishment is that if Buddha did not have mercy on the convict and save him, then it’s the convict’s own fault.

    But again, it’s not considered Capital Punishment.

    Again, the logic is “we beat and stone you, and we forgive you, but if you die from drowning, we are not going to save you.”

    I guess, you can call it, the Pacifist Buddhist Passive Aggressive Divine Execution Forgiveness program.

    🙂

    Or in opposite of a popular American saying, “People don’t kill People, Guns kill People. Really, it wasn’t me, it was the gun that killed that guy, I was just holding the gun when it killed that guy.”

  18. Otto Kerner
    May 4th, 2011 at 17:26 | #18

    Charles Liu :
    For those people who say OBL had it comming, after all he did kill a lot of people, do we not also by extension believe states have the right to preserve sovereignty with violence? From arresting people for public safety reasons, to prosecuting against disloyalty, subversion, all the way to justifiable use of lethal weapon when met with violent riot and armed rebellion that weaken sovereignty and dibiliate society?

    You have made quite a logical leap. Murder and disloyalty to the state are completely different types of crimes, so supporting punishments for one does not logically demand a similar approach to the other.

  19. Charles Liu
    May 4th, 2011 at 18:00 | #19

    @Otto, how about violent riot or armed rebellion that kill people? Still completely different?

  20. May 5th, 2011 at 06:53 | #20

    For illustrations,

    in 1990’s, when asked about instances of a few bombings of Chinese police buildings in Tibet by ethnic Tibetans, DL stated to NY Times reporter, that he did not consider these as “terrorist attacks”, because they merely targetted the “buildings”. (If there were people inside those buildings, it’s basically too bad.)

    In the aftermath of 2008 riots in Tibet, DL’s spokesman in TGIE used a similar logic, that the riots were “non-violent”, because the burning targetted the “buildings”, and the beating were not intended to “kill”. And if the people inside of the buildings did not run out during the fire, it’s their own fault.

    *

    “Murder and disloyalty to the state are completely different types of crimes”.

    Not according to the still current Patriot Act (now extended).

    “Disloyalty” actions, such as providing ANY material support to terrorists (even for peaceful purposes), will make you the accessory to any murders that link to your “disloyalty”. And in common law, accessory to murder will get you the SAME punishments for murder (unless you have some legal excuse, such as extreme duress).

    No logical leap, it’s in the laws.

  21. May 5th, 2011 at 07:05 | #21

    I do not wish to indulge too much in conspiracy theories, but I merely express a few strategic view of this:

    (1) Bin Laden had to be killed, not captured, because likely, he had dirt on the Saudi’s and the US. Very likely that the Saudis, in fact, demanded that US have Bin Laden shot on sight, instead of dragging him into a public trial.

    (2) I think it’s also likely that Bin Laden planned his own death, and was actually waiting for US to kill him.

  22. pug_ster
    May 5th, 2011 at 08:15 | #22

    A monk justifying of killing of another person is going against his/her own belief. Much like what he said about justifying of CIA funded war against China during the 1960’s.

  23. May 5th, 2011 at 10:14 | #23

    some people, even monks, can justify killing to their own belief.

    DL’s logics are often that of “willful ignorance of consequences”.

    Bombing and burning of “buildings” are seen as somehow UNRELATED to any highly likely deaths that will result.

    Beatings and stonings are considered “non-violent”, because they are seen as somehow UNRELATED to any highly likely deaths that will result.

    Any normal rational person, will see the logical consequences of bombings, burnings, beatings, stonings. (That’s why pretty much all nations have laws that consider these acts as “violent crimes”).

    DL’s logical disconnect is apparent from his own justifications.

    Frankly, I worry about the logical disconnnect of those who still consider him “widely-beloved” (accordingly to Otto).

    I guess there must be some crazies in the world, and they need some “widely-beloved” leaders.

  24. May 5th, 2011 at 10:52 | #24

    http://www.agreatdeception.com/what-has-the-dalai-lama-achieved

    Here are some documented quotes of logic of DL.

  25. May 5th, 2011 at 14:56 | #26

    Interesting, even the Western Shugden Society is Westward facing, presenting websites in languages of the West (and Japanese) – but not Chinese…

  26. May 5th, 2011 at 15:07 | #27

    Because they are being persecuted in the exile community. In China, they are not persecuted.

  27. May 5th, 2011 at 18:17 | #28

    Good point YinYang!

  28. Otto Kerner
    May 5th, 2011 at 19:25 | #29

    I don’t get it. You guys are complete pacifists who oppose the use of force even against murderers? If not, how exactly do your opinions differ from the Dalai Lama’s? Or is it more than you will use any excuse to complain about someone you don’t like?

  29. May 5th, 2011 at 21:31 | #30

    @Otto Kerner,

    To clarify, I personally don’t oppose the use of force against murders like the Dalai Lama.

  30. Charles Liu
    May 5th, 2011 at 23:19 | #31

    @Allen, I actually agree with HH that OBL had it comming. What I find hypocritical is that Western governments at the same time fault the Libyan army for prosecuting against insurrection.

    As an absurd example, if China violates US sovereignty for “surgical removal” of Uyghur terrorist leader Ribyia Kadeer, I can gaurantee you the outcome will be diabolically differernt beyond imagination.

  31. Otto Kerner
    May 5th, 2011 at 23:55 | #32

    Charles,

    Here’s a close parallel to the conversation we’ve had:

    “YOU: For those people who say that murderers should be punished, do we not also by extension believe states have the right to punish thieves? From shoplifting to pickpocketing to fencing to embezzlement to armed robbery to bank heists?

    ME: Murder and theft are completely different types of crimes, so supporting punishments for one does not logically demand a similar approach to the other.

    YOU: How about if someone shoots you and then steals your wallet? Still completely different?”

    Now do you see the logical fallacy you have fallen prey to?

  32. Otto Kerner
    May 6th, 2011 at 00:04 | #33

    Allen :
    @Otto Kerner,
    To clarify, I personally don’t oppose the use of force against murders like the Dalai Lama.

    So, you are choosing option 3 (“is it more than you will use any excuse to complain about someone you don’t like?”) then, correct? In your initial comment on this subject you quoted the Dalai Lama saying something that almost all reasonable people would agree with, and then made some assumptions about what he probably must have meant to imply in order to get some sanctimonious licks in. This is a particularly sad display because you are basically preaching to the choir on this site … I find it hard to imagine you are engaged in rhetorical gambits in order to convince all the neutral lurkers.

  33. May 6th, 2011 at 00:31 | #34

    @Otto Kerner,

    Let’s let the neutral lurkers decide. I blog what I think is right. If the choir likes it, fine. If lurkers like it, great. As for your take of what I write, you are definitely entitled to your personal interpretation.

  34. May 6th, 2011 at 06:10 | #35

    “I don’t get it. You guys are complete pacifists who oppose the use of force even against murderers? If not, how exactly do your opinions differ from the Dalai Lama’s? Or is it more than you will use any excuse to complain about someone you don’t like?”

    I don’t oppose the use of force. I oppose foreign interventionism.

    I do consider that some force are necessary, when limited, justified, deemed legal through multilateral consensus among world nations, NOT when pushed through, shoved down, stretched out to the breaking point of legal interpretations.

    For the DL to support MANY MANY foreign interventions that US and NATO have pushed through, including the Iraq War, (and finding DL’s own involvement in conspiring to overthrow the Bhutan government), I think I have a VASTLY different opinion than DL. (If you can’t see the difference, that’s your own lack of moral distinctions).

    I don’t conspire with any government to overthrow other governments, I don’t try to rationalize unilateral foreign interventions.

  35. May 6th, 2011 at 06:26 | #36

    Otto,

    “How about if someone shoots you and then steals your wallet? Still completely different?”

    That’s just ridiculous rationalization. Armed riots are not even close to “stealing wallets”.

    But in your case, you are still wrong about laws.

    ARMED robbery DOES becomes attempted murder, if there is actual volition to shoot first with the intent to injure or maim in furtherance of a robbery.

    The “ultimate intent” of theft does not lessen the immediate criminal intent to “shoot first”. You don’t get the excuse of “I shot the guy, because I really just wanted that $1 out of his pocket.”

    So, yes, if You shoot someone 1st to steal his wallet, you are guilty of attempted MURDER! (which in common law, carries the same degree penalty as actual MURDER in the 1st degree, that is MURDER with malice and forethought).

    *Accidental killing in an armed robbery is ALSO MURDER!! (It’s called FELONY MURDER, which is killing of another human being WHILE committing a FELONY crime).

    FELONY MURDERS carries the same penalty as actual MURDER in the 1st degree.

  36. May 6th, 2011 at 06:46 | #37

    http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-wikileaks-statistics/

    The Dalai Lama Wikileaks – Curious Statistics
    The recent release of US State Department cables by whistle-blowing website Wikileaks.org has revealed some curious statistics in relation to the Tibetans in exile.

    Clearly, Tibet and the Dalai Lama are at the centre of a propaganda war between the United States and Communist China. In virtually all western media, the Tibetans are portrayed like the Ewoks from Star Wars – as cute, cuddly, harmless and deeply spiritual – while the Chinese are demonized – sinophobic charicatures like Ming the Merciless from Flash Gordon spring to Mind. This media distortion has been carefully orchestrated with the US’s vested interests in mind. A closer analysis of the Wikileaks cables reveals statistics that challenge this popular myth.

    In one cable it reveals that far from being pacifists, most of the Tibetans serve in the military. The cables states:

    ‘Most Tibetan men in northeastern India join the SFF [Special Frontier Force]. In Gangtok, […] the majority of men work for the SFF; and in Ravangla, 90% of the Tibetan families have at least one family member serving.’

    That so many Tibetans serve in the military may come as a shock to some readers, and they may perhaps think this must be a recent development, quite unusual for the Tibetans. Such a view would only demonstrate how deeply effective the Dalai Lama’s efforts to rewrite Tibetan history have been. In his illuminating article ‘Vegetarian between Meals: The Dalai Lama, War, and Violence’, Professor Barry Sautman presents facts that are in stark contrast with the picture the Dalai Lama likes to paint. Professor Sautman provides references for every statement he makes, his sources are listed below.

    ‘The Dalai Lama has said “the people of Tibet are, by their nature, honest, gentle and kind,” that “Tibetan culture is a compassionate and non-violent culture” and “under the kings and Dalai Lamas . . . peace and happiness prevailed in Tibet.”20 He has also stated that “Tibetan culture [is] based on peaceful relations,”21 and that “before 1950, Tibet was completely a land of peace.”22

    Tibetans, including monks, have however long borne arms against outsiders and each other in wars between rulers or Buddhist sects.31 The “Great Fifth” Dalai Lama “ferociously annihilated enemies and their families.”32 Tibetan armies warred in Ladakh in 1679–84 and in Bhutan many times in the eighteenth century, against Zunghar Mongols in 1720, Nepal from 1788 to 1792 and 1854 to 1858, Ladakh in 1842, and Britain in 1904.33 From the late eighteenth century, the ancien régime had a standing army,34 and in the early twentieth century, the “Great Thirteenth” had a ministry of war oversee his British-trained army. He advised Tibetans that, “where [peaceful means] are not appropriate, [they should] not hesitate to resort to more forceful means.”35 The present Dalai Lama has noted that the Thirteenth did “raise an army, train it as best as possible. Just between us, this isn’t strictly practicing nonviolence.”36 During World War I, the Thirteenth offered his British patrons one thousand troops,37 and in 1920 he dispatched his army to help the murderously racist Russian baron Roman von Ungern-Sternberg assault Mongolia’s capital.38

    In Eastern Tibet, in the first half of the twentieth century, Lhasa’s army fought Tibetans led by eastern chieftains and both fought non-Tibetan warlord armies.39 “People from Kham fought around 400–500 major battles both against the Chinese and the Lhasa government, between 1911 and 1935. These armed guerrilla forces increasingly occupied the central Tibetan military. The fighting intensified after the death of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama in 1933 and the eastern Tibetans, moreover, sought a separate state, independent from any Han and central Tibetan control.”40 Violent conflicts occurred in Tibet right up to the old regime’s fall.41 Some 10 to 15 percent of monks at three large Lhasa monasteries were “fighting monks” (dobdob) who had access to guns; more generally “lamas had their own courts and prisons, and often organized their own militias and possessed thousands of guns and horses.”42 In a 1947 civil war, thousands of monks fought with artillery and guns and as many as three hundred died.43

    To illustrate just how militarized the Tibetan people were, Professor Sautman provides us with a statistical comparison to the present United States military:

    In 1950 the Tibetan army had twelve thousand troops for a region of 1.2 million people.44 The United States, with 761 bases abroad, has only half that proportion of its people under arms.45

    The carefully crafted image of the Dalai Lama as a benign spiritual leader, and of Tibet as a Shangri-la, is a weapon in the CIA’s propaganda war. The Dalai Lama has knowingly colluded with the myth-building about himself and Tibet. A more realistic assessment of the present Dalai Lama, and the Dalai Lamas through history can be found in ‘A Great Deception’.

  37. May 6th, 2011 at 06:53 | #38

    http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/photos/dalai-lama-monks-robes/

    With respect to organising protests, the Dalai Lama and his representatives refer to the protests as ‘spontaneous’. However, in a telegram from the New Delhi Embassy dated 30 March 1967, we can see that the Bureau of the Dalai Lama privately admit that they were involved in organising these ‘spontaneous’ protests.

    With respect to exploiting natural disasters – such as floods and earthquakes – for political gain, a telegram from the US Embassy in Calcutta, dated 8 January 1955, describes a ‘Tibetan Flood Relief Commitee’ set up by the Tibetans in exile. The telegram makes it clear that the benefits of supporting the relief effort are to win a propaganda coup over the Chinese communists and to support the resistence fighters positions. Furthermore, the telegram explicitly reveals that the ‘tibetan exiles conceived TFRC principally as a psychological tactic against Chinese communists.

    With respect to using teaching visits as a political strategy against China, a United States Government Office Memorandum dated 21 February 1952 contains fascinating information. The context of the memo is a discussion of how best to respond to the Dalai Lama’s request for US assistance against the Chinese Communists. The Dalai Lama’s request was brought by his brother Taktse Rimpche. In the memo a discussion between various interested parties, including the CIA, is referenced. The CIA went on to formulate and fund a strategy of anti-communist propaganda with the Dalai Lama that included sponsoring him personally, and well as establishing Tibet Houses on his behalf in various locations and encouraging him to teach widely. In the discussion mentioned in this memo, they describe organising a teaching tour by distinguished Buddhist leaders as:

  38. May 6th, 2011 at 07:05 | #39

    “Because they are being persecuted in the exile community. In China, they are not persecuted.”

    While I do think the Shugden followers are not persecuted in China, (indeed, China probably considers them less suspicious, since their link to DL is now at all time low), I find Shugden followers a curious mix of self-marketing people.

    Western Shugden followers portray themselves as the true Independent Tibet movement, and casts DL as traitor, dictator, and a relic of feudalistic past.

    In some ways, I agree with the Shugden followers.

    If a Tibetan is truly interested in independent (or autonomous) Tibet, DL is a relic that is dragging the Tibetan society behind.

    DL’s presence as a symbol does not promote democracy, It holds onto theocracy.

    There is no diversity of political philosophy in Tibetan Exile Community, there is only loyalty to the DL (because perhaps he is so widely beloved).

    *But there is also a dread in Shugden’s own doctrines. If DL is a relic, then Tibet has no modern cultural identity, because DL is in Tibet’s core identity.

    The problem is, DL as Tibet’s core identity is a myth, which was carefully crafted by DL and the Exile government, to serve as a point of unity for Tibetans in Exile.

    But it is a myth, because DL himself was not able to bring Tibet into unity before 1949. (“Eastern Tibet” fought many wars against DL’s regime prior to 1940).

    Without DL as the point of unity, then what is Tibet? Tibet doesn’t exist, except in its pre-1940 fractured disintegrated dis-unified condition, where regional warlords fought each other and against DL.

    In any case, the Shugden’s arguments are ultimately self-defeating, because they also defeat the entire Exile’s myth of the “Greater independent Tibet”.

  39. May 6th, 2011 at 07:46 | #40

    I strongly encourage readers to go through http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/, and read through all the material they posted.

    There are a lot of declassified US government documents on US involvement, especially the planning, discussions, for the 1959 “armed uprising”. Some of these planning began as early as 1950, to secretly fund the “uprising”, and the preparations on what would be done when it happens.

    And it was not nearly as “spontaneous” as it was claimed by the TGIE.

    BTW, I think the word “spontaneous” coming from TGIE is on my words-to-chuckle-at list.

    If that 1959 “armed uprising” was “spontaneous”, then it was “spontaneously crushed” by the Chinese government who “spontaneously gathered” its army, and the Chinese army won “spontaneously” popular “spontaneous” support of the People in Tibet.

    Hence, China has “spontaneous sovereignty” over Tibet.

    🙂

  40. Bob
    May 6th, 2011 at 08:15 | #41

    Good find, RV.

    Dalai Lama is and has always been a political tool of the West to annoy China. If one cannot see that, he/she is either a moron or a tool him/herself.

  41. May 6th, 2011 at 11:27 | #42

    Dalai Lama History

    The Dalai Lama with the Tibetan Guerrillas

    In an interview with The Guardian in November 1963, Surkhang Wanchuk Galeh (who had been a member of the Tibetan Cabinet for 18 years and who the newspaper described as ‘the key figure of the 1956-9 Tibetan revolt’) claimed that he first laid plans for rebellion among the Khampas when travelling with the Dalai Lama through Kham on their way to Lhasa. In 1958, said Surkhang, he persuaded the Dalai Lama to feed and equip the Khampas from secret arsenals, making the revolt nation-wide.’

  42. Charles Liu
    May 6th, 2011 at 12:55 | #43

    @Otto Kerner

    Otto, you are the one who made logical leap, you imagined people said kill thieves. Read what I wrote again – arrest for public disorder, prosecution for subversion, justifiable use of deadly force when met with violent riot and armed rebellion, did you miss that?

    No one said they are the same.

  43. May 6th, 2011 at 16:23 | #44

    @raventhorn2000 #40,

    I would like to add: according to this framework, Bin Laden also “spontaneously combusted” a few days ago…

  44. May 6th, 2011 at 16:27 | #45

    @Charles #31,

    You wrote:

    @Allen, I actually agree with HH that OBL had it comming.

    And I have no problem with that attitude, too. In fact, most of my friends here in the U.S. hold that attitude. I have no quarrel with anyone who thinks the killing of OBL is a cause for celebration.

    My quarrel with HH is that as a supposed teacher, spiritual guide, the “living Buddah” himself – the spawning of this eye for an eye type logic is not becoming of a man of such official “stature.”

  45. May 6th, 2011 at 22:30 | #46

    In this thread, HH is referring to the Dalai Lama (“His Holiness”) and not Hidden Harmonies.

    Regardless of ones political views about the Dalai Lama, given China’s trajectory, I believe this guy will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

    Once he passes where he is no longer usable as a political tool in the West, the West’s interest will wane. Everybody will move on.

  46. May 9th, 2011 at 06:24 | #47

    “Bin Laden also “spontaneously combusted” a few days ago…”

    I would modify that further:

    Bin Laden performed an act of “spontaneous martyrdom”, when he (unarmed) spontaneously put his own face in front of the Navy Seal’s bullet, thus protecting the US 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.

    That means Bin Laden is now eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize. (Afterall, just like for DL, we should forget all Bin Laden’s past atrocities and what his followers are doing. Really, in his last 6 years, Bin Laden was just an unarmed Holy Man (widely “beloved” outside of West) preaching Peace in Exile, right?! LOL!)

  47. May 9th, 2011 at 06:31 | #48

    All seriously,

    “had it coming” is a bit generalized. All soldiers should expect death. Bin Laden certainly knew well what he was getting into.

    All soldiers are expendable in wars. It is the price of lives that we pay for our inability to reach peace.

    No one deserves death, no one deserves Wars.

    Suffering is the price we pay for our ignorance and pride, and our worldly attachments. That is the Wisdom of Buddha.

    – for Buddha’s 2500 birth day.

  48. May 9th, 2011 at 09:32 | #49

    @raventhorn2000,

    Good of you to notice the coming of Buddha’s birthday – which is held in many places on 4/8 Chinese lunar calendar. It often falls around Mother’s day…

  49. May 9th, 2011 at 10:25 | #50

    I only mention Buddha as a point of philosophical comparison. I do not necessarily subscribe to any religions, but nevertheless, I consider philosophies of all religions as relevant to issues of morality.

    🙂

  50. Dorje Shugden practitioner
    May 26th, 2011 at 16:45 | #51

    @raventhorn2000

    Hi,

    As a Western Shugden Society (WSS) supporter, I’d like to clarify that the WSS was created to advocate for the religious freedom of Dorje Shugden practitioners – Buddhists who follow a traditional practice now banned by the Dalai Lama. The objectives as stated on the WSS homepage:

    1. To free practitioners who rely upon the enlightened deity Dorje Shugden and their families from suffering;
    2. To restore peace and harmony between Shugden and non-Shugden practitioners;
    3. To re-establish the common spiritual activities of Shugden and non-Shugden practitioners in Tibetan monasteries;
    4. To free Buddhism from pollution by politics.

    Particularly considering the last point, the WSS does not wish to “portray themselves as the true Independent Tibet movement” as stated in the above (#39) post. If this is the impression that was made, this is not the intention.

    The facts presented on the site and in the book “A Great Deception” are important because the ban is not based on reason but on the Dalai Lama’s reputation as a peaceful Buddhist leader.  This reputation gives the Dalai Lama unquestioned power to promote anti-democratic measures within his community and engage in actions that dishonour his Spiritual Teachers.  If clarity is not found at this level, his reputation will continue to serve as the foundation for the ban.

    Unfortunately, despite repeated attempts over many years, the Dalai Lama has never responded to a single request for dialogue.  For this reason the website and book have been published to connect with a wider audience to explain the validity of Dorje Shugden practice and the injustices that are occurring.  

    http://www.westernshugdensociety.org/
    http://www.agreatdeception.com/

    The information is not intended to take away from the struggles of those who wish for political change, but simply to restore religious freedom to millions of Buddhists who have faithfully relied on the Wisdom Buddha Dorje Shugden for centuries.

    Thanks for the opportunity to clarify and best wishes to all.

  51. May 28th, 2011 at 14:26 | #52

    @Dorje Shugden Practitioner #51,

    Thanks for the clarification.

    I will neither support nor refute what you wrote, since I know little about Dorje Shugden – Dalai Lama conflict.

    However, in your understanding of Buddhism as a religion, philosophy, and way of life, do you think not indulging in politics will impinge in any way the way you practice Buddhism?

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.