Thursday, March 20, 2008

"Hey Preacher Man!"

So when do you think the Dalai Lama will accept that his five decade "middle-way" non-violence wank has been an absolute failure? (IC, Mail & Guardian)

Is it just me or are there other folks who got excited when he threatened to resign?

Resign from what though?

Does he really think that his tired message of peace through non-violence, and conditional occupation under China, is what Tibetans are demonstrating for?

Damn, I wish he would take his Nobel Peace Prize, his Congressional Medal of Honour, his boy Richard Gere, and his non-violence crap and resign from his self-promoting delusions already.

Onward!

Ps. The picture above is of a demonstrator taking down the Chinese flag and putting up the Tibetan flag.

8 comments:

Erica said...

I like Richard Gere! Wasn't he the one who pimped Julia Roberts out in that movie? LOL

Ridwan said...

Yes he was Erica :0)

And the Dalai Lama has been pimping him, or the other way around, for what seems like decades now.

The Dalai Lama is adept at selling 'eastern spirituality' to his western clients.

Ridwan

Dade said...

Ridwan,

How can the Dalai Lama abandon peace through non-violence? He is, by the Buddhist way of believing, the latest incarnation of Buddha.

Dade

nunya said...

timeline of buddhist history

Ridwan said...

Thanks for your comment Dade.

My understanding is that he is not the latest incarnation of Buddha but the embodiment of one of the forms of Avalokiteśvara as preferenced in Tibetan Budhism.

The lineage of the present Dalai Lama (#14) is traced back through previous Dalai Lamas (tulku).

But that said I recognize that non-violence is mostly inseparable from his spiritual life.

But brother I am focused on his political relevance which is different and clearly at odds among
Tibetans in occupied Tibet who do not seem to be favouring his non-violent accomodation of China.

That the Dalai Lama will want Tibet to be nominally independent is a major problem.

But even as he speaks of non-violence he has hardly sought to stand against the war in Iraq.

Instead he is uber-US friendly. He garners great support from the West, like PM Gordon Brown today, and Nancy Pelosi today too.

His message and methods are at odds in my opinion. This includes the manner that he smoozes with Hollywood money types to sell his brandname.

I am not a fan of the Dalai Lama, obviously.

During apartheid we did not hear one peep from him.

I do not think he is a CIA agent as some have said. I do not think that he uses the money he raises selfishly.

Though I have seen the man's security detail and saw the 5star hotel he stayed in during a visit to PDX. Made me wonder just a little about his earthly detail.

Even Gandhi, who I also have no great love for, was no Dalai Lama in terms of the lavish detail that follows his global ministry.

That aside, I find his political methods uncompelling.

In fact, I am in the camp that believes Tibet's future must be seen as independent of the Dalai Lama.

He is starting to recognize that even as he is trying to convince Beijing to meet with him.

As far as his religious role is concerned that is a matter between believers of Tibetan Budhism.

But just like I do not accept the role of some personages in Islam, I think there are those who do not see the Dalai Lama as central to the future of political independence in Tibet.

Nontheless brother, I hear your question.

Peace,
Ridwan

Ridwan said...

Thanks for the link Nunya I will take a look at it.

I forgot to say above that when he accepted the the United States Congressional Gold Medal (17 October 2007) I was hoping he would refuse it for every innocent Iraqi that had to die as a result of that body's involvement and sanction of the war on innocents.

And even though I also say above that I do not think he is a CIA agent it is important to note that the CIA did fund his movement in the 1960s (he admitted so much).

The CIA also helped train resistance fighters for him in the US.

This makes me question his stance of nonviolence. Keep in mind that he has also said that violence may be permissible in some cases (to save Buddhism for example).

In 2001 he also said: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

He is, of course, mostly thought to be a proponent of living in harmony and peace.

But harmony and non-violence cannot be about bending principles so far back that it defeats the purpose of justice.

Peace,
ridwan

Dade said...

Thanks for your explanation, Ridwan. I have definitely learned a lot from you, and I appreciate it.

As you know, I'm an avid reader of your blog. I look forward to reading it most days.

Ridwan said...

Dade my brother I always look forward to your input and couple that with frequent trips over to your blog! Thank you for your always constructive and thoughtful input here.

You question above made me think what else the Dalai Lama could do and I went to read on his website.

I think that he is taking the only option that fits with his cause. Even though I disagree with the notion of default non-violence there is very little he can do now.

His insistence on not calling for independence is, as he says, an option not to worsen the relations between China and India.

And, he sees it as a realistic appraisal of what would happen if he called for independence.

He does not want to loose more lives on top of the tens of thousands that died when China invaded Tibet.

Still, he speaks of cultural genocide. I think eventually he will have to see that genocide as violent and wonder if his people are not being eliminated.

A very complex arena no doubt.

Thanks for making me think Dade.

Peace,
Ridwan