Why it's not the Dalai Lama's job to break the silence on Tibet

[Ensapa]

It seems that some people are disappointed with the Dalai Lama. This is new as nobody would ever talk this way before. for decades nobody dares undermine the Dalai Lama but now people are beginning to understand what the Dalai Lama institution really is and they are starting to question. Perhaps this sets the motion for a new movement?

Why it's not the Dalai Lama's job to break the silence on Tibet
There's no reason to expect religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama to be political operators, it's not their world



Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 08.30 BST

The Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader, leaves St. Paul's Cathedral in London after receiving the 2012 Templeton Prize. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
The Free Tibet campaign is calling on world leaders to "break the silence", claiming they "continue to refrain from publicly speaking out for Tibet". The embarrassing problem is that there is someone else who, if not silent, is not nearly as vocal as many would like him to be: the Dalai Lama. His criticisms of China remain far too muted for many. On this tour, the regime has not been the subject of his speeches and the comments he has made have only been in response to questions. Over the years, his calls for more autonomy have fallen short of the demand for independence that many seek.

Perhaps the Dalai Lama should be more outspoken. But whether he is right or wrong, his critics have misguided expectations, as do many of his supporters. The Dalai Lama should not be blamed for being a poor political leader because that his not his job. Even if it were, since he was given it on the basis of a selection process that makes hereditary monarchy look sensible, failure would hardly be his responsibility anyway.

There are all sorts of reasons, some honourable, some less so, why religious leaders avoid difficult political issues. One is that their kingdoms are not of this earth, so why should they bother? We in the west should know this because of one great religious leader who famously refused to fulfil his followers' expectations and lead a revolt against the hated Roman occupiers. Jesus was more concerned with a revolution of the heart than one against the state, and in that respect the Dalai Lama is the same. Even a cursory knowledge of Buddhism should lead us to expect that bringing about political change is much less important than the pursuit of enlightenment. Politics only becomes relevant at all when there is a need to confront secular power to reduce suffering.

Less honourably, religious leaders have more often than not accommodated themselves to political realities in order to survive, even if that means forming unholy alliances. Again, we in the west have plenty of examples. Even the most devout Roman Catholic would have to admit, for example, that the church did not acquit itself well during the years of fascism signing the Lateran treaty with Mussolini in 1929 and a concordat with Hitler in 1933.

Religious leaders often just don't have the skills or knowledge to play the political game. They perform best when they stick to righteous pleas for peace, love, understanding and forgiveness to prevail. When the only real choices available require anything remotely nasty or confrontational, they find themselves unable to speak, perhaps because to do so would require admitting that sometimes calling for peace just isn't enough.

One reason we shouldn't think the Dalai Lama should be a cannier political operator is the mode in which he was appointed. The whole system of reincarnated lamas is dubious to say the least. It is born from a 12th-century adaptation to accommodate traditions specific to Tibet, rather than original Buddism. Thus, to criticise Lhamo Dondrub, as the Dalai Lama was called as a boy, for not growing up to be a better political leader is like criticising Prince Charles for not growing up to be a better prince: the failings are real in both cases but it is hardly the fault of the men concerned.

Disappointment in the Dalai Lama tells us more about the unrealistic expectations of the critics than it does the failings of the man himself. Few are as crass as Russell Brand, who said the Dalai Lama is a "holy man, it's not pretend authority, it's proper authority of God!". But even those who understand a bit more than this often fall for the idea that he must be some kind of special, deeply spiritual person, when in fact he's simply someone who met the criteria for a superstitious identification test as a child.

Looking for good, wise political leadership from the Dalai Lama, or any other religious leader, is like looking for the next Jimi Hendrix on Britain's Got Talent: you might just succeed, but you'd be a fool to expect it.

[Big Uncle]

Thanks Ensapa. That was quite an interesting and unusual perspective on the Dalai Lama. I like certain parts of the article though.

The Dalai Lama should not be blamed for being a poor political leader because that is not his job.

I think the Dalai Lama is a great leader but what he's trying to achieve is beyond Tibet and just mere politics. He travels around the world as a religious leader but he would weave a Buddhist message into almost everything he say and do. Anyway, he has retired from his political role and when he travels now, he would mostly convey religious messages only. 

It is often said that he advocated the ban for political reasons. I beg to defer because it has made more enemies for him than ever before. The ban is an unusual anomaly because it has alienated many Tibetans and it was a tremendous dent on his reputation. He has even gone to court for it and although he won, the reputation remains. Yes, the ban seems to only fit into the bigger picture perspective.

However, I wonder what's next for the Dorje Shugden ban. How's it going to end and what would be the circumstances for it to be lifted. The ideal way for the ban to be lifted is through the Dalai Lama's own volition and that means the Dalai Lama himself calls it off. Unfortunately, there's a bigger chance that the ban would only be lifted naturally when the Dalai Lama leaves his body. Right now, we can only speculate but whatever it is, I hope the ban would be lifted soon.

[Positive Change]

This is a most interesting article. Well written with the right amount of wit interspersed with factual information. What really struck me were the last two paragraphs:

Disappointment in the Dalai Lama tells us more about the unrealistic expectations of the critics than it does the failings of the man himself. Few are as crass as Russell Brand, who said the Dalai Lama is a "holy man, it's not pretend authority, it's proper authority of God!". But even those who understand a bit more than this often fall for the idea that he must be some kind of special, deeply spiritual person, when in fact he's simply someone who met the criteria for a superstitious identification test as a child.

Looking for good, wise political leadership from the Dalai Lama, or any other religious leader, is like looking for the next Jimi Hendrix on Britain's Got Talent: you might just succeed, but you'd be a fool to expect it.

It is all about expectations really isn't it? How we expect one to be, one to act and one to respond. But we fail to look within ourselves to see the true nature of this very "non-action" on our part. It is really 'passing the buck mentality' or worse still, something tantamount to being 'inert'!

HHDL is really truly a spiritual person in all respects and a very highly regarded one at that! But to use HHDL's spiritual magnitude to champion a political cause is from the the onset a wrong way of going about the whole issue already . Surely people realise this but why are they still trying to push this method forwards? Inertness and 'passing the buck' again comes to mind.

The only way I see this whole Tibet issue moving forward is really to have CTA find their morale and morality back and use the political gauntlet handed back skillfully by HHDL. Time to use is CTA. What are you waiting for? If you need someone's hand to hold, hold the hands of the nation, the Tibetans that need your very guidance now! Stand up for their constitutional rights which have been waylaid for so long...

[michaela]

I found this article very interesting.  Firstly, I always thought that HHDL was a decent diplomat and political leader regardless of the manner in which he was chosen.  Those with lesser ability would not have been able to obtain support and symphaty from many world leaders and attracted so much attention to Tibetan cause.  The fact that HHDL was successful in convincing the Indian government to provide Tibetans with asylum and maintained the status of government in exile in itself is a huge achievement.

But firstly perhaps the initial expectations itself on the objective of the Tibetan movement.  As Tibetan was a very close nation and even before the Chinese occupation, they did not even bother to obtain recognition of their independence from the world organization such as the United Nations.  Tibet was very detached from the whole world. 

Tibetan military powers is definitely not comparables to those of the Chinese, and they have little to offer to other countries to fight for their cause.  No matter how charismatic HHDL is, or was when he was a political leader, each country will calculate what benefit will they get if they support Tibetan independence cause. 

[DharmaDefender]

It seems that some people are disappointed with the Dalai Lama. This is new as nobody would ever talk this way before. for decades nobody dares undermine the Dalai Lama but now people are beginning to understand what the Dalai Lama institution really is and they are starting to question. Perhaps this sets the motion for a new movement?

Why it's not the Dalai Lama's job to break the silence on Tibet
There's no reason to expect religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama to be political operators, it's not their world



Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 08.30 BST

The Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader, leaves St. Paul's Cathedral in London after receiving the 2012 Templeton Prize. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
The Free Tibet campaign is calling on world leaders to "break the silence", claiming they "continue to refrain from publicly speaking out for Tibet". The embarrassing problem is that there is someone else who, if not silent, is not nearly as vocal as many would like him to be: the Dalai Lama. His criticisms of China remain far too muted for many. On this tour, the regime has not been the subject of his speeches and the comments he has made have only been in response to questions. Over the years, his calls for more autonomy have fallen short of the demand for independence that many seek.

Perhaps the Dalai Lama should be more outspoken. But whether he is right or wrong, his critics have misguided expectations, as do many of his supporters. The Dalai Lama should not be blamed for being a poor political leader because that his not his job. Even if it were, since he was given it on the basis of a selection process that makes hereditary monarchy look sensible, failure would hardly be his responsibility anyway.

There are all sorts of reasons, some honourable, some less so, why religious leaders avoid difficult political issues. One is that their kingdoms are not of this earth, so why should they bother? We in the west should know this because of one great religious leader who famously refused to fulfil his followers' expectations and lead a revolt against the hated Roman occupiers. Jesus was more concerned with a revolution of the heart than one against the state, and in that respect the Dalai Lama is the same. Even a cursory knowledge of Buddhism should lead us to expect that bringing about political change is much less important than the pursuit of enlightenment. Politics only becomes relevant at all when there is a need to confront secular power to reduce suffering.

Less honourably, religious leaders have more often than not accommodated themselves to political realities in order to survive, even if that means forming unholy alliances. Again, we in the west have plenty of examples. Even the most devout Roman Catholic would have to admit, for example, that the church did not acquit itself well during the years of fascism signing the Lateran treaty with Mussolini in 1929 and a concordat with Hitler in 1933.

Religious leaders often just don't have the skills or knowledge to play the political game. They perform best when they stick to righteous pleas for peace, love, understanding and forgiveness to prevail. When the only real choices available require anything remotely nasty or confrontational, they find themselves unable to speak, perhaps because to do so would require admitting that sometimes calling for peace just isn't enough.

One reason we shouldn't think the Dalai Lama should be a cannier political operator is the mode in which he was appointed. The whole system of reincarnated lamas is dubious to say the least. It is born from a 12th-century adaptation to accommodate traditions specific to Tibet, rather than original Buddism. Thus, to criticise Lhamo Dondrub, as the Dalai Lama was called as a boy, for not growing up to be a better political leader is like criticising Prince Charles for not growing up to be a better prince: the failings are real in both cases but it is hardly the fault of the men concerned.

Disappointment in the Dalai Lama tells us more about the unrealistic expectations of the critics than it does the failings of the man himself. Few are as crass as Russell Brand, who said the Dalai Lama is a "holy man, it's not pretend authority, it's proper authority of God!". But even those who understand a bit more than this often fall for the idea that he must be some kind of special, deeply spiritual person, when in fact he's simply someone who met the criteria for a superstitious identification test as a child.

Looking for good, wise political leadership from the Dalai Lama, or any other religious leader, is like looking for the next Jimi Hendrix on Britain's Got Talent: you might just succeed, but you'd be a fool to expect it.

How can you expect someone who brands himself a simple monk, to lead an entire nation? Not saying that His Holiness isnt up to it, but religion and politics dont match. Plus, the guys a bodhisattva and hes got his vows...hows he supposed to compete with other politicians who are more politically ruthless than him?

Having said that, dont totally agree with this:

Religious leaders often just don't have the skills or knowledge to play the political game. They perform best when they stick to righteous pleas for peace, love, understanding and forgiveness to prevail. When the only real choices available require anything remotely nasty or confrontational, they find themselves unable to speak, perhaps because to do so would require admitting that sometimes calling for peace just isn't enough.

(1) please for peace, love, understanding and forgiveness are not righteous. If more people had the same call and same practices, thered be a lot less hostility in the world

(2) the Dalai Lama is never unable to speak on anything nasty or confrontational. When your faced with something nasty and confrontational, whats wrong with diffusing the situation with a teaching on peace? Anyhow, maybe the guys not read about the Dorje Shugden ban? Pretty nasty ban, seems to me

Anyway I wouldnt take this blokes opinion to mean much. Hes hardly an authority on Tibet, Buddhism or Tibetan politics. Its like asking a backwater Amazonian to comment on Naropas six yogas...not going to work.

[Ensapa]

I do have some comments on her article, which is a very refreshing view of HHDL that is not biased or polarized, but just lacks knowledge and exposure on HHDL's history, roles and functions.

Why it's not the Dalai Lama's job to break the silence on Tibet
There's no reason to expect religious leaders such as the Dalai Lama to be political operators, it's not their world



Julian Baggini
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 June 2012 08.30 BST

The Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhist spiritual leader, leaves St. Paul's Cathedral in London after receiving the 2012 Templeton Prize. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP
The Free Tibet campaign is calling on world leaders to "break the silence", claiming they "continue to refrain from publicly speaking out for Tibet". The embarrassing problem is that there is someone else who, if not silent, is not nearly as vocal as many would like him to be: the Dalai Lama. His criticisms of China remain far too muted for many. On this tour, the regime has not been the subject of his speeches and the comments he has made have only been in response to questions. Over the years, his calls for more autonomy have fallen short of the demand for independence that many seek.
And that is why the CTA has a role called the Katri or Kalon Tripa, or Prime minister in our lingo to represent the Tibetans politically. But sadly the current one is not doing a very good job at voicing out their opinions, or speaking up for the Tibetan cause for that matter. But someone has to do it and somehow it falls on HHDL's hands to do so...
Perhaps the Dalai Lama should be more outspoken. But whether he is right or wrong, his critics have misguided expectations, as do many of his supporters. The Dalai Lama should not be blamed for being a poor political leader because that his not his job. Even if it were, since he was given it on the basis of a selection process that makes hereditary monarchy look sensible, failure would hardly be his responsibility anyway.
His role as a political leader ended when Tibet was lost. During that time, Tibet was still very fragmented, and the only glue that  held them together was the Dalai Lama. Now, that glue has been replaced by the Tibetan's thirst for their own cultural identity that they would stop being divided over which region they came from. Therefore, when HHDL said he will not return as he is no longer needed, I understood why.

There are all sorts of reasons, some honourable, some less so, why religious leaders avoid difficult political issues. One is that their kingdoms are not of this earth, so why should they bother? We in the west should know this because of one great religious leader who famously refused to fulfil his followers' expectations and lead a revolt against the hated Roman occupiers. Jesus was more concerned with a revolution of the heart than one against the state, and in that respect the Dalai Lama is the same. Even a cursory knowledge of Buddhism should lead us to expect that bringing about political change is much less important than the pursuit of enlightenment. Politics only becomes relevant at all when there is a need to confront secular power to reduce suffering.

In an odd way, she is right. HHDL cares more for the growth of the Dharma and the Tibetan independence is but a minor speck in his agenda because the benefit it has is only for the Tibetans and not for the world. But out of kindness and to appease the insecurity of the Tibetans, he has compassionately stick a finger or two into this to show them that he cares....even if it means giving him more trouble.

Less honourably, religious leaders have more often than not accommodated themselves to political realities in order to survive, even if that means forming unholy alliances. Again, we in the west have plenty of examples. Even the most devout Roman Catholic would have to admit, for example, that the church did not acquit itself well during the years of fascism signing the Lateran treaty with Mussolini in 1929 and a concordat with Hitler in 1933.

Religious leaders often just don't have the skills or knowledge to play the political game. They perform best when they stick to righteous pleas for peace, love, understanding and forgiveness to prevail. When the only real choices available require anything remotely nasty or confrontational, they find themselves unable to speak, perhaps because to do so would require admitting that sometimes calling for peace just isn't enough.
Fortunately, many high lamas have intricate understanding of the human mind and they can easily control/subjugate anyone that they would like, and usually to take control of a country or situation, they need only control the ruler of the land and most of them can do this effortlessly. Look at Sakya Pandita and the 3rd Dalai Lama. Where is your politics now?

One reason we shouldn't think the Dalai Lama should be a cannier political operator is the mode in which he was appointed. The whole system of reincarnated lamas is dubious to say the least. It is born from a 12th-century adaptation to accommodate traditions specific to Tibet, rather than original Buddism. Thus, to criticise Lhamo Dondrub, as the Dalai Lama was called as a boy, for not growing up to be a better political leader is like criticising Prince Charles for not growing up to be a better prince: the failings are real in both cases but it is hardly the fault of the men concerned.
The tulku system was started to enable Lamas to come back and start their training and teaching faster as opposed to having a political function, which is an unfortunate side effect of this system.

Disappointment in the Dalai Lama tells us more about the unrealistic expectations of the critics than it does the failings of the man himself. Few are as crass as Russell Brand, who said the Dalai Lama is a "holy man, it's not pretend authority, it's proper authority of God!". But even those who understand a bit more than this often fall for the idea that he must be some kind of special, deeply spiritual person, when in fact he's simply someone who met the criteria for a superstitious identification test as a child.
Or the fact of a lot of propaganda about HHDL in the world that makes HHDL appear to be larger than life, and due to the fact that a lot of people tend to just drink in without investigation

Looking for good, wise political leadership from the Dalai Lama, or any other religious leader, is like looking for the next Jimi Hendrix on Britain's Got Talent: you might just succeed, but you'd be a fool to expect it.
If he chooses to, he could even be the universal emperor aka lords of all nations, and this is proven by him uniting the very fragmented and barbaric people of Tibet.

Nice viewpoints, but lack facts. This is good as it marks a trend that is moving away from just blind belief in propaganda, that some people are starting to think and investigate for themselves on the Dalai Lama.