I read this article posted in this website What would Thomas Jefferson think of the 14th Dalai Lama? http://dorjeshugden.com/wp/?p=6322... Here's an excerpt from the article :
In 1779 Thomas Jefferson laid out his vision for religious freedom in a bill which would later be passed by the assembly of the state of Virginia in 1786. Two excerpts from this remarkable exposition will serve to highlight a line of reasoning that seems particularly prescient in light of recent events within the Tibetan Buddhist community (as will be argued later).
In them, Jefferson proclaims:
“that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right”
“that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it”
In these passages, Jefferson clearly identifies a particular danger inherent in any effort of merging the religious and political spheres. First, such an unhealthy marriage can easily led to a corrosion of the natural and civil rights of citizens. But even beyond this detriment to civil liberties and political institutions, Jefferson argues that an encroachment of politics on religion has the added effect of corrupting the same religious traditions it was designed to promote. This latter point deserves closer inspection: What Jefferson realized was that political interference or coercion in religious matters must invariably led to a hollowing out of the essence of religious practice. The reasoning is perhaps best revealed in the context of Buddhist practice.
The writer's conclusion as follows:
This turn of events, of course, would have come as no surprise to Thomas Jefferson, who long ago warned that the mixing of politics and religion was bound to corrupt both. And so it has played out again in the Tibetan exile of northern India. The banning of a cherished religious practice for manifestly political reasons symbolizes all that is wrong with the temptation of worldly rulers to overreach and dictate religious doctrine. It has led to a degeneration of political civility. It has also led to a degeneration of religious practice. When the Dalai Lama was recently asked by a reporter if all of the previous Tibetan Buddhists masters, including his own teacher Kyabje Trijang Rinpoche, were wrong about Dorje Shugden, he replied simply and without hesitation: “wrong, yes, wrong”. These three words speak volumes about the current state of religious affairs in Dharamsala. They contain an explicit rejection of the qualifications of his own spiritual guides and, by direct extension, an attack on the continuity and purity of the Gelug lineage.
I beg to differ with the writer's conclusion. How has the ban led to a degeneration of political civility and religious practice?
As far as politics is concerned, old Tibet looks like it is on its way to be subjected under the powers of impermanence.
Degeneration of religious practice? Tibetan Buddhism became well-known in the last 40 or so years throughout the world under the leadership of a monk who is also the political head. I think Thomas Jefferson may think that 14th Dalai Lama has done a fabulous job by carrying out his spiritual duties via a political vehicle....
In terms of political civility, I feel the ban itself is not very political civil if (in the case of the Indian constitution) there is a guarantee for freedom of religious practice. So I'd agree that the ban's existence is itself evidence of degeneration in political civility.
However, I don't think mixing politics and religion necessarily leads to a degeneration of both. Politics can be used as a tool to promote religion, and religion's teachings on compassion and equality can be used to influence politics.
Key is the use of 'worldly' in “
worldly rulers to overreach and dictate religious doctrine”. As long as someone remains worldly, then of course there will be degeneration in both politics and practice. But that's more to do with the motivation of the ruler, than in the religious doctrine.
In some respects, I think religious
practice has declined, if people are going against one another on the basis of religion. If they were really practising, harmony would increase, not decrease so in that sense, practice has declined. Again though, I think that's got less to do with politics than with the person. If you're not going to be a very good practitioner, getting involved in politics will only exacerbate that tendency.
