Buddhism in Tibet
Tibet may not be the home of Buddhism but it is a nation dominated by it.
As you may know, there is a clash of two worldviews going on there. On the one side is Buddhism, led by the Dalai Llama. The other is the non-religious ideology of communism.
Why can’t these two belief systems tolerate each other? Why don’t see the benefit of separation of “church and state” as the way out of this impasse? Do you make an assessment of which side is more to blame—and for what reasons?
To get you started on what is happening in this conflict, I ask you to go to an email in the course posted today.
As you may know, there is a clash of two worldviews going on there. On the one side is Buddhism, led by the Dalai Llama. The other is the non-religious ideology of communism.
Why can’t these two belief systems tolerate each other? Why don’t see the benefit of separation of “church and state” as the way out of this impasse? Do you make an assessment of which side is more to blame—and for what reasons?
To get you started on what is happening in this conflict, I ask you to go to an email in the course posted today.
posted by Jim Gustafson | 6:31 AM
15 Comments:
Clash of Cultures:
There is at present-as there has been for many years a controversy brewing to the boiling point between Tibet and China. The initial question posed is this- “why can’t these two belief systems tolerate one another?” We are then prompted to answer two more complex questions: 2) “Why don’t they see the benefit of the separation of church and state?” and 3) “Which side is more to blame and for what reasons.”
GEOGRAPHY:
My initial thought rang like a Mandarin gong in my head-BORDERS! However, knowing that I can’t just state a view and then cross my arms and say “IT”S MY BELIEF!” like a pre-pubescent school girl impressed with me-- I did a bit of digging to find facts to support or counter the notion. To the issue of borders I must state that rivals always experience two things together –weather and geography. And this clash of worldviews actually got its start in a clash of another sort- that of the Indian and Asian tectonic- plates that formed Tibet, the world’s largest and tallest plateau. Tibet has an average elevation of 13,000 feet with numerous elevations that reach 20,000 feet. [Sperry et al 56]
BORDERS:
As the glaciers receded (post ice age) the vast deserts to the north were formed and thus Tibet was genuinely isolated- in a very real sense they dwelled in a world of there own. Although covered with permafrost and largely inerrable Tibet is the source of both of China’s great west to east flowing rivers the Yellow (R) and the Yangtze (R). [Sperry 57] The point of this being that Tibet has a border that is natural and awesome. And although the Chinese say that “the Yellow River is China’s sorrow,” the historians point out that China has a long history of “bloody borders.” In fact, from the early dynasties until the present Communist regime, Chinese rulers are acutely sensitive to disputes regarding its borders.
“China has a long history of border disputes and invasions from Nomadic peoples in times when China was weak.” [Sperry, 57] There is physical evidence of this enormous cultural sensitivity to this day: The Great Wall of China. I concede that geography simply cannot be the only issue and so I’ve assembled a time line of conflicts between mainland China and Tibet.
SUMMARY OF DISPUTES:
c. 600 BC: A Tibetan King Gampo married a Chinese princess (that had to piss someone off) who with the assistance of the Nepali princess [whom Gampo also married] is credited with bringing Buddhism to Tibet.
c. 650 BC: Gampo dies- Tibet and China go to war over BORDERS. The small but fierce Tibetan army takes over the capital of T’ang. This ended Chinese military expeditions to Tibet until 1717 AD, when they achieved increased influence over Tibet until the Opium wars stared by Britain in 1839.
c. 1550: Mongolian leader Attan Khan bestows title of Daili Llama upon Gelugpa leader. [This would be the equivalent of Osama Bin Laden making Mitt Romney the King of an independent Nevada; a huge psychological impact on Chinese leaders!]
1850 AD: China regains influence under the Tai -ping Rebellion.
1904: Invasion by the British from India; Dalai Llama flees.
1906 -1909: Chinese government controls the Tibetan government.
1912: Ching dynasty is overthrown; Dalai Llama returns.
1913: Tibet declares itself an INDEPENDENT STATE.
1949: Communist China announced it will “liberate” Tibet and secure the traditional BORDERS.
1950: China attacks eastern Tibet- both parties sign a peace treaty. China promises broad autonomy – Tibet declares it is now a part of China.
1951: Chinese army enters central Tibet.
Although this is not the end of the riff between the parties –I feel I’d be belaboring the point should I catalogue them further.
TIBETIAN BUDDHISM:
In answering the first question I obviously think that the issue of borders that runs through Chinese history is a huge factor that was “set-up” and exacerbated by geography. There are other factors as to why they can’t seem to coexist in peace-that lie in the doctrines of these entities; they are operating under dogmas that are “polar opposites” in many regards.
Tibetan Buddhists believe in oracles – commands or revelations of God that feed an antonian temperament- “there is a built in tension between the Buddhist religious community and any temporal state.” “So long as there is a {sic} Buddha {sic} Caesar can not claim everything.” [Carmody et al 255] This belief flies directly in the face with the centralized, authoritarian control of Communism which mandates state control over all resources and assets for subsistence.
Add to this the revolutionary impulses contained in Mayhana Dharma and we see why {perhaps}one system that is intrinsically secular –vs. - another that is intrinsically anti- secular – combined with ancient cultural {border} sensitivities and the pressures of modern statehood- heated by Olympic attentions fail to value the separation of church and state. To the Buddhists there really can be no state, conversely the Communist rely solely upon said state.
As to the final inquiry- my answer is this: that in ancient times Tibet owned a share of the blame as they were at times an aggressive group. However, in today’s world Tibet poses a threat to no one. The Chinese (and other) Communist regimes have a broad and scorching history of the suppression of religious and other human rights. Communism is a failed economic and social monster that consumes the dignity and health of oppressed people. In China this treacherous group of ministers dwells upon long held matters of national “chaffing” which feeds there paranoia and appetite for dominance.
Ralph,
My apologies but i want to set the record strait:
In my earlier blog posting I used information from SPERRY (nat Geo)
our text as well as two sources that I failed to mention,they are:
Professor Andrew Morse (lecture notes from June 08) and the following student -Nicole Edick (2005) who made a web-site that I found teriffic it is:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~nfedick/index.html
Thanks for reading-I felt like a DB when I realized i forgot to credit these two deserving historians. Peace, ralph,
Bravo Ralph. Bravo.
I agree completely. The Dalai Lama is trying to preserve his culture and his people. After he steps down from ruling he wants to have a democratic government. He does not want the people of Tibet to be classless, with no possibility of a prosperous future, and with no hope of having a voice. Let freedom ring I say!
Marxism or communism is a socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on common ownership of the means of production. It has not succeeded in the past. It is an outdated view that needs to be put to rest. Furthermore, it has the complete opposite outcome that is intended. It demstroys civility rather than instilling it.
Every human being should have the God given (no pun intended) right to excel, to vote, to choose their own religion, choose their own job paths, their own spouses, etc.
Communism began in China back in 1939 which was the beginning of the Cold War. The Chinese are now trying to impose this communist way of life on the people of Tibet. They are trying to gain power. That is what this is all about. It is not about the Tibetans or the many centuries of Buddhism that has been in that country. It is about the power! They want to destroy their culture and dominate.
The Dalai Lama wants the power to be within his people. For them to have control of their own lives and their own destinies.
I must suggest to view the offical website of the Dalai Lama at http://www.dalailama.com/page.164.htm, it was an excellent read for me and I gained much respect for the honorable man. I really enjoyed this blog. I learned quite a bit.
I agree that this is a long-standing conflict between two distinctly different powers. The Dalai Lama has the right notion of autonomy and the extremists want control and for the people to succumb to a controlled lifestyle. As usual money and land are the causes. I think the Dalai Lama is less to blame since communism has failed over and over in the past. Problem is that you need protection from ememies abroad and big government seems to be the more popular as oppeosed to turning the other cheek. As far as the separationb of church and state in this matter, I believe it has escalated past the point of reconciliation, (does the government even want the conflict to end as war is the biggest money maker of all. Not to sound pessimistic but the Dalai Lama and his followers are and do accept the sacrifices they may have to make and I think it is neccassary Yin and Yang,
Sam
Hi Sam:
You strike me as a pretty smart person and I concur that land is indeed one of the issues at hand-but it really isn't land for the sake of financial gain.
If you can get your hands on a map you will see that the land is not much good in terms of agriculture or other resources;I suggest that when we cite land as a point of contention (and I did as well) we want to think about culture as opposed to money-I just fail to see the connection.
I'd be interested to see some evidence of this statement "war is the biggest money maker of all". I may be wrong -but it seems to me that if history has taught us anything it is this: all nations whom had warfare as their primary employ [New Kingdoom Egypt, WW II Germany etc.]managed to impovish countless people and "collapse beneath their own greatness" {Confucious)
For many years I would have agreed that warfare is "good" for an ecomomy - it's kind of a post WW II notion we inherited. However, it was great for our post depression economy,terrible for European nations and eventually led us to a deficit burdened military industrial complex.
In closing I agree that the Dalai Llama and his followers are prepared to make the sacrafices-what do they have to lose? Anything WORTH living for is worth dying for. Thanks Ralph,
Lisa:
I went to that site-it's great! I found his perspectives on democracy to be enlightened and uplifting-also I didn't realize that he would be so open-minded to secular views.
In my initial posting of the issue I concluded [perhaps erroneously]that " To the Buddhists there really can be no state" -having visited this site I would be inclined to moderate that conclusion.
I'm OK with that.I am outspoken-I am not apologetic for it and i tend to be stubborn--but NEVER to the point where I won't seriously consider an INFORMED,reasonable argument. Some of the people I respect the most-I actually agree with the least-but they base there beliefs in reason or facts.
Anyway--I think of all the sites that have been suggested by our classmates [I have checked them all]this is the best one so far.
It is an obscene hour to be awake [at work]and I'm heading home soon to sleep.Good find!Thanks, Ralph
Sam:
I am enduring my 4th, 18 hour shift at work this week where I am fortunate to have time to study-I like studying.[I'm sick and need help!] The point being that I re-read your post.
You made a good point about the extremist that I have not researched-but I will agree with you that they are a problem in this [as in most] situations.
I think your rather perceptive to pick up on this-it may be the development that divides [or unites] Tibet's populous. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the Communist [scumbags] WILL attempt to use this division in the Tibetian cause to divide and conquor.
You picked up on {I think]a critical dynamic that we will bear witness to over the coming months.I wonder if the riff is based on religous differences or something else. Peace, ralph,
I totally agree with Ralph and Lisa they make good arguments saying that the Communist government is to blame. I think Tibet is the underdog and China is bullying them. I can’t see these sides getting along and living with church and state separated. China is just not willing to give any. I never realized how much conflict surrounded their borders going back thousands of years. Ralph made a strong case for the cultural and geographic factors that I probably would have missed. I’m not sure this is about money like Sam said I think China has plenty it does seem more like an pride thing with them. I was talking about it with my father and he pointed out that our economy stinks and we have been at war for five years. I went to the site Lisa posted it was really good and made me feel that China is more to blame.
Sossie
From what I've heard and read of the situation between Tibet and China, I'd have to agree with the others that have posted so far. I think that the communists that are trying to get control of Tibet are in the wrong here. China seems to be the stereotypical big country that is reluctant to let go of a small country that is fighting for its independence. Like Sossie mentioned, I think part of it is pride, that they don't want to lose a part of their country, as they view it. Imagine how the British felt when we beat them and got our independence. I'm sure China would feel similar about losing Tibet.
I think the pride thing also has a bit to do with why the two belief systems can't stand each other - to concede would be to admit defeat. Besides, communism needs a good deal to even pretend to function well. The more they have, the more there is to be distributed "evenly", although I can't see how Tibet would make that much of a difference resource-wise - like Ralph said, the land isn't exactly flowing with milk and honey.
Going along with this, the separation of church and state doesn't really work here because communism doesn't jive well with religion, as we've seen over the years. I got the impression from reading a few websites that the police in communist countries like China don't do much to protect the common people, which doesn't make sense to me because wouldn't the things being destroyed technically kind of belong to them too? If communism worked like it was supposed to, letting anything get destroyed or wasted would mean that everybody would get just a little bit less, including them. Maybe the impression is that protecting people who can't protect themselves seems too religious (which they can't handle) and they don't want to get "soft" or something.
I was originally going to say that I thought that Tibet should try to work out the problems as well as they could, and then I read that they've been trying to do that for a long time already and it isn't going anywhere. I guess now my opinion is that Tibet should (as politely as possible) tell China that they can't take it much longer and if things don't change there will be trouble, and then back up their words. As unfortunate as a major conflict would be, that is starting to look like the only outcome anymore.
I feel like this whole situation is totally out of control!!!! All Tibet wants is autonomy... but instead China has to flood Tibet with native Chinese to try to eradicate Tibetan culture and religion. It is completely absurd! Tibet should either be a soverign nation or part of India ... where many Tibetan people have found refuge! I have watched videos of press conferences held by the Dalai Llama. In all this injustice he still finds a way of having the most precious sense of humor and compassion for the Chinese casualities of the Sichuan Province earthquake having held prayer services for them. Also his holiness expressed that he supports the Olymic games in China saying that China should be proud. I cannot understand why China feels the need to rein over the Tibetan people, when all they want in religious and cultural freedom!
Sam Here,
I'd like to re-phrase my statement as to (war being the biggest money maker. I visited some more sites and this is what I found, The Military cadres in the tibetian area have the second highest salaries with lessers of the military occupting much of the top ten. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/55/783.html
In 06 Oil and minerals worth 128 Billon were found in tibetan area. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/25/yourmoney/mine.php
So war may not be the biggest money maker but it is close. I'm not saying it works, as all noted countries failed, but right now some would say that the war in Iraq is whats keeping the economy from undisputable recession. Talk radio hosts and other political speakers have raised this point. That said, China is currently an "up and coming country" if you will. The tibetan land in question is a HUGE part of China, regardless of wheter both sides have an agreement from 1951 to prove the other malice. My other source is not so much credible as experience with government manufacturing. I know personally the the US government will drop a few hundred millon on production of something only the "obsolete the item well into production while still footing the origalin contract price. China is struggeling to take a foothold right now in the world economy, to lose tibet or any other area they are in conflict with right know would be detrimental to their political and religious commitments. I agree that in the past great countries have risen from peace and harmony, but in the recent history it seems to me that most countries have had to take what they want to establish an international foothold. The arms race is still on, we and every other country spend billions on war and that spending provides lots of jobs. My other notion is that you don't own a footbALL TEAM AND NOT HAVE THEM PLAY. tHESE GOVERNMENTS CANT WAIT TO TRY OUT NEW WEAPONS, TECHNIQUES, ESPIOANGE, ETC... Sorry, caps lock was on and I'm not backspacing. This conflict in discussion has provided jobs and training for alot of people. Again, I absolutly disagree with war. On the other hand there is a railroad that is going to go in regardless of what the Llama wants. One thing started to pop up as I read, that the Llama doesn't want the influx of chinese residents? What would happen if say, Mexico decided that the whole southwestern United States was duped from them, and it was, the United States didn't take it per say, but the United States supported the frech knowing that the full price of the Louisiana Purchase would be a few cents. Gore Vidal, The American Presidency. Not gonna happen, too late in the game. The Dalia Llama doesn't want progress to enter the area, I agree with him. But progress is a way of life, change happens. Sorry for late replies but better late than never. Sam.
I appreciate your work and passion-I compliment you on that. But once you cited talk radio as a source you lost me. I'm not surprised that you cited talk radio having read all of your post-you consisitantly echo their sentiments.
As for the war in Iraq helping our economy-I beg to differ; a few companies absolutly, but overall it is skyrocketing our debt and destabilizing markets- I think the reason we are in a recession is oil speculations fueled by the wars difficulties.
Oil-we have more oil in some US mainland states (NPR) than Saudi Arabia so I can accept your research at face value;"In 06 Oil and minerals worth 128 Billon" sounds like a big number -but it too is deciving.
I concur they are an up and coming country, make no mistake about it ,due to economics and space weaponry China IS a world power- but less of a threat then they appear as they border 14 countries that have no interest in seeing there borders expand, we are 3 decades ahead of them in weapons and planning and they can't (yet) transport enough troops across the Taiwain strait to take Taiwain.
We can liken the influx of Chinese residents to Augusta's settling of colonies with military leaders-it is done to enhance the dominance of the larger state -it is NO accident.
I'm pretty much done with the Tibetian thing as it is time to move on-I think that when weighed against the backdrop of history money has little to do with this -this is a cultural clash that mirrors dozens of simular ones in Chinese history -so I agree to disagree on finances as a primary motivator.
Have a good weekend Sam, I enjoyed reading your posts. Peace ralph,
Carmody and Brink (2006) addressed “church and state are two of the strongest institutions in most societies. Sometimes they work together, supporting each other’s efforts in controlling human behavior and promoting values that have been jointly agreed upon”.
The whole point of separation and religion and state is they must be separated, no matter the specific beliefs of the religion. The purpose of separation of religion and state is to prevent any religion or religious organization from using the power or resources of the government to push their religion. The separation of church and state doesn't really work in current Tibet’s situation.
Many of world’s problems are ultimately rooted in equality and injustice whether economic, political, or social. Religious oppression continuously occurs in a variety ways in the world. There is a lot of good side of religion and bad side as well.
The current Dalai Lama has been achieved tremendous work and accepted the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global human rights. Whether the Dalai Lama will reincarnate himself again after his present body is spent is uncertain. What if 99% of Tibetans are Buddhism and rule the people in their religious way. Then how does the other 1% of Tibetans who do not believe in Buddhism nor gods survive? Do they have a right to choose their religion? Even elected officials who are deeply religious have to make compromises and set their convictions aside while in government.
The main problem in my mind is communists do not allow ANY religion. The Tibetans believe only THEIR religion can rule the people. It seems better to me that the state (Chinese) should allow all religions but not permit any religion to rule, including the Dalai Lama. All citizens must have equal rights to choose their religion. People that do not practice religion should have all the rights from the state as everyone else.
Personally, I am inspired by the Dalai Lama.
I believe that these two belief systems will never be able to tolerate each other due to the fundamental belief of communism - which asks for loyalty to the state for the betterment of all of the people. They feel that religious worship takes away from support to their country. The Dalai Lama is the spiritual, cultural, and political leader of Tibet. Tibet's religion is engrained into its culture, they are one and the same. The communists of China fear that if Tibet were allowed to become autonomous, then other regions/countries would follow suit, weakening support to the state.
Well put Laura.
The beauty of such a concise statement is it didn't allow the central issue[cultural clash]to be clouded with "goat's rope."
Soonmyung also [I feel] "gets" the issue at the core of the problem when she wrote:
"The main problem in my mind is communists do not allow ANY religion."
Consistantly, I find myself awaiting postings from both of you,as they are well informed and straitforward.
Trust that even when we do not agree that I will anticipate your input as I find it valuable to my academic journey. Gracias, Ralph,
Post a Comment
<< Home