Live data from Hacker News

The Last Dalai Lama?

nytimes.com

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#71
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I can imagine things like what you describe (regarding Cherokee Nation) and I won't find that especially odd. But Tibetians are much more numerous and they've lost their independence much more recently, making their case incomparable to that of Cherokee. Your parable is shaky. You seem to think that Dalai Lama issue is either solely about annoying China, or solely about self-presentation. It is not. People are…

Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian…

> Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet

Which seeks to be combined theological and political state in the vein of Russian czars, Japanese emperors, North Korea, and countless other ruling parties. You can even argue Great Britain still abides by this.

> we would not confound Iranian political independence with Shia Islam

Why would we not? They are 2 sides of the same coin. Religion is quite often the basis of political power such as in Iran.

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#72
post #21
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian…

The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only…

> Calling Tibet a 'tribe' is also a little bit strange, and smacks of the way Chinese propaganda reduces the legitimacy of Tibet's claim to nationhood (and even legitimate personhood), despite Tibet's governmental and territorial sovereignty from at least 1200 AD onward.

It is hilarious how the maps in museums fail to show the Tibetan Empire during any of many, many periods when it was both theoretically and actually independent but to claim that Tibet has been sovereign since 1200 is insane. The Qing dynasty ruled for almost three centuries and they the Tibetans were their vassals.

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#73
post #21
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it help you if it were "Free Hawai'i"? That timeline is comparable. Your last statement confuses me. What does Dalai Lama have to do with Buddhism? The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism but the head of Tibet, which is a tribe seeking a political state. Tibetan Buddhism is a sect of Buddhism practiced beyond Tibetan borders. Much like a great many Shia Muslims live in Iran, but we would not confound Iranian…

The Dalai Lama is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, because Tibet is (was) a theocracy, much like the Pope is the head of the Papal State and the Catholic Church. (Though this is not an exact parallel due to to the distributed nature of the Tibetan Schools) And, if you read the article, you would see that one of the major points is that the Dalai Lama has dissolved that connection (head of religion - head of state) only…

Much like we discredit Cherokee's nation hood?

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#74

The Chinese stance on Dalai Lama is kind of weird: They kind of recognise him, he is free to travel, nontheless they pressure other people to not see him. Seems like they can't explain what they're trying to do to themself.

The rest of the world stance on Dalai Lama is counterproductive too. Chinese tell you: Do as we wish; or else. If you do as we tell you, nothing changes; otherwise, Things May Happen To You. (In this case, "don't meet Dalai Lama") And the world is happy to oblige. I mean, what will they demand next? As a person, I would never tolerate things like this from third party. You want me to behave how you like? Pay. Countri…

Pope does not go to another country to lead a rebellion? If he does... hmm...

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#75

The Chinese stance on Dalai Lama is kind of weird: They kind of recognise him, he is free to travel, nontheless they pressure other people to not see him. Seems like they can't explain what they're trying to do to themself.

He travels the world giving speeches. I met him on a stage in Darling Harbour, Sydney, on a Saturday afternoon, while jogging.

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like your thought but Yugoslavia is (I think) a bad example for this. (I came from there) There was no religious or ethnical union, of that I am 100% sure, and I'm also not convinced of nationalism there. The unifying ideology was socialism/communism. It is understandable why this did work so well in a country with no clear religious or ethnic majority because it tends to flat out deny any ethnic/cultural differenc…

Yugoslavia turned to be an unnatural union and was swept by tidal forces. It lacked glue and unifying ideology expired in the end. This is a lesson why you need religious or ethnic union, or nationalism. Why else you are country X and not country Y or Z?

I think this is one aspect. The other one that was cause for the demise was the lack of sound economics, as strange as it sounds.

At least from my and my families perspective everything was great as long as the economy was doing fine.

Why should back then anyone care about ethnicity or religion as long as everything was provided for. The society was egalitarian since the socialist government tried hard to create unity by this ideology of making everyone equal.

If you think about it it's not that different than what is depicted the Star Trek society, just with waaaay less technology.

Once the economy went downhill, which is inevitable with that kind of economic ideology people lost their belief and hope in the socialist ideology and went looking for something else. (Nationalism, Religion)

But in the end we should not loose sight of the fact that nation states are also just an idea. So are supranational states that are the current trend (EU, EEU) and who knows what tomorrow's trend may be.

What did not work in a national state might in a supranational state or some other organization form because each one comes with its own type of unifying ideology.

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#77
post #66
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the point is that Tibetan Buddhism is a small subset of Buddhism. It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism. And within that division, the Dalai Lama's specific sect is yet again another division. The Dalai Lama is to Buddhism what, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury is (possibly of even lesser historical importance) to Christianity. His only real importance came about as a result of clever marketing of…

> It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? > Archbishop of Canterbury So, a world-recognized religious leader? Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most i…

> Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it?

Distance in terms of belief and time. The most 'orthodox' and also the oldest extant sect is Theravada Buddhism (mainly centred around Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, but also with historic temples in India and elsewhere), although there is also the argument that some of the older Mahayana sects may have some succession to the Mahasamghika, but strictly speaking the oldest references to the 'Mahayana' are from the 1st century BCE, and the Theravada can be traced to the 3rd century BCE.

Anyhow, Tibetan Buddhism came as a result of various influences, including Indian Tantric Buddhist missionaries (Tantric beliefs, which originate in Saivism, a cult within Hinduism, appeared in Buddhist texts from the 3rd century CE onward, and of course don't appear in early Buddhist texts), the native Bon religion (animistic and shamanistic), and then-current Mahayana Buddhism. The origins of Tibetan Buddhism are fairly well documented, with Buddhism reaching Tibet in the 7th century CE, and it being adopted as the state religion in the 8th century CE.

> Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day?

Buddhism isn't supposed to have a central leader. It's supposed to be centred on the teachings of the Buddha, although there are prominent monks with fairly wide influence in all the major schools.

It's kind of like in Christianity. Prior to the great schism, you had the unified Orthodox/Catholic church which had 5 Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria). Rome split and became huge and monolithic, the Orthodox were less centralised so when they spread, they established more 'Patriarchates' with more or less equal importance to the historic ones; in addition to the Patriarchs of Constantinople (New Rome), Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, you also have Patriarchs of Moscow (3rd Rome), Georgia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria, in addition to Archbishops and so on. So even though Orthodox Christianity is nearly as widespread as Catholicism (arguably more widespread in the 'old world'), they don't have a visible 'leader' because of the flat power structure.

Tibetan Buddhism adopted a more vertical power structure because the Dalai Lama's sect eventually achieved political power over Tibet, whereas other schools of Buddhism maintained the flat power structure that existed in early Buddhism.

> Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism.

Familiarity yes, but not understanding. There have been many other Buddhist teachers who have actually brought the religion to the west (not only from Theravada, Mahayana, Ch'an, Zen and Vajrayana schools, but also from different sects of Tibetan Buddhism). Tibetan Buddhism contains some tantric beliefs which most westerners wouldn't even recognize as Buddhist, for example, consort practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmamudr%C4%81.

Edit - should also add, Tibetan Buddhism/Vajranaya has the fewest adherents of the major schools, making it the least important Buddhist school as far as demographics go. Mahayana Buddhism (Zen/Ch'an, Pure Land, and other smaller Mahayana sects/regional variations) has the highest number of adherents, although is fragmented and many adherents may also follow other religions like Taoism and Shintoism. Theravada is probably the largest school with the most consistent teachings across its regional variations (150 million adherents). By contrast, there's 3 million people in Tibet, perhaps 10 million people worldwide who nominally belong to a Vajrayana Buddhist sect (including Tibetan exiles)...

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#78
post #66
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but the point is that Tibetan Buddhism is a small subset of Buddhism. It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism. And within that division, the Dalai Lama's specific sect is yet again another division. The Dalai Lama is to Buddhism what, say, the Archbishop of Canterbury is (possibly of even lesser historical importance) to Christianity. His only real importance came about as a result of clever marketing of…

> It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? > Archbishop of Canterbury So, a world-recognized religious leader? Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most i…

> Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism.

That doesn't make him the head of Buddhism, unless you also believe Pizza Hut is the head of Italian cuisine, or ManchuWok is the leader of Chinese food.

Buddhism is not a hierarchical religion like Catholicism. If a monk seeks power/fame or participate in political struggle, he's not practicing true Buddhism.

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#79
post #78
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also the furthest from 'orthodox' Buddhism Further than Zen? Which branch are you considering orthodox? And how are you measuring distance from it? > Archbishop of Canterbury So, a world-recognized religious leader? Who in Buddhism would you count as a peer, or someone more important than the Dalai Lama, in the present day? Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most i…

> Whatever the reason he became famous for, he's probably done probably the single most influential figure to influence the West's familiarity and understanding of Buddhism. That doesn't make him the head of Buddhism, unless you also believe Pizza Hut is the head of Italian cuisine, or ManchuWok is the leader of Chinese food. Buddhism is not a hierarchical religion like Catholicism. If a monk seeks power/fame or part…

[deleted]

Re: The Last Dalai Lama?

#80
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Justifying a tyrannical government by virtue of the previous government having been a tyranny too doesn't persuade anyone. For the US government, whatever it does is always about its interests, because that's what governments are about. However, that's just the reason why being a small nation sucks, like any resident of a small country can tell you. Sometimes their plight even manages to gather some popular sympathy[…

It persuades people that are told that Tibet should get the old Dalai Lama as dictator system back. China is criticized as an oppressive regime in tibet by people that at the same time cater to a wannabe dictator.

>It persuades people that are told that Tibet should get the old Dalai Lama as dictator system back.

It'd be interesting to know who is telling people that, since it sounds like a straw man. Not even the Tibetan government in exile advocates that.

Post reply on HN