[Buddha-l] Re: Re: The Dalai Lama on Self-Loathing (Stuart Lachs)

[Stuart Lachs]

Mitchell Ginsberg  posted:
> The Dalai Lama actually states that Tibetans do not have "low self 
> esteem."  He is talking about
> self esteem in the American sense, and he says that Tibetans actually have 
> the opposite problem -
> excessive pride and arrogance.  So, he actually puts down the Tibetans in 
> the process of saying
> they have no low self esteem.  I have heard him talk about this many 
> times.

In my post I was not raising the issue "putting down" or raising up one 
people over another. I posting in response to the issue
of self loathing and in that connection raising the question of whether some 
one at the top of the social hierarchy was the one to ask about the mind of 
some one at the bottom of the social hierarchy. This is a question.
Is the Pope the one to ask about the mind of a very poor Mexican peasant or 
an Italian slum dweller?

 class -oriented criticism of Tibet strikes me as Marxist-apologist writing.

One way of looking at society is at least partially through Marxist ideas. 
It is done all the time. Even the Dalai Lama
is familiar with Marxist ideas as posted in my previous email about Michael 
Parenti. The Dalai Lama said  " I think of
myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist."

> The Chinese are big on putting out this type of propaganda and 
> exaggerating the admitted errors
> in pre-Chinese invasion Tibetan society.  There were definitely problems, 
> but I do not think it
> was as bleak as they try to portray.


I think it is a problem that as soon as some one looks at pre Chinese 
invasion of Tibet in a critical view, it is
labelled as Chinese apologetics. The Dalai Lama is on record of saying "that 
he thought the corvée (forced unpaid serf labor for the lord's benefit) and 
certain taxes imposed on the peasants were "extremely bad." And he disliked 
the way people were saddled with old debts sometimes passed down from 
generation to generation."

Jacques Gernet in his  "Buddhism in Chinese Society: An Economic History 
from the Fifth to the Tenth Centery" talks of the extreme burden some large 
temple construction placed on the peasants. How was the average Tibetan 
peasant affected by corvee labor and temple projects?

My guess is he would also be bothered by the slavery and extreme economic 
disparity of pre Chinese invasion of Tibet. What other particulars of 
Tibetan society he was upset with I don't know. The elements that bothered 
him, seem pretty extreme to me.
Again, the D.L.'s own words:
And more recently in 2001, while visiting California, he remarked that 
"Tibet, materially, is very, very backward. Spiritually it is quite rich. 
But spirituality can't fill our stomachs."


 The truth is that Tibetans were so religious that they
> probably considered it a blessing to pay anything to the monasteries - 
> merit, etc.  was the result
> in their minds.  Westerners cannot understand their mind set and how it 
> revolved around religion
> so applying western contexts of thinking about economics, usury, etc. to 
> them is absurd in my
> opinion.

May be it is and may be it isn't. Buddhism was the fabric that held Tibet 
society together and made it into a Buddhist society
with a particular world view. The question of merit is extremely 
interesting. For those getting the Journal of the American
Academy of Religion, I recommend reading Micael Walsh's article "The 
Economics of Salvation: Toward a Theory of Exchange in Chinese Buddhism"
in the latest issue, June 2007. This paper, among other issues, deals with 
merit and commodity exchange. I would guess that very few if anyone in 
Chinese Buddhist studies would dismiss Walsh as a Marxist for this paper. 
Yet I fear if his area of study was Tibetan Buddhism, there would be attacks 
and dismissals.
>
>
> How can a Tibetan nomad or "serf" who would prostrate full-length from Mt. 
> Kailash to Lhasa
> (thousands of miles) find it a problem to also devote all their labor to 
> the maintenance of a
> monastery?  Just an example.  This is the type of mind of the Tibetan 
> prior to invasion (and even
> now).  They would be happy to give almost anything to the monastery, HH 
> Dalai Lama, etc.  Their
> concern is not this life.

As stated above the Dalai Lama was not happy with the state of economic 
distribution in Tibet pre Chinese invasion.
One question to ask is, what the monasteries did with the vast wealth and 
land they accumulated?
>
> There is no comment in the post about how the reincarnate system elevated 
> the poorest to the
> highest positions, the monasteries provided free education, etc.

I think it is pretty well accepted that social class standing in secular 
society  was by and large maintained in the monastic system. Yes, there were
some noteable exceptions.
>
> It was a class - based society that was ruled by religion - that is for 
> sure - but I am quite
> certain that the average Tibetan was better off under that system than the 
> colonial system imposed
> by the Chinese.

I am not sure. Parenti writes:
A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that he continues to be revered in 
Tibet, but

  .few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans 
that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many 
Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they 
gained during China's land reform to the clans. Tibet's former slaves say 
they, too, don't want their former masters to return to power.
  "I've already lived that life once before," said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old 
former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to 
Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he 
worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, "I may not be free under Chinese 
communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave."


>
> The main thing is it is a mistake to apply Western thinking to Tibetans 
> who lived this life not
> for this life, but for future lives, for merit and good karma in 
> supporting monasteries and
> Buddhism in any way possible, and whose whole life and life energy was 
> usually devoted to
> religion.  In fact, at one point I believe that 20% of the population of 
> Tibet was either a monk
> or a nun.

Did all these monks and nuns choose to be monks and nuns? Throwing  a number 
out like that just raises more questions.
Gernet raises the question of the economic burden for the rest of society 
that so large a monastic community represented for the economy as a whole?
He adds that the burden kept growing so that by the ninth century, it was 
insupportable. I think this type of question is applicable and legitimate
 to Tibet as well as to China....

 Doing so merely points out the negative mindset and misunderstanding of 
those who
> criticize a culture they do not understand and that cannot be judged by 
> modern criteria for
> fairness, etc.

So here we are on Buddha-L and told we cannot question another culture. 
Hmmm. Haven't heard much talk like this about
China, Japan, India, Korea, Thailand,.....
Richard, lucky you are modern and understand Americans.  Now you  can 
criticize Republicans like "Georgie the war hero" and
Dick his boss.

>
> HH Dalai Lama (the current one) was also in the process of overhauling 
> abuses in the monasteries
> at the time of the invasion by the Chinese, etc.

As stated in the Parenti paper the D.L. was not happy with many aspects of 
Tibetan culture. At 15 years old when he left Tibet, I am not sure
how much he could overhaul, how much resistance he would receive from 
powerful interests who wanted to maintain the staus quo and so on.

>
> Anyone who has watched the current Dalai Lama also knows that rarely has a 
> human being devoted so
> much time - everyday all day - to helping other people and keeping up an 
> unbelievably exhausting
> schedule of teaching, philanthropic work, appearances all over the world, 
> etc. in the interest of
> helping other people and to the exclusion of his own self benefit even to 
> the point of sacrificing
> his health.

I agree with all of the above as I think do most people who know about him.

 Sure, his needs are met, but there is no extravagance.  I recall him 
touring India
> between teachings even a few years ago in a non-airconditioned Indian - 
> made car - for example.

I recall the Dala  Lama  taking part,  about seven or eight years ago, in a 
joint teaching in NYC with a Chinese teacher, Shifu Sheng -yen. Actually, 
the Dalai Lama did all of the teaching for two days and then they had a 
dialogue for about two hours the third afternoon. This raises a number of 
questions about power and authority, hierarchy, the politics of religion, 
who pays for what, and so on but that is not our immediate concern.  The 
Dalai Lama and his large entourage stayed in the Waldorf Astoria for three 
nights. The Waldorf is known for having a very fine security system for 
dignitaries and heads of state.

Again, I think most people, myself  included, think highly of the Dalai 
Lama. This does not mean one cannot examine Tibetan culture and religion pre 
Chinese invasion. One can also look at the role of the present Dalai Lama as 
religious leader and simultaneously as political leader and his changing 
understanding of his  position as history keeps moving on.

All the best,

Stuart


> ==========
> In memoriam Robert Solomon:
> http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/books/TheInnerPalace/TIP_RCS.html
> For information on psychotherapy with links of interest:
> http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa/mentalhealth.html
> Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/jinavamsa
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
> http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l