[Buddha-l] Zizek: expert on Buddhism and what "we" think

[curt]

John Whalen-Bridge wrote:

 >> In the same vein, the problem with Tibetan Buddhism resides in an 
obvious fact that many Western enthusiasts conveniently forget: the 
traditional political structure of Tibet is theocracy, with the Dalai 
Lama at the center. <<

I think there are solid, objective grounds for contesting this "obvious 
fact". An important case in point is the "Rimey" movement that started 
in the 19th century - was there any attempt by the "theocracy" to 
supress this new religious movement? Also the "theocracy" allowed for 
the continued existence of religions that are completely unrelated to 
Buddhism such as Bon and Islam. More "traditional" "theocracies", such 
as those found under Christianity and Islam, will only tolerate 
religions that have at least some connection to the ruling religion - 
and often not even then. Christian and Islamic theocracies have shown a 
special hatred for ancient, "indigenous" religions, such as Bon - to the 
extent that such religions have been thoroughly extirpated everywhere 
that Christians and Islams have had the chance to do so. In contrast, 
Bon continues to be practiced both in Tibet and among exiles.

Also, the Tibetan Buddhist "theocracy" never forcibly imposed a 
monolithic form of Buddhism - but always explicitly accepted rival 
"schools" of Buddhism. In fact, the Dalai Lama's "office" (indeed - the 
whole Gelugpa school) was created by the Mongols because they thought 
that, left to its own devices, Tibetan Buddhism had too little 
centralized control (and too much hanky panky).

Curt Steinmetz