- Next »
- « Previous
Dalai Lama Sees Change in China - to 'see' or to 'seize' change?
"Tibet's spiritual leader said he wanted a "middle way" of autonomy, despite calls for independence among Tibetans."
I get the distinct impression that this bloke is some sort of a bourgeois
humanitarian.
The 'middle way' which he speaks of - which is a
perversion of Buddha's 'Middle Way' which promotes the quest for enlightenment
without self-mortification or addiction to earthly pleasures (sort of an
'anglican' buddhism) - is basically to sit-back and wait for the Chinese to
handout some empathy to the Tibetans.
What he forgets is that the
maintainence of Chinese tyranny in Tibet will,
over time, and if not resisted, accustom the people to an apathetic way of life where one
sees all creation as a means to self-aggrandizement - which is one of
the quintessential features of China's
2000 year old culture - as it is a significant degree of apathy and focus on self-interest that is
required for the acceptance of Chinese misrule and occupation. The rule is simple, where tyranny is left unresisted, into one's worldview, it is incorporated. Such incorporation is the ultimate coping method.
Secondly,
his not seeking separation from China reinforces Chinese action in
taking Tibet as alright so long as it leads to both sides learning to
live peacefully together. In this, he promotes the general perspective
that it is alright for any country to take any other country by force
so long as living peacefully together is achieved at some future date
and some degree of cultural autonomy is granted. So, analogically, Saddam
wasn't wrong for taking Kuwait years ago; Hitler wasn't wrong in taking
Austria and then attempting to take the rest of Europe; the west
weren't wrong for their colonial banditry; England wasn't wrong for
taking Ireland, amongst others; Israel wasn't wrong for taking
Palestine; etc, etc, etc. What might make it wrong is their not
working towards a peaceful coexistence.
But
learning to live peacefully together is not a virtue in itself. It is
the system within which they live that determines that. What this
bloke essentially promotes is two things -
1. It is alright to take any country by force so long as you work towards a peaceful coexistence,
2. That peaceful coexistence is a virtue in itself and the socio-economic status quo promoted amongst the people as irrelevant.
To sit on the fence, in this context, and perhaps others, is to
basically sit on the devil's trident and validate his forward march. To adopt a wait and 'see' attitude, as opposed to seizing change, is to firstly, give time to the conqueror to assimilate them to their way of seeing things, and secondly, to validate the right of any powerful nation to see-and-conquer as and when they please so long as a peaceful coexistence is arrived at eventually - no matter what the cost and consequence to human life and development.
Tibet: What's the fuss all about?
Comments
Hello Ed, provoking as usual, in a thought provoking way that is.
Too much wait and see and maybe co-exist as an outcome. I liked the 'assimilate' not that much different to the 'Borg' idea of assimilation in Star Trek. It allways intrigued me when I watched the episodes where the 'Borg' began to 'assimilate'. The idea of assimilation seems to me to be the way of democracy too along with the idea that democracy is also co-existence. Human developement is an essential and fundamental aspect of living, yet seeems to be shoved under the carpet along with the muck and dust,
While I am not quite ready to sign off on the Dalai Lama as a naive or bourgeois, maybe there is a bit of selfishness in the refusal to go striaght for independence. Much of his holiness' worldwide game and popularity is drawn from the plight of Tibet. Continuing to be the whipping boys of the Chinese may nto be the best outcome for his peoples, but it does sell books. This point isn't any more valid than your assertion, I'm just turning the crank another smidgen from his annointed status worldwide.
To be honest, you are looking at a man who has spent his life in a struggle that has only managed to get a massive amount of his countrymen killed. I think that he realized long ago that the Chinese had the upper hand and the Tibetians were facing wholesale slaughter. His Holiness is more likley trying to garner a way to let Tibet keep it's culture and let China claim ownership.