Pankaj Mishra writes a detailed review of Pico Iyer’s new book, The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in the recent issue of the New Yorker. Mishra’s review makes it evident that Iyer has elicited a far more complex story of the Dalai Lama than is typically shoveled to and slurped up by the West. Instead of treating him merely as a figure to be awed, Iyer describes him as “Forrest Gumpish,” simple yet revolutionary. He is a religious leader who is actively attempting to weaken the dogma of his own religion:
Last November, a couple of weeks after the Dalai Lama received a Congressional Gold Medal from President Bush, his old Land Rover went on sale on eBay. Sharon Stone, who once introduced the Tibetan leader at a fundraiser as “Mr. Please, Please, Please Let Me Back Into China!” (she meant Tibet), announced the auction on YouTube, promising the prospective winner of the 1966 station wagon, “You’ll just laugh the whole time that you’re in it!” The bidding closed at more than eighty thousand dollars. The Dalai Lama, whom Larry King, on CNN, once referred to as a Muslim, has also received the Lifetime Achievement award of Hadassah, the Women’s Zionist Organization of America…Precepts such as “violence breeds violence” or “the quality of means determine ends” may be ethically sound, but they don’t seem to possess the intellectual complexity that would make them engaging as ideas. Since the Dalai Lama speaks English badly, and frequently collapses into prolonged fits of giggling, he can also give the impression that he is, as Iyer reports a journalist saying, “not the brightest bulb in the room…” [Link]
But, would a “dull bulb” espouse an idea as revolutionary as this:
The most famous Buddhist in the world, he advises his Western followers not to embrace Buddhism. He seeks out famous scientists with geekish zeal, asserting that certain Buddhist scriptures disproved by modern science should be abandoned. [Link]
Can you imagine the Pope coming out to say to Catholics, “Yeah. I guess science and statistics do show that condoms are a good idea after all. Let’s git rid of the whole no birth control part of the religion.”
The Dalai Lama’s ideas are rooted in the fact that he believes that globalization is unstoppable and the interconnectedness of the world demands that we loosen our strict dogmas. You can either seek to rebel against the oneness, trying to maintain local culture and beliefs by any means necessary (including violence), or you can seek to truly understand the connectedness of everyone and become better off (spiritually and economically) because of it.
“For the first time in history,” Hannah Arendt wrote in 1957, “all peoples on earth have a common present. . . . Every country has become the almost immediate neighbor of every other country, and every man feels the shock of events which take place at the other end of the globe.” Arendt feared that this new “unity of the world” would be a largely negative phenomenon if it wasn’t accompanied by the “renunciation, not of one’s own tradition and national past, but of the binding authority and universal validity which tradition and past have always claimed…” [Link]
That “binding authority and universal validity” is what we see in radical Islam and in other movements marked by their turn-back-the-clock attitude. Arendt wrote, and the Dalai Lama has recognized, that one can maintain their traditions without considering them to be a last wall of defense to keep at bay the common present. The Dalai Lama also recognizes that a religious leader is really just a politician. They do not have some divine moral authority or clairvoyance which makes them closer to God. Why not admit that and just elect them like any politician?
Recently, he offered his most radical idea yet, one that overturns nearly half a millennium of tradition: that the next Dalai Lama be chosen by popular vote. [Link]
If you look deeper though you begin to realize that perhaps his ideas are not that revolutionary. Perhaps they are nothing more than Buddhism applied to the present:
In his public appearances before English-speaking audiences, he prefers to speak of “global ethics” rather than of the abstruse Buddhist concept of Nirvana. Doubtless he doesn’t want to put off the largely secular middle-class Americans in weekend casuals who crowd Central Park to listen to him, but, as Iyer points out, this is also a reaffirmation of a Buddhist philosophical vision in which all existence is deeply interconnected. Indeed, this notion may be why the Dalai Lama was early to grasp the existential and political challenges of globalized human existence, decades before they were underlined by the disasters of climate change…<
p>Iyer’s book makes it plausible that the boy from the Tibetan backwoods may be outlining, in his own frequently Forrest Gumpish way, “a process of mutual understanding and progressing self-clarification on a gigantic scale”–the process that Arendt believed necessary for halting the “tremendous increase in mutual hatred and a somewhat universal irritability of everybody against everybody else…” [Link]
Imagine that, Buddhist philosophy might be made more relevant by a man who seeks to give up much of his religious authority.
<
p>
Abhi, Very good post. Well written. I especially liked your sentence “perhaps his ideas are not that revolutionary. Perhaps they are nothing more than Buddhism applied to the present”
Very true. In my opinion, that is what a mature religion, like Buddhism and Hinduism, is expected to do and not stick to the dogmas that do not apply to present times.
It’s not forest gumpish. Ol’ gump took the few lessons he knew and went with them his whole life. It’s Adaptation, as bruce lee said you have to become the water to be truly free.
“Very true. In my opinion, that is what a mature religion, like Buddhism and Hinduism, is expected to do and not stick to the dogmas that do not apply to present times.â€
Can’t really talk about Buddhism because I don’t know but I know many backwards minded Hindus. People that would do their fasts on Tuesday and not give a crap about their old grandparents sitting alone in an old folks home. This is of course some, but religion will always be distorted for the greed and selfishness.
This is why I like the Dalai Lama’s idea. You are faith becomes your own once again.
The Dalai Lama’s ideas are rooted in the fact that he believes that globalization is unstoppable and the interconnectedness of the world demands that we loosen our strict dogmas. You can either seek to rebel against the oneness, trying to maintain local culture and beliefs by any means necessary (including violence), or you can seek to truly understand the connectedness of everyone and become better off (spiritually and economically) because of it.
there’s a lot here. but i would say that globalization is partly creating a push toward universal dogmas; just like salafist radicalism. two sides of the same coin. the dalai lama has pushed marginalize some of the “weirder” aspects of tibetan buddhism as a concession to global norms. i put weird in quotes because it’s only weird in the context of western norms.
The Dalai Lama is a political leader (the King of Tibet), which is perhaps where this comes from. If China justifies its actions by saying it’s liberating the Tibetans from a medieval societal structure then an effective response could be for the King to embrace a sort of democracy.
The drawback is that the Dalai Lama supposedly reincarnates, and choosing by ballot eliminates the institution of the Dalai Lama as it is known. (By the way, the institution of reincarnation, from an economic standpoint, keeps the resources of a monastery together – no reason to split them up among various successors since you are waiting for the old master to return.) On the other hand since the Chinese govt is determined to supervise the discovery of the next incarnation, as they did with the Panchen and others, so they can try to use the old institutions to their own ends, rendering them meaningless, it’s a good way to stop them.
The Dalai Lama isn’t really the Pope’s counterpart: the leader of all Tibetan Buddhism. He is the leader of the Gelugpa sect. And some followers of other sects are not entirely comfortable with the perception that he is everyone’s religious leader, something which has emerged in exile as he has served as the leader and figurehead of Tibetan political identity.
In short, many seem to see him as the religious leader of all Tibetans, and not really a political ruler, whereas he was the political ruler of all Tibet, but not at all the religious leader of all Tibetan Buddhism. Analysis of what he says should not be looked at in a purely religious light. To insist on some of the aspects of Buddhist belief which contradict science would only help to bolster Chinese propaganda that they are liberating and modernizing a feudal Tibet.
Just wrote a paper on the negative impacts of globalization and spent a great deal researching it. I think what Arendt asserted and Dalai Lama recognizes is very importnat.The notion that globalization leads to centrism and nationalism is EXTREMELY important. As the world moves to a common culture, there are those who believe that asserting one’s cultural distinctiveness is most beneficial to the community and the world itself.
Can you blame them?
I’d like to attend to the author of this blog and his comment on the radical islamic “turn back the clock attitude”. Firstly, I am not a muslim, therefore, I have no contrasting alligences. Sure terrorism and islamic extremism may be a zealous example of the rejection of globalization but most of us ( i consider most of us as moderates) reject globalization in some way or another everyday. How many times have we heard the complaints from Indian youth about the seemingly decrasing values in India especially in the media (ie- bollywood). This is not just exclusive to South Asian youth, this prevelent in many cultures around the world.
What most of us fail to realize is the fact that even though we view ourselves as progressive, our mere alligences and love for our culture tend to conflict with willingness for change. In my opinion however, religion can defintely be a mediator in this, and I think any dharmic religion, be it Sikhism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism, are well adjusted to accomodate this.
Just b’cos some interpreted the teachings of our religion in a totally wrong way does not mean that the religion itself is flawed. As I read more abt our religion, I learn and understand better.
‘Since the Dalai Lama speaks English badly, and frequently collapses into prolonged fits of giggling, he can also give the impression that he is, as Iyer reports a journalist saying, “not the brightest bulb in the room…‒
The way he speaks in English is vastly different from the way he speaks in Tibetan (with an English translator). He sounds exceptionally erudite, and his knowledge of the intricacies within esoteric Tibetan and Indian schools of Buddhism really contrasts the more general peace and understanding stuff. It almost seems to me like two different people sometimes.
“Can you imagine the Pope coming out to say to Catholics, “Yeah. I guess science and statistics do show that condoms are a good idea after all. Let’s git rid of the whole no birth control part of the religion.—
Although he wasn’t a Pope, Augustine (who was probably just as influential to Christian doctrine as any Pope) did try to do this back in the day with his work, “The Literal Interpretation of Genesis”, in which he denounced Christians who continued to believe things that the science of his day had proven wrong. This seems to have been pretty much forgotten with time.
What would be radical is if he said: Fellow Buddhists, let there be no more Dalai Lamas. The idea is outdated, and is precisely the reason why our motherland became insular and got taken over. We need to move towards a model of Hinduism, Jainism and (to some extent) Sikhism where the relgious leaders have little or no say in worldly affairs. Where the religious leaders don’t have the right to preach against condom usage like the Pope and don’t have right to preach against oral sex like I do.
M. Nam
8 · MoorNam said
He is already taking steps in this direction. Besides leaving the position of the Dalai Lama up for election, he has stated that he wants the political power to be transferred to a parliamentary administration, and to maintain the position of the Dalai Lama as a solely spiritual one.
While I agree that the mixing of religion and government isn’t great, it is somewhat absurd to suggest that Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religious leaders haven’t ever preached against condom usage, oral sex, and other social behaviors (or even things of a political nature), because many definitely have, both under the influence of governmental entities and otherwise.
8 · MoorNam said
Indeed, this enlightened model of Hinduism has eliminated any regressive social practices in Hindu society, and has prevented political parties or leaders from concocting a murderous combination of Hindu religious fanaticism and rabid nationalism for their own private ends.
I think everyone’s favorite little imac salesman is a marketing ploy – a che t-shirt for those with a bit less angst — his basic message can be summed up as “okay.”
As for all the trite stuff about the pope hates science, etc, it’s nothing more than a rehashing of the anti-immigrant stereotypes of 100 years ago. Yes, Virginia, Catholics know the world is round, they cum in condoms, and then they go to church, find people that love them, enjoy a little guilt to better feel the forgiveness, and go on their way.
Well, that wound hasn’t healed yet. From the article:
Not related to lamas, but this article also has another gem from a hard working ‘merican:
Hurray for the popular vote!
This is true of a majority of Catholics, with the numbers being more substantial in developed countries, but let us not understate the damage done by abstinence-only propaganda (not just by the Catholic Church) in Africa. (Of course, more progressive Catholic organizations now advocate condom usage as pro-life because it prevents the spread of AIDS).
There was page long biography of pico iyer in the most recent issue of Time magazine, first page.
What a load of sanctimonious crap.
6 · Chetna said
Totally agree. The problem is the distortion. I guess using Hindu’s as an example is wrong because it really happens in all religions. the FEW who take advantage for their own gain.
But is it the truth?
I think that the biggest difference between Buddhism and the other three indic religions is that in Buddhism, the notion of karma/dharma/nirvana is a part canonic law handed out by the clergy who speak for all the Buddhists (at least those of their sect), not much unlike the Pope who hands out canonic law to Catholics. Whereas in H/J/Sikhism, the notion of karma/dharma/moksha is not a part of any canonic law and is handed out more as a guiding principle that is left to individual interpretation by Hindus/Jains/Sikhs.
This results in partly what Rahul described in #10: Despite the guidance of their religious leaders/scriptures, Hindus/J/S are free to interpret the teachings in wrong ways and screw up their society with bride burning, dowry, honor killings etc etc. While in the short run it is tempting to have a Hindu Dalai Lama issue a centralised dictat to fix all these problems, in the long run it is a death sentence, as Tibetans are learning now. A benevelonet religious dictator is seductive, but is almost guaranteed to be replaced with a tyrant who will use violence to have his way. Case in point: Many past Dalai lamas bumped off their adversaries, sometimes with torture.
I would rather have interpretation left to the individual and society struggle through realisation of the correct path (even though it takes time), rather than have it mandated from above.
M. Nam
Fellow Buddhists, let there be no more Dalai Lamas. The idea is outdated, and is precisely the reason why our motherland became insular and got taken over. We need to move towards a model of Hinduism, Jainism and (to some extent) Sikhism where the relgious leaders have little or no say in worldly affairs
Great idea Moornam. We all know our homeland ‘Hindustan’ never got taken over.
To continue with my previous post, the very fact that he has to assert this is an indication of a problem? He sounds as if his followers cannot think for themselves and need direction from him. And to a great extent, that’s true. The setup is such that both Shruti and Smriti must come down from him.
Shruti: Do your duty and do not get attached to the fruits of your labor. Smriti: Abortion is wrong.
Hinduism says both of the above. However, since the religious leaders have little or no control over Smriti, Hindus have no qualms over abortion. They did not need a religious leader to come out and say that for the sake of population control abortion was ok.
A good religious leader’s responsibility is to ensure that he’s out of a job – ie, his followers no longer need him because they can think for themselves.
M. Nam
AMFD,
Not sure if you read through the link in this blog. Tibet got taken over precisely because of the previous Lama’s refusal to listen to others who were warning about China’s intentions. It was a religious failure.
The British taking over India was not because of a religious failure.
M. Nam
man, i find it so aggravating that we judge people as “not the brightest bulb in the room” because of their english abilities. this is a person who is the spiritual and political leader of a tradition thousands of years old and staggering in its depth and complexity. and because he’s a jolly guy, and sometimes speaks simply, there is (i am speaking about the world at large here) an immediate assumption that he doesn’t have a rich and complex understanding of the world.
i am reminded about the long ago debate about allowing a sikh candidate for the RCMP (mounties) to wear his turban. there was one idiot who did himself up with brown shoe polish (he was white) and made a poster (or calendar, i forget which) with the title “Is this Canadian or does this make you sikh?” I remember watching a TV crew follow him around in a bar in Calgary, where the inebriated clientele made the usual racist comments. But one young (white) man (i remember he was young), who was pretty loaded, got really upset at this guy. he was unable to articulate why in a coherent manner, both because of his drunkenness and the fact that he was not really too articulate to begin with, and also genuinely upset and emotional about it.
through his protest, the fellow who made the poster remained calm, cool, collected, but really brutally sliced apart this fellow’s opinion, all by asking him to cite statistics or “real facts”, and totally disregarding anything he said that was emotional or not rooted in numbers. and eventually he (poster idiot) came out on top, as the more rational person who “thought out” his stance. this is a tactic that is used constantly in the west, in politics, in debate, and it is totally bullshit. i am not speaking of the idiotic hyper liberal “everyone has something to say and everyone is special”. i am not speaking out against using facts or reasoned debate, or rationality. i am speaking of the fact that no one is “allowed” to feel any emotion at all when engaging another human being about ideas. if they do, they are immediately labelled a crank. DESPITE the PC notion of “everyone is special”.
the dalai lama is a great man. actually, scratch that. he’s an intelligent person whether or not you agree with his politics or spiritual path, and the road he is travelling is fraught with pitfalls most of us can’t even comprehend. it is outrageous that people are so narrow minded and judgemental to think that because he speaks simply, he doesn’t run deep.
Moornam, No need to bring in false dichotomies between the dharmic traditions. The Dalai Lama is to the Gelugkpa sect, what Sai Baba is to his followers or the Sankaracharyas to their followers. No need to bring in false dichotomies between the dharmic traditions. Political power was irrevocably lost in 1959. He is at present the leader and lightning rod for rallying for the disaffected Tibetans politically. In whatever form the Tibet issue gets resolved, rest assured that the Dalai Lama or his future successors will have no political role.
You know, unlike Tibet.
If the “free market” of ideas devoid of centralization decides it, it can’t be wrong!
You’re exactly right in your interpretation of my words. I cannot tell you how tempted I am to have Narendra Modi’s chhapan ki chhaati tell us how to cleanse Aryavrata.
22 · Aram Seiya Virumbu said
Very true. Besides the fact that MoorNam’s main criticism of the Dalai Lama (his political authority) is becoming less relevant by the day, to pit one sect of Buddhism against the amorphous, and mostly modern (older Hinduism was divided relatively clearly into squabbling sects) “Hinduism”, is not a proper comparison. It would be more suited to compare his position with that of a Shankaracharya. In general, I also think the line between the religious and the political is a lot more blurry than we’re willing to admit.
21 · deb said
Tru Dat.
This is something that struck me about Jains…as much as Hindus and Sikhs, they have been on the receiving end of Muslim violence many times throughout history, with destruction of their temples as well as violence and rape perpetrated on their persons. HOWEVER, their religion absolutely prohibits violence against ANYONE, including in self-defence. So as a result, most of the Jains I know shrug off those historical interludes as something horrible that happened, but not something that the Jains should have handled differently in retrospect. They wouldn’t be Jains if they had turned to the sword. I disagree with their philosophy but I respect them for sticking to it. It also makes it easier for them (I assume) to not hold historical grudges.
Hi, I agree with this article, Dalai Lama has eulogized, because he forwrds the agenda of the Westerners to divide and rule, and China is biggest united country against United States, guess what Dalai Lama is (Dumb) Darling of the West in separating Tibet out of China. Go back and see Tibet has been part of China for thousands of years, going back to the days when India ruled the world’s business, days of Maharaja’s.
???
The Dalai Lama is certainly a great man and the right Lama for the times. While China’s position is indefensible I believe that Vajrayana Buddhism has benefited from Tibetan exile. If the Chinese had not invaded this particular tradition would have to count on less than enthusiastic students,who were dropped off at monasteries for economic reasons, for its perpetuation. While there are many who adopt Buddhism as a fashion statement I have met many dedicated Westerners who have become expert in Tibetan/Sanskrit/Pali in order to gain access to primary texts. It is the “weirder”, by which I mean uniquely Tibetan, aspects of this tradition derived from Bon & tantra that are probably at greatest risk of perishing as Chinese repression continues and Tibetans in exile become more assimilated in their host societies.
3 · razib said
Det. Cooper certainly didn’t think so.
Rahul’s “hilarious”.
Moornam:
This is coming from the hindutva jingo who tenaciously defends casteism and brahminism. The truth that you so deceitfully hide is that the “model of hinduism” you defend, brahminism, has the worst record of all when it comes to interfering in worldly affairs and taking away the freedom and dignity of the masses of hindus. In Tibetan buddhism the monks aren’t born into their vocation as the priestly caste in hinduism is. Humans are not degraded as untouchables by birth as they are in your “model of hinduism”. Anyone can see which is the more evil and inhumane system.
Deceitful nonsense. The criminal mistreatment of widows in hinduism, including burning them alive, was and is based on the guidance of brahmins, the hindu priestly caste by birth, not “despite their guidance”. Who do you think you are fooling? When the British banned the hindu custom of widow burning it was the orthodox brahmins who protested and campaigned against this interference in their ancient “religious” traditions. And it was a brahmin Shankaracharya (the hindu equivalent of a lama) who agitated to revive this ancient brahminical practice in independent India. Which led the secular government of India to pass a law against the glorification of this evil, barbaric brahminical custom.
More ignorant nonsense from Moornam. The Tibetans are a far more hardy, proud and martial race than indians. Despite their small numbers they managed to withstand the islamic onslaught in central asia. Which the vastly more populous India could not. So what do you think “is precisely the reason why our motherland became insular and got taken over” by any warlord or trading company who could muster a few thousand armed men? Could it be your “model of hinduism”??
The tibetans, along with the huns, turks, mongols and manchus constituted the ancient warlike mongoloid “northern barbarians” that the chinese built the Great Wall to keep out. That of course did not prevent the mongols and manchus from conquering China. Both the mongols and manchus saw the tibetans as their cousins and they all lorded it together over the han chinese for centuries.
You’re 100% correct. I’ll take a fundamentalist Muslim over a Brahmin any day. Hinduism is the only religion in the world where racism is indoctrinated. I’ve never heard of such a violent religion, where they “pour molten lead down the ears of sudras if they hear slokas.” BTW, over 80%+ of Hindus are Sudras – the “feet” of god. Hinduism is purely a colour-conscious religion where dark=bad. It’s surprising how they describe the castes with a word which is synonymous with colour, and this word is ‘varna’. Also, all the states of India with darker populations only have 2 castes – brahmins and sudras. these states are in the east and south.
Why is it that all the Hindus of Kashmir are Brahmins? I see a correlation between the kashmiris hue and their status on the caste hierarchy and that of the biharis/bengalis/southIndians. NOTE: This honorific of brahmin was bestowed on the kashmiris during the 19th century.
32 · Ramana said
12 · Rahul “said
<
blockquote>
“
That is so hilarious but a bit scary at the same time. Well, I guess someone needs to be told there is no “lama” (or even llamas?) in Iraq.
The Duser (does the name rhyme with loser? Never seen it or heard it pronounced before.) person saying (s)he’s “not prejudiced” but not crazy about voting for “a colored guy”. Well, I am not prejudiced, but why would the journalist in that article quote a douchebag?
Seriously, this is an interesting post on the Dalai Lama.
I think he is smart. He is ready to accept the modernizing economic influence of the Chinese in lieu for more political autonomy for Tibet and he is trying to use the same logic of walking the fine line wrt to religion in the modern world. Though I wonder whether the importance of “religion” will survive the rapid onslaught of modernization and individualism.
It’s not merely a question of religion…it’s an issue of identity…and I think more than religion it’s their cultural identity that the Tibetans are fighting to preserve. Of course much of that identity may be expressed or formulated through their version(s) of Buddhism.
Reg #21: “man, i find it so aggravating that we judge people as “not the brightest bulb in the room” because of their english abilities”
I totally agree with this – it is extrememly condescending to judge a person by his/her ability to speak English!
I am a DBD and when I first landed in the mid-west US, I was surprised by the number of “the whaaat?”s I heard and also children saying (not so subtly) that I (and my friends) spoke in a “weird” manner. I’ll admit here that having studied in a school where the medium of instruction, I had this same attitude towards students from other schools (outside the city, mostly) where the medium of instruction was not English and where the children were not very fluent in it. After getting the condescending treatment here, I dropped my own feeling of superiority just because I thought I could speak better English!
(Later, when I joined work, I have had numerous laughs when seeing emails that had “Your welcome” or “…this work is not to be done in this manor…”). 😀
an interesting piece by Barbara Crossette in the International Herald Tribune.
Can I just say I hate China? That is all.
The good news is that the Chinese gov’t will almost certainly fall in our lifetimes, and probably sooner rather than later–the number of protests already occurring throughout the country is stunning. The bad news is that what replaces it won’t necessarily be better–there’s no guarantee that things will go the way of Taiwan. . . .
Apparently Barbara Crossette is not aware that the Karmapa is in contention. There are two principal claimants (not including other minor ones) to the position. Choosing one to represent the exile community as its figurehead will not sit well with the supporters of the other. Ironically enough, Crossette did not even bother to clarify which claimant she was referring to in the original article.
Depends on the religion…
M. Nam
Who says the Vatican can’t change to meet globalization’s new demands?
I thought that was a bufalo?
Totally wrong, Ashwini. Try reading some history yourself.