If Barack Obama really were a Marxist, then he would welcome the Dalai Lama with open arms.
Before 1959, Tibet was not an independent state ruled benignly
by the Dalai Lama and given over almost entirely to the pursuit of
spirituality.
Tibet was certainly ruled by the Dalai Lama, by the lamas
generally, and by the feudal landlord class from which the lamas were drawn.
“Dalai” is a family name; only a member of the House of Dalai can become the Dalai Lama.
“Dalai” is a family name; only a member of the House of Dalai can become the Dalai Lama.
Well over 90 per cent of the population was made up of serfs, the
background from which the present rulers of Tibet are drawn.
That system was unique in China, and existed only because
successive Emperors of China had granted the Tibetan ruling clique exactly the
“autonomy” for which it still campaigns from “exile”.
Life expectancy in Tibet was half what it is today.
Life expectancy in Tibet was half what it is today.
There has never been an independent state of Tibet.
Likewise, the presence of large numbers of Han (ethnic Chinese in the ordinary sense) and other Chinese ethnic groups in Tibet is nothing remotely new.
Likewise, the presence of large numbers of Han (ethnic Chinese in the ordinary sense) and other Chinese ethnic groups in Tibet is nothing remotely new.
The one-child policy does not apply in Tibet, so the Han
majority there is the ethnic Tibetans’ own fault, if they even see it as a
problem.
It is totally false to describe the Dalai Lama baldly as “their
spiritual leader”. Relatively few would view him as such.
In particular, Google “Dorje Shugden” for, to put at its
mildest, some balance to the media portrayal of the present Dalai Lama.
We never hear from Dorje Shugden practitioners, just as we never hear from the loyally Chinese Hui Muslims.
We never hear from Dorje Shugden practitioners, just as we never hear from the loyally Chinese Hui Muslims.
Moreover, the Dalai Lama has never condemned either the invasion
of Afghanistan or the invasion of Iraq.
For more on Buddhism as no more a religion of peace than Islam
is, see Sri Lanka, Burma, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, and beyond.
In fact, an examination of the relevant texts shows that
violence in general and war in particular are fundamental to
Buddhism. Tibet is particularly striking for this.
A rare balanced
treatment of Buddhism and violence was
broadcast in August 2013. The
subject is addressed in great detail here.
No comments:
Post a Comment