(I posted this on my other blog, and Henry pointed out it was worth posting here too.)

It's no secret that I am not a Christian, though I was baptised and raised as one. When I saw some of selective Bible quotes splashed over this and other forums last night, while a number of contradictory quotes came to mind, I found myself coming back to one of my all time favourite quotes of the Buddha:

"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned."

I believe it applies to hate and bigotry, too.

You know, I do understand why faith is important to people. I do understand the passion and the zeal. But I do not understand the hatred, and the judgement. If there's one thing I think we all need to work on, it's compassion. For me, compassion and mindfulness are the foundation for my spirituality, and that's a challenge, because I get angry, and it's hard not to hate those who hate us in turn. But, ultimately, when I examine those emotions, I am saddened. I feel sad for those who are burning themselves with those hot coals. Even if those thrown coals hit us, even if they burn those of us who are guilty purely of being the object of someone's ire, we are not blistering our own hands to ashes in our personal journey.

I'm a big fan of the TV show Penn and Teller's Bullshit! but I caught an episode last night that left me feeling confused and really disappointed in two men who I felt had previously stood for fair criticism and honesty.

Basically, the show was asking how holy so-called famous holy figures are. Except, it didn't really ask, it just said they weren't. I'm not one who feels holy figures like Mahatma Gandhi or Mother Theresa cannot be questioned or criticised, but the whole thing seemed like an attack with little opposing evidence.

They mentioned that the Dalai Lama only wants to return to power because he's a "wealthy aristocrat" and that Tibetans who are not of the priesthood or Lama class are "indentured servants and slaves, threatened with hideous torture and punishments should they disobey the ruling class".

Uhm, really? Because not only have I not come across this when studying the Lama system, but I know for a fact that the Dalai Lama has stated on many occasions that what he wants is to return Tibetan Buddhism to Tibet, which includes the Lama tradition, and to which he feels he will never personally return. He is happy to allow the next incarnation to return to power there because what matters to him is the return of a culture, not just a return to political power.

I looked up the comments about slavery and only found articles by a man called Hitchens who is apparently known for famously criticising Martin Luther King. I also came across a number of articles discussing the fact that most of Tibet consisted of Serfs who paid tithes to the Lamas regardless of their income, and that Chattel slavery existed in Tibet well into the 1950s. I can't comment on the slavery issue because I can't find the information at this point in time (though I'll keep looking), but my understanding has always been that the vast majority of Tibetans living in Tibet look to the Dalai Lama and Lamas in general for spiritual, emotional, and political support. I've seen the videos of streets full of Tibetans weeping over the exile of the Dalai Lama, and read moving accounts by Tibetan men and women of how important the Lama class is to their notion of Buddhism and culture. I don't think we should forget, either, that making donations to Bodhisattvas and monks is said to generate positive karma, and is therefore a large part of living Buddhism. Not to mention the fact that Lamas are NOT 'born' into a wealthy aristocracy. The current Dalai Lama was taken from a poor, working class family and that's really quite common for an incarnation.

If the Dalai Lama has a 'dark side' as Penn and Teller implied, I want to know about it, but I feel like they unfairly lambasted him without even attempting to look at the culture, the religion, and the society as a whole before making their judgement. It feels a lot like they looked at it with American eyes (and therefore American views about democracy and government) and a Western cynicism about religion and politics, and never attempted to look at the situation from the position of the "Serfs" and "slaves". They even said that the Dalai Lama and the Lama tradition is worse than what the Chinese did during their invasion, which, I might add, was genocide. It still unnerves me how well the Chinese have re-written the history of their invasion but their is plenty of evidence against them.

I'll keep digging for more information on this issue, but my current feeling is that the show did Tibetan Buddhism a huge disservice.

ETA: Dug up a couple more articles, but they're basing their opinion on early British commentaries about Tibet (back when the British viewed them as savages rife with 'superstitions' and considered Buddhism to be akin to Satanism); nothing from a Tibetan's point of view, or anything factual that can be verified. There's a lot of criticism of Tibetan Buddhism's violent history but that's nothing new for a civilisation and I'm relatively well-versed on that subject. It's not directly relevant to the claims they're making, though, and I'm uncomfortable with how much they're down-playing the atrocities committed by the Chinese. How does one dig out the truth when there's so much fabricated literature and 'historical' accounts? I found one comment attributed to a so-called Tibetan slave but none of the articles give any way to verify the account; they simply quote each other.

I'll keep searching. Hopefully I'll find a decent book on the subject.

So I'm walking in to class, it's a lovely sunny day, and the scent of wildflowers is wafting on the breeze. A group of young women, possibly sorostitutes, are walking ahead of me, and I hear this:

Idiot 1: So, I'm, like, taking this religious studies course, right? And it's, like, really really hard and stuff, and, like, we have to talk about why Buddhism is so different.
Idiot 2: Ohmygod, like, woah! Yes! It's so hard!
Idiot 1: Like, YES!!!111!! OMG, and how, like, they don't worship gods and junk.
Idiot 3: But the Buddha is a god! What a dumb class.
Me: *biting my tongue so as not to correct them*

The Buddha is a god? Since when? And, y'know, that's a fairly honest mistake to make if it wasn't for the fact that it's now almost the END of the quarter and they STILL think the historical Buddha is a deity! And I just know it's them not paying attention because the religious studies department here is shit-hot and very impressive, so I doubt a professor just forgot to mention the role of the Buddha within the religion.

( The whole 'is Buddhism a religion?' debate: oldhat, or legitimate query? )

Edit: Oh! And I was reading Henry's friends list like I always do, and noticed that all of Frances' posts were missing, so I checked her journal to see what was up, only to find its been deleted. I'm assuming everything is cool and she just got tired of LJ-land?

Either way, I'll miss her lovely photography.

Henry requested I post this but feel free to skip if you're not that into Buddhism.

( Read more... )