Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Dali Lama interview
zidangus
Veteran
Well I watched an interview with the Dali Lama today on the BBC, as he is touring the UK at present. Anyway the interviewer asked a question regarding the number of people who are killing themselves in protest via burning themselves to death in Tibet. The response of the Dali Lama rather skirted over the subject, saying it was unfortunate sad events, but would not like to comment on the issue really because it was a political issue. I was somewhat surprised that he did not say that it was not the right thing to do with one's life as it is a waste of this precious opportunity that a human life brings. Is it just me or would you expect the Dali Lama to speak out against this practice ? I mean he has an immense amount of influence on Tibetan people and if he spoke out against this practice I am sure that people would listen.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18568717
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18568717
0
Comments
Just things I wonder about/think about. I am not sure I fully believe his statement about it being politics he won't comment on. The whole reason he travels and does the things he does, is to bring awareness of Tibet's cause and bring support for them against the Chinese.
I can imagine this is very sensitive topic politically and if HHDL makes a statement it could profoundly affect his work on behalf of the Tibetan people, maybe not in a good way. That doesn't mean he approves of it, in fact he said it's very sad. And he can't just tell Tibetans what to to or not do.
Quotes from him on the subject:
“Now, I have nothing to say. Only pray,” the Dalai Lama said in an interview with the Journal on Friday. He called the self-immolations “very, very sad” and a “very sensitive, political issue.”
The Dalai Lama refused to answer a question Monday about whether Tibetan monks should stop setting themselves on fire to protest China's occupation of Tibet.
"No answer," he said.
"I think that this is quite a sensitive political issue," the spiritual leader of the Tibetan Buddhist community said.
"Now this is very, very sensitive political issue," he explains with due solemnity.
Exiled Tibetan monks are growing frustrated with the Dalai Lama's handling of self-immolations
"If I get involved in that, then the retirement from political power is meaningless. Whatever I say the Chinese government they immediately manipulate."
And the issue of self-immolation is a particularly significant issue because it is one of the most drastic acts a person could take...and does no good to solve the bigger problem.
I believe the Interview broadcast was no more than around 5 or 10 minutes long.
However, the interviewer (Andrew Marr) conducted the interview for a period of nearly an hour.
Maybe editing rendered the interview lightweight.
But bear in mind 2 things: HH the DL has separated himself from the Political faction in "Tibet in Exile" and wishes to devote himself exclusively to 'Spiritual matters'.
I think he is fully aware that at this later stage of his life, he has to pass the political baton on to those who can continue the political functions in the long-term, and that a dual involvement has not, so far produced a fruitful conclusion.
Secondly, it's possible that he perceives his role - and subsequent associated reports and comments - as an actual threat and danger to those still within the Chinese enclave of Tibet.
"Damned if you do, an damned if you don't." If he speaks out against self-immolation, it will do possible harm to the cause for liberation and create a schism within his supporters.... if he speaks 'for' it such incidents may well increase and more such incidents may occur...
So even his attempting to remain neutral, is seen as unfavourable.
What to do, what to do....
And self-immolation is a political issue, and politics is something the DL is attempting to separate himself from this area; something many people seem to forget, and refuse to permit him to do.
2. Hmmmm...I hadn't thought about the "temporary" nature of it all....although not so temporary to an actual individual.
For example, even Buddhists believe in self-defense. If you look at self-defense (both from a Buddhist and legal standpoint), I find it very interesting that the issue of "time" is such a huge factor.
If someone has a gun to your head and you believe they are literally about to pull the trigger, you have the right to defend yourself in some way, even if that means causing the death of the gunman. That's if you act immediately, right then.
If the gunman hesitates for a few minutes, but then you suddenly kill him, it becomes less certain that you were in the right. (Not a lot less certain, just a bit less certain).
If the gunman hesitates for ten minutes, and then you pull the trigger, it becomes even murkier--though, if he/she is literally still pointing the gun at your head, you could make a very good case for self-defense.
In the other extreme, if that same gunman has announced he/she will kill other people, and then goes around killing them one by one, and then you find out the gunman has announced you are next, nonetheless if you go and kill the gunman ahead of time, you may be charged with murder or manslaughter, even though it seems very, very clear the gunman was absolutely going to kill you at some point.
So it's clear the issue of timing factors in to whether or not drastic action is justified. The sense of imminence that a person feels in his/her own demise is taken into account, even when we are talking about the killing of another human being.
I think we can apply some of those principles to the self-immolation; looking at how the sense of imminent destruction may or may not be taken into account. Meaning, if even the killing of another human is justified in some cases, by both Buddhism and the law, certainly the killing of oneself may be justified.
On Self-Immolation by Tsering Namgyal
Phayul[Monday, June 25, 2012 15:34]
By Tsering Namgyal
Think Different.
The spate of self-immolations inside Tibet is not only mind-boggling but also extremely complex and it challenges us to look at it in new ways. It calls for a whole new discourse on Tibet.
Why a place that had captured the imagination of so many for such a long time still remains so completely mysterious, to the extent that it is asking to be understood through the language of death?
Now turning to issue, the primary confusion lies in the fact that while the means and the end of the act itself are the same, the context and the milieu in which they are occurring, or had occurred, could not be more different.
In the Middle East, in the countries such as Egypt and Tunisia, it was a protest by its own people against their own rulers while in Tibet, it is against a state and its policies used to rule a tiny and restive minority. The only commonality in both places is that it is an extreme form of communicating desperation.
However, in the Middle Eastern countries, the self-immolation is a political protest, while in Tibet it is also a political act but it is more of a ritual – suffused with Buddhist ideals.
(Indeed, the core of what they fear is the destruction of Buddhism and the Tibetan language in which it is preserved. They are not asking for a parliamentary style democracy but a return of the Dalai Lama.)
Now, while the message of the political protest is clear and direct and its discourse widespread, it is, unfortunately, not so for rituals, where communication is more complex and conditional.
The Western constructs and discourse of understanding the cultural context in which the self-immolations in Tibet are bound to be ineffective. (The word "desperation" -- the most common word used to explain the phenomenon -- has become a tired cliche in this case.)
Another considerable distinction is that most of the countries in which they had occurred are post-colonial while Tibet is not.
(This is partly why despite its concern for human rights, the West, both the governments and the media, apart from occasional lip service had been conspicuously silent.)
Undergirding such extreme acts of desperation inside Tibet (remember self-immolation is not a suicide and the latter is an act of selflessness) is, paradoxically, a sense of hope. Revolutions are almost always a function of hope. While it is certainly wrong to encourage people to end their lives, it can at least persuade us look at the situation and think differently.
http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?article=On+Self-Immolation+by+Tsering+Namgyal&id=31643&t=1&c=4
I am sorry if I offend anyone, but I do not hold self-immolations in high regard. Arahants alone may take their own lives, and after reading the reports, I doubt that many of the recent suicides are those of arahants.
Most seem to be young men, some are teenagers. They might be your brothers or your children.
If it were a worthy act, I suggest that arahants all over the world would be self-immolating in sympathy with the Tibetan cause, not merely monks born in Tibet. As they are not doing so, I conclude that the Tibetans who are taking their own lives are ordinary people, motivated by passion for their homeland, that their suicides will not necessarily lead to favorable births, and that they should be discouraged in the strongest terms possible from burning themselves alive. This human life is very precious.
The Dalai Lama could perhaps prevent this, and I wish he would, but in any case it is not necessary to look to the Dalai Lama's actions as representative of how an enlightened person would act, and reason back from that, as many Buddhists appear to do. For myself, I tried to do this in the past, but currently it seems more realistic to look at some of his motivations as political.
Don't get me wrong, he seems to me to be among the finest and sweetest of human beings, but I don't think we have to assume he is always right and that his views are always in line with the dharma.
Violence turned inward is still violence. To ignore suffering is to perpetuate suffering.
The Chinese watch everything the DL does and says when he's in the West. If he were to say the self-immolations are wrong, they would take that and use it to further oppress the monks in the regions where those incidents have taken place. It would become part of their propaganda campaign. It's a very painful issue for him, I imagine it probably hurts him to have to remain silent in order to avoid being used.
Good point. I hadn't considered that.
Is it something to let them die for though? I'm glad it's not my decision.
I think whatever he might say would only make things worse on the Chinese side.
The other thing to keep in mind is that Tibetan youth are very impatient with the DL's attempted "Middle Way" strategy of negotiations for internal autonomy for Tibet within China. The Tibetan youth movement (in exile) never supported that. He made the decision unilaterally to advocate for internal autonomy. It looks like maybe young monastics have decided to take matters into their own hands, as well. People are fed up, and so are resorting to desperate measures. So even the DL wouldn't be able to stop them. They know where he stands, he stands for a compromise, and they don't.
Very painful situation.
Here is more information on the 41 people, to date: http://www.savetibet.org/resource-center/maps-data-fact-sgheets/self-immolation-fact-sheet