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.
The Chinese authorities have banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating, unless it is done with government permission. Your views on this, fellow newbuddhists?
I find this to be laughable. As tradition holds that HHDL can reincarnate how he chooses, the next Dalai Lama, will probably be born outside of Tibet. Any DL chosen by China will be suspect.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2007
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Whatever the Chinese may choose to do, is something they have decided. Whether anyone else will consider their legislation or directives to be binding, outside of China, is questionable and debatable. What they do within China is within their limitations. outside of China, they are unable to direct or influence what goes on. So I think the effect of this decision will only be effective within the confines of Chinese territory.
It is a sign of how superstitious we may be about the whole tulku issue that we think it OK to impose political leaders on Iraq and Afghanistan, and ignore the democratically elected leaders of Palestine but get all upset about the Chinese imposing their will on what we have allowed to become part of their 'homeland'.
Simon, we didn't impose Malachi on the Iraqi people. Most high ranking US personnel, including military personnel, don't like him.
That's beside the point. Let me ask you this, did you like William J. Clinton as President? I know you're not US, but the question is valid.
Bushinoki,
I am very hesitant to comment on one of your presidents as an individual. Nevertheless, I find the "Clinton phenomenon" quite fascinating in what it says to us, abroad, about the confusion that we experience about US society. Here was a president who started extremely badly and who was proved to be a serial adulterer whilst in office, who appeared (and still appears) to embody a political attitude that the US subsequently rejected, BUT retained enormous popularity and even increased it.
When I hear people inveigh against US 'fundamentalist' attitudes, I recall that a man who used his powerful office to seduce young interns was not rejected but embraced - and that it is the US Anglican Church that is consecrating gay bishops!
You and I will probably never agree about the invasion of Iraq but that is precisely how things should be. Unanimity would be very worrying - after all the Nazi Anscluss in Austria gained a 99% 'yes' vote. Democracy demands opposition to remain healthy. I am sure that we may also disagree about UK politicians too - for me, Blair was a disaster of Thatcherite proportions, a slimy deceiver and an opportunist. To many of my US friends, he is some sort of hero. As you put it: go figure!
The real point is that we can disagree, take up our own (ir)rational positions, even get annoyed but, under it all, continue to experience warm regard and respect (even, dare I say it, friendship) for each other.
Simon, I will agree with anyone that this war has been mismanaged, and probably fought well before necessary or feasible. My main point is that a lot of people who put Bush down for invading Iraq are the same ones who loved Clinton so much when he did the same thing in Bosnia and Somalia. I know that probably isn't you, but like you said, American politics is a great paradox, and often full of hypocrisy. The main thing is that I wanted to point out a major difference between the US and China, in that we only imposed for a short time, but China is seeking to impose upon Tibet permanently.
It has been my (mis)fortune to meet many politicians. I was at Oxford which 'educates' so many. Having been brought up with some respect for our legislators, it has been sobering to learn that, of the dozens whom I have known, there are perhaps two or three only whom I would not suspect or know to be hypocrites. The desire for and exercise of political power and office is a strong and deadly addictive poison.
Stuart, sometimes it isn't that we are asking the wrong question, it's that we're being asked the wrong question. Of course, sometimes we just frame the question wrong, and the answers come up out of order.
Welcome, Stuart. May your travel on your path go well.
One suggestion, if I may: a note somewhere on the Dana Bowl site (yes, I went there) on the origin and fabric of the shirts to assure some of us who care about such things. Are they fair trade, fair wage and from sustainable source?
Whilst I hold no brief for the actions of the PRC, as many here will know, I think it is better that we tell the truth. China is not banning rebirth in Tibet. The peculiar aspect of this decree is that the government of China is abrogating to itself the right to recognise tulkus.
This is very strange and confusing from a regime that is declaredly secular and atheist, although the constitution does provide for freedom of belief (ha ha!) It is about as strange as the fact that the Great Helmsman, Mao, and his successors have steadfastly refused to permit the opening of the tomb of the First Emperor.
Comments
Palzang
That's beside the point. Let me ask you this, did you like William J. Clinton as President? I know you're not US, but the question is valid.
Bushinoki,
I am very hesitant to comment on one of your presidents as an individual. Nevertheless, I find the "Clinton phenomenon" quite fascinating in what it says to us, abroad, about the confusion that we experience about US society. Here was a president who started extremely badly and who was proved to be a serial adulterer whilst in office, who appeared (and still appears) to embody a political attitude that the US subsequently rejected, BUT retained enormous popularity and even increased it.
When I hear people inveigh against US 'fundamentalist' attitudes, I recall that a man who used his powerful office to seduce young interns was not rejected but embraced - and that it is the US Anglican Church that is consecrating gay bishops!
You and I will probably never agree about the invasion of Iraq but that is precisely how things should be. Unanimity would be very worrying - after all the Nazi Anscluss in Austria gained a 99% 'yes' vote. Democracy demands opposition to remain healthy. I am sure that we may also disagree about UK politicians too - for me, Blair was a disaster of Thatcherite proportions, a slimy deceiver and an opportunist. To many of my US friends, he is some sort of hero. As you put it: go figure!
The real point is that we can disagree, take up our own (ir)rational positions, even get annoyed but, under it all, continue to experience warm regard and respect (even, dare I say it, friendship) for each other.
It has been my (mis)fortune to meet many politicians. I was at Oxford which 'educates' so many. Having been brought up with some respect for our legislators, it has been sobering to learn that, of the dozens whom I have known, there are perhaps two or three only whom I would not suspect or know to be hypocrites. The desire for and exercise of political power and office is a strong and deadly addictive poison.
stuart
www.DanaBowl.com
One suggestion, if I may: a note somewhere on the Dana Bowl site (yes, I went there) on the origin and fabric of the shirts to assure some of us who care about such things. Are they fair trade, fair wage and from sustainable source?
This is very strange and confusing from a regime that is declaredly secular and atheist, although the constitution does provide for freedom of belief (ha ha!) It is about as strange as the fact that the Great Helmsman, Mao, and his successors have steadfastly refused to permit the opening of the tomb of the First Emperor.
I agree with the author of this article - it's just another way to control a people through fear and intimidation.
All animals are created equal, some animals are just more equal than others -- G Orwell
-bf