Why The Dalai Lama?

Goodshape

When I first started reading about Buddhism one of the key things which allowed me to maintain an interest, despite my natural scepticism (particularly with regards religion), was the idea that nobody should be placed on a pedestal. No one is preaching from above, but instead teaching on the same plain as ourselves. It's up to the individual to heed or dismiss any particular teaching based on the words and the message and how it pertains to the individual in question, as opposed to the perceived 'importance' of the person speaking them.

So we have no God, Pope or deity in Buddhism - only individuals. Human beings. Ordinary people whose teachings can be heard, respected and (if so chosen) adhered to in the same way the teachings of a maths professor are heard, respected and adhered to -- because they work. Not simply because they were said.

So where does the Dalai Lama fit into this way of thinking? His position "the supreme head of Tibetan Buddhism" (Wikipedia) seems to be at odds with what I've said above.


I suppose my reasons for questioning at the moment come from a documentary I saw recently which, in rather irreverent style, set out to show that various 'Holy' people weren't as fantastic as they're made out to be. They covered Gandi (racist), Mother Terisa (just not nice at all by the looks of things) and went on to say that the Dalai Lama received funds from the CIA and trained and supported resistance fighters against China. Which, on the face of it at least, seems to go against his own teachings.

They also highlighted the stark differences between the lifestyle of Tibetan farmers / working-class and the highly revered, wealthy and powerful holy people. Essentially suggesting that the Dalai Lama lived like a king among his peasant subjects, and who wouldn't want that back?

Now, I'm a sceptical person as I said -- and equally sceptical of sceptisism -- so I've been researching some the salient points mentioned in this documentary in order to make up my own mind, but I'd be interested to hear anyone elses thoughts on it too.

Fallen Seraph

I'm not the most knowledgable with the intricacies of the buddha's teachings, but I very much get the impression that buddhism isn't immune to the slow drift away from its own teachings that the other major religions are afflicted with, and that this is just another manifestation of it.

But I'm afraid I can't offer any additional information on the dalai llama himself.

Asiaprod

Fallen Seraph wrote:

... I very much get the impression that buddhism isn't immune to the slow drift away from its own teachings that the other major religions are afflicted with, and that this is just another manifestation of it.

Great question, I would agree with the above. I have on a number of occasions openly criticized the Dalai Lama in this forum. I have great respect for the man and his wisdom, but also feel that there are some things that do seem at odds with Buddhism. I could never understand that he allows the Tibetan people to see and treat him as a God-king on earth. Many times listening to him, I have come away with the impression that his entire fight is to just re-establish the Tibetan way of life. The one that will always stick in my mind is the comment he made in New York where he said he could not understan why so many westerers were interested in Buddhism seeing as it was not in their culture to start with. I found that a very strange comment, almost implying that Tibetan Buddhism was the cultural domain of the Tibetan people.
I guess one needs to remember that he was raised from the age of 5? by other monks and really, to me at least, led a life very sheltered from that of the common man.

The Mad Hatter

Asiaprod wrote:

Great question, I would agree with the above. I have on a number of occasions openly criticized the Dalai Lama in this forum. I have great respect for the man and his wisdom, but also feel that there are some things that do seem at odds with Buddhism. I could never understand that he allows the Tibetan people to see and treat him as a God-king on earth. Many times listening to him, I have come away with the impression that his entire fight is to just re-establish the Tibetan way of life. The one that will always stick in my mind is the comment he made in New York where he said he could not understan why so many westerers were interested in Buddhism seeing as it was not in their culture to start with. I found that a very strange comment, almost implying that Tibetan Buddhism was the cultural domain of the Tibetan people.
I guess one needs to remember that he was raised from the age of 5? by other monks and really, to me at least, led a life very sheltered from that of the common man.

I've seen him express that idea a few times. I think that he views religion as a largely cultural thing anyway. He accepts the idea of different truths for different people and, I think as a result of that, thinks that our religion is a part of who we are as people, rather than who we are spiritually. That said, I'm putting words in his mouth, I really can't say for certain.

I've read that he does think that the one religion is not for everyone, and I much prefer that attitude than "everyone must follow this or we'll hate them".

It's entirely possible that things have gotten skewed along the way - he's admitted himself that there were indeed some problems with their practice of buddhism in tibet. In any case, despite the "don't worship people" idea, there's still pure land buddhism where they pretty much worship amitabha buddha.

While buddhism can be a philosophy, I suppose as it was spread it got mixed in with local traditions and things which is why some do stuff like the above, and some involve worshiping gods I think.

The one that will always stick in my mind is the comment he made in New York where he said he could not understan why so many westerers were interested in Buddhism seeing as it was not in their culture to start with. I found that a very strange comment, almost implying that Tibetan Buddhism was the cultural domain of the Tibetan people.

I suppose it's a bit like wondering why westerners can be so obsessed with Japan and their various ways of living... I mean if he was referring to tibetan buddhism then I suppose it's reasonable to wonder why people not only take the buddhism part but adopt a specific cultural approach to it too...