Except in the cases of holy days, and natural disasters when clergy tend to the spiritual wants of the grieving, the media generally leans towards a dim view of religion. Whether it happens to be Muslims engaged in terrorist acts, or Christians lobbying for Intelligent Design theory in the classroom, with even the relatively sacrosanct Jews coming under criticism as oppressors of the Palestinians. The implied, and sometimes not so implied, attitude is that, “We'd all be a lot better off and a lot happier without all this superstitious malarkey!” This would be all well and good if it were not for one conspicuous exception, Buddhism, which in stark contrast to the coverage given to the aforementioned religions, seemingly never comes under criticism, and in fact is always reported on respectfully, or even obsequiously. The consensus media view of Buddhism is that it is a tolerant, non-dogmatic, peace-loving, compassionate, deeply philosophical religion, and above all, highly compatible with secular western mores. An example of such reportage is in the case of Tibet, where Tibetan Buddhists are portrayed as being irrationally persecuted by the Chinese, and Tibet the nation, the Tibetan people, and Tibetan Buddhism, are synonymous, and the Dalai Lama as the natural and just leader of all three is unquestioned. So successful is the propagation of this unrelentingly positive view that it has filtered down to seemingly every level of public discourse on religion, so it is not unusual to see an angry forum poster rant, “I hate all religions, they're all crooks, murderers and paedophiles, except for Buddhist priests, who I have a lot of respect for.” But how true is this? Is it an accurate representation of Buddhism in general, and Tibetan Buddhism in particular, or is it a carefully crafted image designed to reflect only western ethno-sentimentality for the religion of Shangri-La? A timely example of the way the media generally treats Buddhism is to be found with this recent article that briefly poked its head into the mainstream on the British Telegraph newspaper site, concerning the treatment of Christians in Burma/Myanmar: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/21/wburma21.xml Burma 'orders Christians to be wiped out' By Peter Pattisson in Kayin State, southern Burma, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 12:02am GMT 21/01/2007 The military regime in Burma is intent on wiping out Christianity in the country, according to claims in a secret document believed to have been leaked from a government ministry. Entitled "Programme to destroy the Christian religion in Burma", the incendiary memo contains point by point instructions on how to drive Christians out of the state. The text, which opens with the line "There shall be no home where the Christian religion is practised", calls for anyone caught evangelising to be imprisoned. It advises: "The Christian religion is very gentle – identify and utilise its weakness." Its discovery follows widespread reports of religious persecution, with churches burnt to the ground, Christians forced to convert to the state religion, Buddhism, and their children barred from school. Human rights groups claim that the treatment meted out to Christians, who make up six per cent of the population, is part of a wider campaign by the regime, also targeted at ethnic minority tribes, to create a uniform society in which the race and language is Burmese and the only accepted religion is Buddhism. In the past year, an estimated 27,000 members of the predominantly Christian Karen tribe were driven from their homes in eastern Burma. In Koh Kyi village, in Arakan State, a monk backed by the military burnt down the local church. In another state, 300 monks were allegedly sent by the regime to forcibly convert the populace, all of whom belonged to the Chin ethnic group, which is mostly Christian. The document, shown to The Sunday Telegraph by human rights groups, may have been produced by a state-sponsored Buddhist group, but with the tacit approval of the military junta. The regime has denied authorship of the document – which also calls for teenagers to be prevented from wearing Western clothes – but has made no public attempt to refute or repudiate its contents. What is remarkable here is not that the reference to the Buddhist perspective on Christianity as a 'gentle' religion, in stark contrast to the western secular view on the matter, or that this article appeared at all in the mainstream media, but the scant subsequent media attention accorded to the matter of oppression of minorities under what could tendentiously be described as a 'Buddhist dictatorship'. At any given moment there are numerous, perhaps more fashionable, minority oppression causes given sympathetic coverage by the media, but what was the reaction of the broader media to the lead taken by the Telegraph in this matter? Google news is a generally good barometer of media interest in a subject, with favoured stories being replicated through every outlet, so what was their level of interest? “Christianity Burma”, produced a mere eighteen hits, of which several were unrelated, and a few about past mistreatment of Christians in Burma. It is most interesting that besides the Telegraph, no mainstream news source picked it up, with only a handful of Christian media sources carrying it as well. But a country known by two names can result in some confusion, and so a search on “Myanmar Christianity” produces thirteen results, and happily two other mainstream sources carried the story; the Post Chronicle, and United Press International. So a total of three mainstream news sources are currently carrying any information about the plight of Christians under the Burma/Myanmar dictatorship. If a secret memo had leaked out of the Knesset, calling for the eradication or removal of all Palestinians under Israeli sovereignty, or that Iran was planning for the forced conversion of all infidel citizens, one can reasonably expect a very different media response, no matter how dubious the provenance of the document may be. But what's going on in Burma is anomalous right? Let's dismiss it as a case of a dictatorial state using religion as a means to control the population through a specially sanctioned version of majority religion, which has happened at many times through history, and it's not like the practitioners of the state favoured religion can actually do anything about it. Also the Buddhism of Burma is the Theravada school, which is not the same thing as the Buddhism of Tibet, which goes by the names of 'Vajrayana', 'Tantra', 'Diamond Vehicle', or for sake of simplicity, just 'Tibetan Buddhism'. Similarly we'll pass over terrorism in the name of Buddhism as occurs in Sri Lanka without comment. It is the Tibetan branch of Buddhism which receives the most veneration, so merits the most examination. Shangri-La is the most dominant western image of central Asia, and has a long romantic history extending back as far as the poem “Kubla Khan”, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, to the novel “Lost Horizon”, by James Hilton, to the comic “Tintin in Tibet”, by Herge to the vast panoply of modern, uncritical notions of Tibet as a spiritual paradise shut off from the profane world until it was trampled over by Communist China in the 1950's. To be fair, few people actually say as such, in that they rarely, or if ever give any details as to the nature of this paradise, and is rather implied as being obviously a better place than under Chinese occupation. To be contrarian, is it possible that Tibet was such a living hell that it was actually improved in many respects by Chinese occupation, albeit brandishing one of the worst varieties of communism on offer? Perhaps unsurprisingly, it is mostly writers of the far left who have most to offer regarding unorthodox views of Tibetan history, and while their sympathies may lie with Marxism, and even Maoism, their findings should not be dismissed merely due to political motivations we might disagree with. The facts stand alone from any ultimate argumentative purpose they might wish to employ them in. For sake of brevity, and that a full dissertation on the history and social conditions of Tibet is beyond the scope of this article, bullet points will suffice in delineating an iconoclastic view of the matter: The first Dalai Lama, Gendun Drup, was installed in office with the backing of the Chinese Army, possibly as a form of regent for Chinese interests in Tibet, which is rather ironic given that the fourteenth and present Dalai Lama was ousted by the Chinese army. As the rank of Dalai Lama meant more as an office in the arcane and fractious world of Tibetan religious politics, than as a symbol of transcendent spirituality, a great many of the fourteen Dalai Lama's died after only a few years in office, sometimes murdered, sometimes dying of mysterious illnesses. It is estimated that between five and ten percent of Tibet's population were slaves, this is into the 1950's, when the present Dalai Lama reigned. Tibet was one of the very last countries in the world to officially sanction slavery, along with other such paragons of human rights such as Saudi Arabia. In addition to actual slavery the majority of the population were in a state of feudal serfdom, which though not slavery, was the nearest thing to it, with little freedom in general affairs such as freedom of movement, license to marry, use of their own labour, or use of their land. Their lives were mandated in every respect by their feudal lord. Children also were an asset that could be freely confiscated by the local Buddhist monastery and indentured for life to use as labour, domestic work, or to train as militia to fight other monasteries. It is also alleged that children were used for the sexual pleasures of the older monks. Taxes were imposed upon the following; getting married, the birth of each child, deaths in the family, owning trees and animals, for religious events, for being sent to prison, for being released from prison, for being unemployed, for seeking work in other areas, etc. Torture and mutilation were practised, as was capital punishment to maintain the feudal order. Eye gouging, tearing out tongues, and amputation were commonly meted out. When the CIA attempted to induce an uprising against the Chinese occupation, their only strong support was from the displaced aristocracy, the general population saw little reason to supplant one tyrant with their old tyrant, so the uprising was abortive. And not to disregard the Dalai Lama himself: - At the beginning of the 14th Dalai Lama's career, he was notably positive towards Chairman Mao and the entire communist experiment, “It was only when I went to China in 1954-55 that I actually studied Marxist ideology and learned the history of the Chinese revolution. Once I understood Marxism, my attitude changed completely. I was so attracted to Marxism, I even expressed my wish to become a Communist Party member.” Did he sincerely mean this? He wanted to become a member of the party responsible for more deaths than any other single entity in human history? Or was he just trying to placate the Chinese with diplomacy and affected submissiveness? We shall never really know. If he did mean it at the time then one wonders how little accumulated wisdom he had by his fourteenth life not to foresee the consequences of forced collectivisation, plenty of people who claim to only one life were able to see that. Most bizarrely, and echoing the folly of his youth, in 1996 he made this statement: “Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes-that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair. . . I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.” This is the sort of statement that instantly triggers about a thousand questions in your mind, with the depressing foreknowledge you'll never get a coherent answer to even one of them. After the Gulag, Cultural Revolution, and his own long complaints about occupation of his homeland he about faces and thinks at heart it is all a jolly good idea, just shame about the misguided implementations so far? And if he thought Marxism was the answer, what was he doing in the company of the CIA for the better part of two decades? In 1956, the 14th Dalai Lama fearing further incursions by the Chinese, called for gold and jewels to build a new throne that would ward off bad omens. One hundred and twenty tons of treasure was collected for this purpose, and half of it travelled with him to India. From 1950 to 1959 the Dalai Lama along with the Tibetan elite worked with the Chinese, in a relationship of unequal partnership, what they did in this time was lobby to protect their historical privileges, not campaign for democracy, human rights, or freedom of speech. Which only became concerns once they had allied with their American benefactors. Once ensconced in India, his Tibetan Government In Exile only held its first election amongst the exile community a full thirty years later. - The Dalai Lama while said to be a man of peace, and indeed being a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, also apparently endorses 'good wars', and gave his support to the American invasion of Afganistan, Korean War, and World War II, with possible support for positive outcomes for the invasion of Iraq. "In principle, I always believe nonviolence is the right thing, and nonviolent method is in the long run more effective," said the Dalai Lama, who after the Sept. 11 attacks had implored Bush to avoid a violent response by the United States. ... [HHDL] said, some wars, including the Korean War and World War II, helped "protect the rest of civilization, democracy." He said he saw a similar result in Afghanistan - "perhaps some kind of liberation."... Asked whether the Iraq war was just, the Dalai Lama said the situation there is "more complicated" and will take more time before he can judge. ... These statements have left supporters of the Dalai Lama scrambling to explain away these statements in such a way to maintain his public image with a litany of qualifiers to make it clear to you he really is a man of peace. - This is a part of a clearly established contradictory pattern of saying one thing to one audience, and quite different things to another audience. While one might think that this is evidence of rank ideological cynicism, supporters explain this away with some notion that the apparent contradictions point to some deep, ongoing philosophical dialogue... or something. - Perhaps the strongest evidence of personal dishonesty, and indication that his media image is consciously orchestrated by himself is the film 'Kundun', based on his own writings, with many of the actors played by his own relatives, and given his own personal seal of approval. Not surprisingly it is as saccharine as any other 'authorised biography', and strenuously avoids any of the aforementioned topics, and even has the audacity to claim by omission that the CIA had no part to play in his escape from Tibet. This is particularly outrageous when it is well known by everybody who even has a passing familiarity with the history of the CIA's foreign operations. None of this needs to be seen as especially impugning Buddhism either broadly or the Tibetan branch specifically, they are historical realities replicated at one time or another wherever religion exists, and also where it doesn't exist. Buddhism prevailed in undeveloped societies where at least some of the same conditions would have prevailed regardless of the religious landscape. The Dalai Lama inherited these conditions and it would have been surprising had he acted otherwise, and to regard his words and actions as what is necessary for a canny politician in difficult circumstances makes them explicable. What is at fault here is the western media for fostering this childish and sentimental image and the blanket silence on anything that calls this into question. It is only the purpose of this article to establish the facts of this media bias, not the reasons why, which would take us into myriad speculations concerning the secular yearning for spirituality, the cult of the victim, cold war propaganda, and personality worship. Additional sources: Michael Parenti - Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html The Dalai Lama's hidden past http://www.greenleft.org.au/1996/248/13397 Christopher Hitchens - His material highness http://www.salon.com/news/1998/07/13news.html Dalai Lama speaks positively of war. http://progressive.org/mag_intv0106 Long Trek to Exile For Tibet's Apostle http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/99/0927/lhasa.html Confusion Lingers over the Dalai Lama's Message Regarding America's Use of Force in Afghanistan and Iraq http://www.zenunbound.com/confusionlingers.html (This article was written for the first version of the #politicaldebate site, and lovingly restored here.) |
|||
 |
||
|
|