|
“Pull My Finger” – (Afghan Edition)
@67 uncle tungsten
Thanks, it’s good to put some timeline on this. One can feel the determination of the Chinese in 1950 to secure their One Land after final victory and there’s no doubt that Tibet understood it was itself in an age of powerlessness. It wasn’t always so, but Tibet turned to peace under the spread of Buddhism for a thousand years, and the very large corruption of the monastic class left no government of value.
I took a quick look at the 17-Point Agreement of 1951, that the Dalai Lama in your video seems to be completely at peace with. Wikipedia (we have to start somewhere) says this (my emphasis):
The United States informed the Dalai Lama in 1951 that in order to receive assistance and support from the United States, he must depart from Tibet and publicly disavow “agreements concluded under duress” between the representatives of Tibet and China.[6] In 2012, Dalai Lama mentioned the Seventeen Point Agreement was signed in the spirit of one country, two systems.[7][8]
The exiles in their treatment of the Agreement are full of argument that Tibet was never a part of China (which no one disagrees with), and that thus Tibet should be independent (which is where the interests of the west align, of course).
More quick searching reveals that the Cultural Revolution was 1966-1976, and we know that things got out of hand episodically during that event, so I’m sure lots of that came to Tibet’s culture of relics as well. I get the impression the diaspora from Tibet happened over many years, and over perhaps two generations – which always puzzled me. History is written by the cities, as Ramin Mazaheri showed in his essays on the Cultural Revolution in China, and those who were accustomed to write the culture were the very ones who experienced life upside down. So there’s that as a nuance to put into this mix also.
~~
I think the mistaken idea that the Dalai Lama has been a “CIA asset” flows from the fact that the exiles had to seek support from the west, and we can easily reckon the kind of support that was – even apart from the US demand above for how he must act – especially remembering the moral credibility the US held throughout the second half of the last century.
A very famous American Buddhist of undoubted kind heart has spoken of Gene Sharp’s work as the way of non-violence to achieve political change, and I used to believe that whole-heartedly myself. It’s a different manual that sends the snipers in of course, and not having read Sharp, I also wonder if he’s been maligned to some extent – conceivably, for instance, his work is completely innocent and groundbreaking, and merely co-opted by the spooks – or it could be as others say, that he was always a Trojan horse. I don’t profess to know, and others can clear this up.
But my real point is that I have always been in awe of how something as evil as the CIA could become symbiotic with authentic grass-roots popular expressions from the heart from ordinary people all across the world, and infiltrate and manipulate them for the Company’s own ends of, usually, regime change. That speaks of a deft touch, and it almost seems impossible with clear-seeing Buddhists – but I wonder if the Company boys actually found the unworldly Tibetans to be one of the easier touches to turn?
~~
[As an aside, on the purity of doctrine – the Buddhism that came to the west through the diaspora of the late 20th Century was the stream of monastic culture called Rime (ree-may) which saw the corruption and the spiritual dissolution of Tibet a century beforehand, and gathered the cream of the teachings for safety, which are what came to the west. The Buddhism in the west comes from very pure streams.
I have often wondered how the Tibetan masters who landed in the midst of the long-haired druggies of the west thought of their new students. What karma did these westerners hold, perhaps they wondered, that brought the absolute cream of a thousand years of practice in the Buddha’s truth to teach these unruly children?]
Posted by: Grieved | Jan 2 2021 2:38 utc | 76
@ Grieved and
@ Posted by: uncle tungsten | Jan 2 2021 1:39 utc | 67
“I am sure the Chinese Communist Party would have had no time whatsoever for enduring the meddlesome englanders in their protectorate or any where near their borders.”
This is so little mentioned.
The initial push into Tibet in the early 1950s by the PRC was on grounds of anti-imperialism, not to overturn the existing socioeconomic system and “liberate” the Tibetans from their system of feudalism. The Brits in India were threatening at the borderlands. Not much was altered in Tibet socioeconomically by the PRC until after the (CIA funded and armed) uprising against the PLA by the upper classes. Here’s Michael Parenti on the situation:
When the current 14th Dalai Lama was first installed in Lhasa, it was with an armed escort of Chinese troops and an attending Chinese minister, in accordance with centuries-old tradition. What upset the Tibetan lords and lamas in the early 1950s was that these latest Chinese were Communists (italicized in original text). It would be only a matter of time, they feared, before the Communists started imposing their collectivist egalitarian schemes upon Tibet.
The issue was joined in 1956-57, when armed Tibetan bands ambushed convoys of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army. The uprising received extensive assistance from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), including military training, support camps in Nepal, and numerous airlifts. Meanwhile in the United States, the American Society for a Free Asia, a CIA-financed front, energetically publicized the cause of Tibetan resistance, with the Dalai Lama’s eldest brother, Thubtan Norbu, playing an active role in that organization. The Dalai Lama’s second-eldest brother, Gyalo Thondup, established an intelligence operation with the CIA as early as 1951. He later upgraded it into a CIA-trained guerrilla unit whose recruits parachuted back into Tibet.28
Many Tibetan commandos and agents whom the CIA dropped into the country were chiefs of aristocratic clans or the sons of chiefs. Ninety percent of them were never heard from again, according to a report from the CIA itself, meaning they were most likely captured and killed.
“Many lamas and lay members of the elite and much of the Tibetan army joined the uprising, but in the main the populace did not, assuring its failure,” writes Hugh Deane.
In their book on Tibet, Ginsburg and Mathos reach a similar conclusion: “As far as can be ascertained, the great bulk of the common people of Lhasa and of the adjoining countryside failed to join in the fighting against the Chinese both when it first began and as it progressed.” Eventually the resistance crumbled.”
It was first after the 1956-57 uprising that the PRC began to alter the socioeconomic structures. Again, Parenti:
…after 1959, they [the Chinese] did abolish slavery and the Tibetan serfdom system of unpaid labor. They eliminated the many crushing taxes, started work projects, and greatly reduced unemployment and beggary. They established secular schools, thereby breaking the educational monopoly of the monasteries. And they constructed running water and electrical systems in Lhasa.
I disagree with some points Parenti makes later in his essay, and with some language he uses to describe situations, as they falsely conflate social practice with social teachings. Parenti unwittingly ignores his own words:
“Tibetan feudalism was cloaked in Buddhism, but the two are not to be equated… old Tibet was … a retrograde repressive theocracy of extreme privilege and poverty.”
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Some scholars contest the rigid use of the term “serf” that is commonly used to describe the common people of Old Tibet, arguing there was more flexibility in Tibet’s feudal system than what Western feudalism experienced. Life was de facto, not just de jure. The story of the liberation of Tibet after 1959 relies, ironically, on this rigid Western de jure serf terminology, usually ignoring your point re the initial anti-imperialist motive for the occupation.
~~~~~~~~~~
Book excerpt:
Chapter 4: Conclusion
“He thinks I am not liberated. I say it is simply that his thinking isn’t liberated, it is still that feudal head!”Cao Ming, in Cheng Feng Po Lang
In this thesis I have critiqued the various salient aspects of the discourses of feudalism and serfdom in Chinese and western historiography as they relate to Tibet. I began by outlining the development of the discourse of feudalism from its ideal form as a decentralized form of governmental administration in the early Qing as reflected in the works of Gu Yanwu, to its status as a reformist narrative in late Qing and early Republican era China. Feudalism then underwent a paradigmatic shift in meaning as it gradually came to represent a counter-narrative that stood in opposition to the centralizing discourse of the modern nation-state in later Republican era China. With the advent of Marxism and its accompanying ideas of historical evolutionism in China, the trope of feudalism was used as a political expedient to malign and thereby dis-empower China’s pre-national past
as the dichotomous Other of universal History. In the contemporary discourse, feudalism is used by the Chinese government as a pejorative expression that essentializes Tibetans and other “minority” peoples vis-à-vis the Han majority. Moreover, despite some progressive indications of potential change, feudalism is used in contemporary China to deflate the historical foundations of those ideas and institutions deemed by the Chinese nation-state to be seditious, i.e., counter-hegemonic to state authority.
My critique of the discourse of serfdom—inseparable from feudalism in the Chinese discourse, is based on the research of Melvyn Goldstein, the most prolific (and perhaps controversial) western scholar of modern Tibetan history and anthropology. Goldstein asserts that serfdom characterized traditional Tibet, and while he does present a valid jural definition of serfdom, salient exceptions to this definition reveal that a strong counter-narrative of de facto autonomy existed in traditional Tibet. Moreover, I have suggested that Goldstein’s narrative of serfdom, which is fundamentally jural in nature, is untenable in light of recent scholarship that reveals the flexibility of traditional Tibet’s legal system, and that the theoretical underpinnings of this narrative, grounded in the classical western understanding of feudalism, collapse under the critical eye of deconstructive analysis. Finally, I have highlighted how, however uncomfortable it may be to admit, Goldstein’s scholarship has been appropriated by the Chinese government and incorporated into the contemporary discourse of feudalism in China.
Words, particularly politically-charged words, should clarify as best as possible our understandings of a subject. “Feudalism” and “serfdom” more times than not confuse and complicate, rather than refine, our understandings of the nature of Sino-Tibetan relations today. Moreover, the strength of the discourses of feudalism and serfdom as outlined in this thesis effectively hinders the growth of new, alternative historical narratives with the potential to clarify further our understandings of China and Tibet. Through the critiques presented in this thesis I have attempted to highlight the salient aspects of the dominating discourses of feudalism and serfdom in the hopes that well-informed historical paradigms that are sensitive to the unique natures of diverse social, political, and economic contexts will emerge in the near future.≤/i≥
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ealac/barnett/pdfs/link3-coleman-ch3-4.pdf
Posted by: suzan | Jan 2 2021 3:36 utc | 79
Posted by: Bemildred | Jan 2 2021 10:08 utc | 92
Buddhism is far from being bullshit, it informs much of my thinking, but like any religion or other source of authority and cash, it attracts grifters and manipulators like flies. “Will you be my guru?” The first thing one ought to do with ones children is to teach them to recognize such swine.
Of course, this depends on what you define as Buddhism and whether it conforms (or should conform) to the original teachings of The Buddha.
Every religion has it’s fair share of bullshitters who will infiltrate it at various points and cloud any teachings with a hope of leading to enlightenment.
However, in defense of Buddhism, I find that it as a system of practice designed from the very start with the anticipation that bullshit could eventually infest it. There are inbuilt tools and defenses within Buddhist philosophy that empower practitioners to run at full bullshit detection mode:
“By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depend on oneself; no one can purify another.”
— Dhammapadha, Chapter 12
… Or, for the layman: Only you can determine your own path to truth, not the monks, not the priests, not the government, not the experts.
The Ādittapariyāya Sutta, one of the earliest sermons attributed to The Buddha provides a basis for understanding the mind’s tendency to absorb and incorporate bullshit, it provides a framework for metacognition which can be used by the Buddhist practioner to question what he is being programmed with by the external world:
“The mind is burning, ideas are burning, mind-consciousness is burning, mind-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.
“Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in the eye, finds estrangement in forms, finds estrangement in eye-consciousness, finds estrangement in eye-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful- nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.
“He finds estrangement in the ear… in sounds…
“He finds estrangement in the nose… in odors…
“He finds estrangement in the tongue… in flavors…
“He finds estrangement in the body… in tangibles…
“He finds estrangement in the mind, finds estrangement in ideas, finds estrangement in mind-consciousness, finds estrangement in mind-contact, and whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with mind-contact for its indispensable condition, in that too he finds estrangement.
“When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: ‘Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'”
About a thousand years must have passed between then, enough time for quite some bullshit to accumulate and encrust the teachings of the Gotama buddha, until the arrival of Hui Neng, the 6th Chan (Zen) patriarch:
The body is a Bodhi-tree
The soul a shining mirror:
Polish it with study
Or dust will dull the image.
(attributed the 5th Patriarch)
Bodhi is not a tree;
There is no shining mirror.
Since All begins with Nothing
Where can dust collect?
(attributed to the 6th Patriarch)
The greater lesson around the teaching of Huineng is an encouragement to penetrate beyond what is taught by the established Buddhist orthodoxy and “see further”.
Buddhist Philosophy, particularly in Chan and Zen schools are full of these inbuilt anti-bullshit mechanisms. Theravada schools not so much …
Posted by: Arch Bungle | Jan 2 2021 15:19 utc | 100
|