Kundun
![[Print This Post]](http://www.rantlust.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif "[Print This Post]")
Tenzin Gyatso is not a name most people are familiar with. But mention the Dalai Lama and immediately Tibet, Buddhism, China, Xizang, Lhasa, Potala Palace, Brad Pitt, and even Richard Gere come to mind. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people was in town last weekend.
The 6500 people inside the Maples Pavilion at Stanford University were in for a rare treat on Friday and I was glad to be one of them. We had arrived a full two hours before the Dalai Lama’s speech and the stadium was already half full. When he walked in at 9:30am, everyone rose to their feet and gave him a hearty welcome. After the initial formalities were over, the Dalai Lama sat on the dais with his longtime translator, Geshe Thupten Jinpa, by his side. He then removed his shoes and sat cross-legged on his chair. He said that he wanted to be comfortable while talking about meditation, evoking laughter from the audience. And then he started his talk . . . .
The Dalai Lama spoke sometimes in English and other times in Tibetan, which was translated for us by Mr. Jinpa. The talk was on meditation and nonviolence and it was not only illuminating but also funny and thoroughly entertaining. He would often break into giggling fits prompting everyone else to do the same. He made fun of his own English calling it a “disgrace” and praised the English of his translator. (He mentioned that he started learning English before the forty-seven year old Mr. Jinpa was born.) He was, however, happy with his own (booming) voice and made fun of the softer voice of his translator.
During the talk, the Dalai Lama praised the nonviolent movements started by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi; however, he said that sometimes violence can be justified if it reduces future loss of life and suffering. (The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Dalai Lama in 1989 was declared as a “tribute to the memory of Gandhi” who never got the prize.) Toward the end of his talk, he asked all of us to close our eyes and meditate for five minutes (more than that would be distracting, he said). It was amazing to see 6500 people sit absolutely still for even a small period such as five minutes. You could hear a Kata drop.
Kundun, as he is affectionately called by the Tibetan people, still seems a bit like the mischievous but lovable boy who was introduced to the world in the movie “Seven Years in Tibet”. In it, Heinrich Harrer (as played by Brad Pitt) is shown to be teaching the young Dalai Lama many subjects including English. I was surprised and pleased to hear His Holiness say that the person most responsible for teaching him English was a Christian from Kerala. He did not mention the name but maybe it was Jokutty, Jobiboy or something similar.
I attended this event with fellow blogger anupcs and I have this to share. His Holiness started by talking about ‘hope’ and how important an element it was in our day to day living. At this point he briefly reflected on what he said and added that despite being over 70 years old he still had hope. I looked for a tinge of sadness as he said this but he revealed none.
He proceeded to talk about how meditation can help in developing compassion and healing. He outlined several techniques in meditation. For e.g. you can focus on a single speck of dust and meditate on that or you could think about a child suffering from the recent earthquakes, losing it mother and father etc. His approach to meditation is almost ‘flippant’ and far removed from my books and manuals that talk about it i.e. the current literature of meditation has too much focus on breathing and action and less on the mind itself (Indeed one meditation class I went to talked about emptying the mind during meditation [sigh!]). He said that meditating for 5-10 minutes was sufficient for most people and joked that even he sometimes has difficulty meditating for more than 20 minutes.
During the Q&A I was impressed on the time he takes to truly understand the question and think about his answer and made a mental note to develop the ability to be comfortable with silence even during a one to many conversation.
While listening to him I was amazed at his sense of humor and ability to connect with such a mass audience. For me it was a memorable event. I have never been in the presence of true greatness, but even at more than 70 feet away I was sure that this is about as close I would ever come to true greatness and to the truly divine.
Since no one, including the Dalai Lama, knows what the future holds, this would mean that if *you* think an act of violence will stave off more violence and lead to a better future, then you’re entitled to use force. This would pretty much justify every violent act ever committed (except for the random acts of violent sociopaths). Heck, that makes George Bush look non-violent, and was probably meant that way. The Dalai Lama is a master of media manipulation.
In the Nobel committee’s statement linked above, the Dalai Lama is quoted as saying:
Hmmm… not exactly a glowing endorsement of non-violence. So then non-violence is not a philosophical or religious calling, but just a piece of realpolitik. Not a conscious choice made because its right, but a policy adopted because there is no other option. Contrast this with Gandhi’s approach. Even today, historians argue about what would’ve happened if Gandhi had supported Subhas Chandra Bose and his Indian National Army in their armed struggle. Violent resistance was certainly an option for the vast Indian nation, governed by a handful of British. But for Gandhi, though he too was a canny politician, non-violence was also non-negotiable.
I’m sure he would not fret too much about not being awarded the Nobel, which is a sop given to the flavor of the month.
An example that was mentioned is World War II in which he condoned the Allied offensive against the Germans. However, I am not sure what he thinks of the atomic bombs dropped in Japan.
You might have a point but this is true for most religious and “spiritual” leaders. John Paul II was very good at media manipulation and so are the various Hindu god-persons in India. I have a slightly higher respect for the Dalai Lama than I have for many other religious leaders; at least he doesn’t force his religion on you. The Dalai Lama is an avowed secularist. I respect that and I came off the session feeling the same way riyer felt.
I agree completely.
The average westerner supports the cause of the Tibetan people because their conquerers are the communist Chinese. What they don’t realize is that the Tibetan culture before the invasion of the Chinese wasn’t exactly a model of a moral and nonviolent society. See this article for a different perspective. The Dalai Lama has argued that things were changing when he was driven out in ‘59 and he himself had initiated a few changes before that.
That’s a classic example. The official position of the US government was (and continues to be) that the bombing actually saved lives, by preventing an Allied invasion of Japan.
I haven’t seen “Seven years ..”, but I’ve seen “Kundun”, a nice movie..I was disappointed to learn that he finally recognized China to be Tibet’s ruler, last year..I guess he decided pragmatism is the best approach, but I think he won’t go there, because he might be imprisoned, is that still the case?
Nice article, Anup.
I also attended this event and would like to add my own thoughts….
“I am just a simple Buddhist monk–no more, no less”, says the Dalai Lama.
His Holiness often refers to himself as a “simple monk”. I was touched and amazed by this–here’s this world known figure, this Nobel Peace Prize winner talking about himself in such a humble way.
After he started his talk, it dawned on me: “yes, he’s just a simple monk.” He is not pretending to be humble. He is speaking the truth. He is being himself and not a Nobel Prize winner, or anything else the world thinks he is.
When he came on to the stage, the first thing he did was not to greet the big crowd but to greet a fellow monk seated in the front row as if to say, “It’s good to see you here.”
When he was talking something funny or exciting, His Holiness would tap the arm of the host. I was shocked at first by this–this was against any public speaking “rules” that I had seen. Then it dawned on me that he was not here to give a speech, to charm the audience but to talk to the audience, to have a conversation.
As he said in the event, after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, it becomes easier for him to meet with important people. Is he great because of the Nobel Peace Prize? Or what he is and what he has been doing made him great enough to get the Nobel Peace Prize? The Dalai Lama has not changed but people have changed. Somehow, in the society we are in now, people define or label themselves or others with externals such as, the title, house, wealth, dress, car, etc. The Dalai Lama is himself and continues doing what matters to him, to his people, etc. The Nobel Peace Prize was not his goal.
The first question for the Q & A session is “What is the best way to . . .?” I don’t remember the exact question but I remember his answer: “These kinds of questions irritate me a lot. People now always ask ‘what is the best, the easiest; the quickest . . . .’” The Dalai Lama did not seek the best or easiest way to win the Nobel Prize and then get the world attention to Tibet. He cares about Tibet and his people. The Nobel Prize just came along and enabled him to have a wider influence.
“I am just a simple Buddhist monk–no more, no less.”
Eugenia makes some excellent observation.
His ability to connect with the audience had a lot to do with these simple gestures and actions. It also validates Papi’s assertion that he is a master at manipulating peoples perceptions. For me that does not take away from his message, indeed if anything it shines a brighter spot beam on it.
There is another aspect to this. Varying estimates state that anywhere from 200,000 to 300,000 non-combatants were dying in Asia every month that the war dragged on. The wikipedia article says 200,000. Another interesting entry is one on casualties per 1000 people in World War II. Singapore is on top with 214.3 (all civilian deaths in that case).
To see another ‘religious’ view on justified use of force; the Catholic Church has a ‘Just war’ doctrine - the section dealing with the conditions under which military force may be used for self defense includes
In their case, the Iraq war did not pass the litmus test, but therein lies the problem. As noted previously, in many cases it depends on who applies the litmus test.
I am sure he is willing to go if the Chinese government gives the Tibetan people some autonomy. They are supposed to be still talking though every time the Dalai Lama goes out of India and meets with foreign dignitaries (he is planning to meet Bush this week), it angers the Chinese.
This is again one of those “what if” scenarios. We will never know. But the truth is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did end the war.
Not sure why you say it is a ‘what if’ scenario. Are you saying that even though large numbers of civilians were dying every month (perhaps the actual numbers or whether they knew can be debated), that it did not mean that similar numbers would die if the war continued?
In that case, I disagree - I would not place such prognosticating in the category of pure speculation. If 200,000 - 300,000 people had been known to be dying every month to that point, it would have been reasonable at the time to assume that the same numbers would continue dying - even though that outcome was not certain.
Nope. That’s not what I am saying.
I understand that large numbers of people would have continued to die if the war went on but I am wondering if there might have been other ways to end the war apart from decimating two cities with Atomic bombs. That’s what I meant by the “what if”. Note that I am not sure what the “other ways” might have been.
Agreed. One plausible alternative was to drop a bomb in an unpopulated area with several world leaders present to witness it; in order to give teeth to the Potsdam ultimatum (this was suggested by several scientists). The fact that this alternative was not tried first puts the US ‘lesser of evils’ position on somewhat shaky ground. This may not have stopped the war, but I would have definitely thought it was worth a try.
But was dropping an atomic bomb the only alternative? It’s the only war in history whose outcome was determined thus. They didn’t have to do this for World War I.
How is he a humble, simple monk? Let me count the ways:
Yeah, just another day in the life of a humble, simple monk! I’m not saying this is his fault. He’s the religious and spiritual leader of an entire nation, and certainly as leaders go today, he seems a man of substance and conviction. He does what he needs to do to gain attention to his cause. But let’s not swallow every one of his pronouncements hook, link and sinker as though we’ve lost the ability for critical thought when we heard the word “Dalai”.
When someone like Mother Teresa says she’s a simple servant of the Lord, I can believe that. She spent her life among the poor, rarely courting the public eye. When a political animal like the Dalai Lama says it, it sticks in the craw. That’s like the Pope saying he’s just a humble little priest.
I read the Dalai Lama’s book “Ethics for a New Millenium” a few years ago and I was somewhat underwhelmed. I was expecting (perhaps wrongly) some kind of deep treatise - in any case, the reviewers on amazon seem to love it.
I personally don’t believe in any sort of organized religion and don’t care about its leaders. And yet, after listening to the Dalai Lama speak and reading about him before and after the event last Friday, I have to say that I respect him more so than I respect other similar leaders. He had this responsibility thrust upon him when he was two years old and he seems to have done quite well with his (exiled) people considering the circumstances. This doesn’t mean that I am blindly latching on to his every word and think of him as some sort of divine being. I don’t. Eugenia can respond to your critique of the “simple monk” thesis.
While I agree that she definitely did a lot of good in her time, I don’t think she was a saint either. Her charity was strongly tied in with the proselytization of the recipients. (There were reports of people being turned away from the “Missionaries of Charity” if they failed to convert to Christianity. There are also reports that a lot of the money that her order received was used in missionary work in Africa.) This discussion might open up another can of worms and probably is better off in a separate blog entry. Before that happens, I would like to just add that the comparison between the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa is not a fair one. How about comparing the Dalai Lama to the Pope, Ariel Sharon or Yasser Arafat?
On a lighter note, the BBC recently conducted a worldwide poll to find out who people would like to lead a fantasy world government. The Dalai Lama came in third. Mandela was first and surprise, Clinton (Bill) was second. Here is the full list:
http://snipurl.com/jnx7
I used the comparison with Mother Teresa in the context of the Dalai Lama’s statement that he’s just a simple monk. Why isn’t the comparison fair, if he truly is just a simple monk?
I agree that in truth, his stature in the world is more comparable to the Pope, or Sharon, or Arafat, but that is not the image he’s trying to put forth with that statement. Btw, I did compare him to the Pope in my earlier comment.
By saying he is a “simple monk”, I don’t think he is shirking his political responsibilities. Mother Teresa didn’t have to worry about fighting for a land for her nuns or the preservation of an entire culture.
The Dalai Lama is a simple monk in his outlook on life. Whether or not he attends cocktail parties, I do not know. I doubt if he is letting it all hang out in those parties even if he does attend them. Being a simple monk doesn’t mean that he is not well versed in the ways of the (political) world. He is a well-read and well travelled man. Are you saying that if you have a simple outlook on life, you can’t hold forth in cocktail circuits with the urban glitterati or that you can’t make statements on international policy? If so, I disagree without further comment.
Personally, I would never have associated international foreign policy with simplicity. But hey, what do I know? I’m just a simple man.
Sure, the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa have their faults but I bet they have done more selfless things in their lives than any of us have even thought of doing. So, how about we give them a break and instead direct our very eloquent armchair criticisms at the idiots starting wars for imaginary weapons of mass distruction, gassing their own people, blowing up skyscrapers or perpetrating mass genocide in African countries instead?
Good post, Anup. Really enjoyed it.
The blogger “papi” seems to write a lot about the English language in this blog and yet, he or she cannot differentiate between being simple and being a simpleton. I would suggest spending some time with a good dictionary.
The Dalai Lama is obviously not a simpleton but he lives a simple life. His needs are simple. He is a monk who doesn’t crave the material things of the world. But that doesn’t mean he can’t be pragmatic when it comes to foreign policy. It has to be remembered that he is not just a spiritual leader of the Tibetan people but also their political leader. I also don’t see why the two can’t be orthogonal.
http://snipurl.com/jpqw
I think what some of you are ignoring is that there are those whose message is so simple and yet powerful that it ceases to matter who they are what they do. They transcend their history, their actions and even themselves. I believe that the Dalai Lama is one such soul. It doesn’t matter how justified the Chinese were in invading Tibet, it doesn’t matter how many wives the previous Dalai had and what crimes they comitted. I personally don’t care if the current Dalai Lama enjoys the company of lovely women every weekend with a nice martini in one hand and a cigar in the other.
I think he is a very sophisticated Monk, who has figured out a way to package his cause with a message that has universal appeal. He has done this by marshalling every available medium. The fact that he can be very secular in the west and show a different dimension in the East speaks to his understanding of his global audience. (As a marketing professional, I can’t help but admire that). I believe the Nobel peace prize is wasted on most people who don’t use its power to open doors and advocate their cause. He has and he does - good for him, good for his cause - glad the message reached me.
To me he provides inspiration, he provides hope - his brand of spirtuality sans ritual, sans exclusion appeals to me. His message has gone beyond what and who he is or was.
It seems to me that people are interpreting my comments as an attack on the Dalai Lama, but that was not my purpose. My intention rather was to point out our tendency to deal in absolutes, as in “if it’s the Dalai Lama, everything he says has to be some profound truth.” It’s the kind of black-and-white thinking that leads people to say, for example, that Bush is a God-fearing man, as though that validates his policies.
As riyer pointed out in a later comment, the Dalai Lama is a complex person, who has to deal with complex problems. It might be true that he does not crave material goods and wealth, and that these are furthest from his mind, but temporal power is just another type of treasure, and he wields it, whether he chooses to or not. His statement that he’s a humble, simple monk is disingenuous, and needs to be taken in the context in which he said it. He’s a superb communicator, media-savvy and wise. This does not mean that his message is lacking in meaning.
It seems we have become incapable of separating the person from the message. To attack the message, we attack the person, as sullivan’s comment shows. Conversely, to believe in the message, we feel it necessary to deify the person.
Good article. You might know this already. Heinrich Harrer died recently. Here’s a tribute from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5407487
Carlos, Thanks for posting the pointer. What a well written obit.
The Potala Palace is an awe inspiring site. I could almost picture the Dalai Lama taking his lessons from Heinrich Harrer…