The Buddhist teaching is about the middle way – taking neither extremes. It means the taking of a middleground. But I must say, the middleground sucks. Here’s a picture to explain the whole thing, since a picture is a thousand words:
And then, comes the words. Of course there are words. When Buddhist monks go on protests and become violent, it is usually news. Because usually monks don’t get violent, and the Buddhist tenets clearly prohibits violence. So why did they go on protests and become violent?
The answer is quite simple. It’s not the “oppression” of the Chinese government. No, its something that has been taught in Buddhism for a long time – attachment.
People cause trouble when there is attachment. One can be attached to loved ones, one can be attached to material property. One can be attached to something not real, something virtual, like race. One can be attached to their silly religions even. When there is attachment, our minds automatically engage in rationalization, and self-deception.
And this has what’s been taught by the Buddha since ages past.
I find it highly amusing that the Tibetan buddhists, who champion non-attachment, have become so attached to their religion, their race, their culture, and their notion of a country.
Surely, some of you will then come up with excuses that China is oppressing the Tibetans’ basic human rights. Being a nihilistic cynic, I’m going to ask you: what are human rights? Who created them?
The Buddhist will answer: the mind.
My reply would be: if its all in the mind, then wtf are you fighting for?
The Buddhis will answer: Yes, but Buddhism isn’t nihilism… we need some basic rights
My reply would be: How are Tibetans oppressed then? Are they not allowed to live? Are they not allowed to go about doing their own business? Is the Chinese government trying to wipe out Buddhism in Tibet? Coz as far as I know, none of those is happening. The only thing that is happening is that the Chinese government is not allowing Tibet to be fully autonomous. That… is not a basic human right. That, is politics.
I know, I’m not very elucidate in this article (because my mind is elsewhere), but this article has been sitting on my Draft list for a looong time already (since Pi Day), and I have been writing and rewriting this article since then.
Overall, I’m not impressed with the politicking of either sides. The Western media just keeps getting things wrong, the Chinese government is acting wrong, and the Tibetans themselves are acting against the Buddhist teachings that they have been indoctrinated with.
But, here’s what I’ve got to say: the stupidest party in this game are the Tibetans. Followed by the media and those who ‘support’ the Free Tibet movement who laps up the stories like nobody’s business – falling for groupthink. Followed by the Chinese government.
If you don’t get it, this is just a game. With one overall winner. The others are just pawns (yes, Richard Gere is also just a pawn). Yes, the whole boycott the Olympics, Free Tibet blablabla bullshit.. its all a lengthy game, with new players who may or may not be part of the same player.
And in this game, the best way to win, is to stay out of the game. Actually, the best way to win, is for the Dalai Lama to go to China. Then they both quit the game (the Dalai Lama threatening to quit his position can also be seen as trying to leave the game), leaving the western media and other parties big fat losers, but let them think they’ve won.
And oh, this is a very level headed read, thanks to David Lourie. And oh, don’t only read the western media. Because contrary to what you know, they’re also very propagandic. Try reading other sources as well, like Anti CNN. Also, if you have access to my old blog (not everyone has), I wrote a list of Rules of Disinformation – on how to subvert information flow. Maybe I’ll publish an updated list later.
ps: yes, my Buddha picture has two stickers on it that says: “This is Buddha”, and “This is Not Buddha”
Good stuff…an alternative view on Tibet is always refreshing. Further on the topic, let’s not forget that monks in Sri Lanka have organised themselves into political parties and advocate using violence to put down the Tamil independence movement. wth!
Simply put, religion is stupid. When people of a religion do things that are contrary to its tenets, its proof that it is dumb.
Chewxy,
Great post, right to the issue at hand: attachment.
Agreed. Strange that though Buddhism decries attachment, the monks and sangha are themselves thoroughly attached to the religion. Ah well…bakana…
you idiot… there is NO OTHER argument for religion other than its sheer irrelevance. The more ‘points’ you bring in the more you confuse a simple decision. But then nobody thinks anyway. So you can just try to rationalize your disdain for religion if you wish.
but non-attachment…is another very stupid thing. Solving the problem by declaring it a non-problem? Evolution or God whichever made us have the desires that we have. We can declare them arbitrary. But then we would be following a manufactured logic. A logic that is within our very own created heads and thus is by that logic (!) arbitrary as well. Embrace the axioms and you have mathematics. Embrace your desires and you have life.
but i grant that perhaps this propensity for pathetic efforts to abandon our desires is innate as well. So maybe we are created to be so hopelessly stupid.
still it’s a tradeoff. what matter’s more to you? to most people it’s social acceptance and support. and that is what those tibetan monks are after.
like you. they are being very rational.
Such big words from such a little mind.
Not all practitioners consider Buddhism as a religion, many consider it only from its philosophical value, not it’s dogmatic underpinnings.
And where did you get the idea that some one was declaring it a non-problem? Attachment is the problem, though I’m sure that this escaped your cluttered mind.
Social acceptance and support? maybe you should examine the Tibetan theocracy which once ruled over the region:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
The Tibetan “myth” is only a spirit of denial, where they have refused to address the abuses by their own hand and try to escape accountability.
Behold the collective karma of Tibetan theocracy.
Dharmakara i don’t know enough about Tibet to even talk about it or their people. I declare total ignorance. Religion well, is religion. As for Buddhism i dont know enough about it either. But on attachment i think the very denial of desire/attachment is the denial of life. Of course that depends on what you mean by attachment. That is where most ppl disagree. As for taking all attachment to be wrong…well that is just plain stupid. Coz then nothing would matter. Perhaps even non-attachment itself. (note that i’m not arguing by contradiction here. it can simply be declared that you drop all desires except the desire to drop all desires except this one. and that is seriuosly perfectly fine). And if all you have left is one desire to not desire then well, i’ll just say life wouldnt be interesting. Now i’m quite suspicious that Buddhism actually teaches this. Anyways, i’m against any deliberate misrepresentation of Buddhism. But then you wouldnt be interested anymroe huh? do you care more about non-attachment? or Buddhism? (note that in my previous post i didnt mention Buddhism at all) I’m a very abstract person you see. I dont care to demarcate or define Buddhism. A certain degree of detachment allows you to appreciate the beauty of life i do agree. But if you ask of me more than that I’ll furiously protest against. As for you, you are your own person. Frankly, i dont even care. That is bliss.
Dear Zcer,
Attachment and non-attachment might be easier viewed as a a “Catch-22″ or the Buddhist version of Pandora’s Box. Traditionally speaking it means to not cling to ideas, goals, objects, perceptions, even Buddhist ones.
there are some people who prefer using “residing” and “non-residing” because Pandora’s Box is sealed, with the difference coming into play when we examine our own motivations behind the attachment or view in question, examine our ideas, goals, objects, perceptions as whether they are “self-serving” or “self-sacrificing”?
At the end of the day, we walk through life with attachments and there is nothing that can be done about that because we are human, but the Buddhist path is to lead to liberation of such attachments and therein lies the problem of Tibet — there is no self-examination, only a collective karma that I would never wish on any living being, the collective karma of their society prior to the Chinese revolution, as well as the karma after the exile of the Tibetan theocracy.
It’s like a big snow ball rolling down hill, one which they’ve decided to ignore. In other words, they have brought it on themselves and their hands are not clean, not in their actions or the spirit of denial they’ve adopted to it.
Hmm, but i guess this should apply to everybody, not only Buddhists. We all need some self-examination. And i need to read up on Tibet…
As for attachment itself disregarding any opinions of philosophies on the matter. I think attachment per se is not the problem. Somehow, Evolution or God created us with such conflicting inclinations. So i tend to think of trying to live a good life as optimizing (or compromising if you are a pessimist) between these tradeoffs.
As for Tibet, as far as i know. We should try to avoid using their Buddhism against them. They should instead learn specific lessons from their history. But i really dont know. Religion sways people more.
Yes, in general it should apply to everybody, not just Buddhists. Speaking not only as a monk, but also a critic of institutionalized Buddhism, I can say that the problem isn’t specific to the Tibetan tradition, but Buddhism in general — members of the Sangha do not belong in politics, no sooner then they belong on a battlefield, though today the world gets to watch both occur.
Absolute power corrupts and when any particular governmental body gives or permits members of the Sangha a voice, other than that of serving as a good counsel, then we have a governmental body that has not only errored in it’s judgement, because mixing religion and politics never ends well, but the members of the Sangha who participate in such behavior are in violation of the Vinaya discipline required of them.
Of course there are many who will argue that such behavior is permitted, but it should be kept in mind that these are the members of the Sangha who are actually violating the Vinaya, so we shouldn’t except their position to be other than what it is on the issue — it would be like telling a drunk person that he shouldn’t drink, it accomplishes nothing.
The fundamental question is how can members of the Sangha faithfully serve as a counselers to kings and rulers, as advocaterd by the Buddha, if they possess a political agenda themselves? Simply, they cannot.
Hmm, I think we should respect people who deserve respect and respect ideas that deserve respect. But our psychology makes it hard to separate the two…
My friend, you just identified the foundations of “attachment” and “non-attachment” — when one walks with a the spirit of equanimity, all people deserve and should receive respect — our psychology or “monkey mind” makes it hard to separate the two.