An Exchange of Letters Regarding Tibet

The first problem I have is with the god-king in exile, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Some people — Richard Gere, for example — tell us that to be in the Dalai Lama's presence is to be healed because he radiates the bliss of enlightenment, or something like that. The God part. Then there's the King part, which doesn't get talked about too much but which matters a lot because the religion, one of the most archaic still around, provides for his ultimate authority over worldly things. These can't quite be separated sensibly in a clear analysis, but for the sake of argument let's consider them one at a time.

As a matter of religious tenet the God part falls into what I call the "perfect jewel" theory of enlightenment. That is, through intense meditations involving complex, difficult mental gymnastics, the practitioner finds within himself (or herself) a perfect light.

That experience, then, is ascribed to one's own being and the subsequent reasoning, overly simplified, amounts to this: I have found perfection within myself, therefore I am perfect, and since the only thing(s) that is/are perfect is God, therefore I am God.

One should note that, separately from the "perfect jewel" theory, this inner search is not by any means limited to Tibetan monks. Jewish mystics practice it in groups (as related to me in some detail by a rather wise, elderly Jewish professor at the University of Chicago, Arnaldo Momigliano, when I was describing some of my own experiences to him while helping him after he had a heart attack, a few months before he passed away); Muslim mystics are well known for it; and even Christian saints have talked about the divine light, though the practice of searching it out seems somewhat frowned upon by the Church, redolent as it may be of classical Gnosticism. I'm sure any competent expert in religious mysticism could easily produce dozens more examples. It's probably true to say that the meaning of what one finds will not always be the same, either to individuals within the same religion, or between different religious traditions.

In any case, I find it highly doubtful that the mind itself produces a perfect light. More likely, making a multi-dimensional pretzel out of your thoughts acts like a prism, channeling and opening up a field of energy that's already there, all around us, and within us. The proverbial "inner eye." But there is no such thing as a perfect meditator. Just my two cents. And I would stress: this is an empirical physical process with no necessary or discernable religious content. What one gets is light, not a being, or heaven, or anything like that. So ascribing perfection to the Dalai Lama rubs me very much the wrong way.

Tibetan Buddhists might argue that it's not about mystical light at all, but if you strip away the frou-frou trappings, to me it seems very much that the role of Dalai Lama is to be the top guy on that ladder.

If we look, then, more closely at the fellow's actual personality things get worse. There's a long history here which I won't parse but to take just one example, what the Dalai Lama had to say about the U.S. invasion of Iraq at the time it started, one gets a good sense of the man. He said "it's too early to judge" whether attacking Iraq will have a good outcome. "To early to judge." Hell, at the time my barber knew it was a bad thing to do. Lots of people, including probably you, knew it was a bad thing to do. At the time I knew it was a bad thing to do. Does having known that make us all saints? I don't think so. And thus I have, let's say, a very low level of confidence in the Dalai Lama's judgment about political and ethical matters.

Others have noted, and this is a very valid point, that given the Dalai Lama's immense personal influence worldwide and stipulating that he actually believes his platitudes about peace and nonviolence, then it's very difficult to explain why, in fact, he hasn't actually used his influence in difficult circumstances to try to make things right. Not anywhere, if you think about it. Like, for example, Mahatma Gandhi, who really put his life on the line.

Which gets us to the King part. Up to now Tibetan Buddhism requires adherents to accept the absolute temporal authority of the Dalai Lama. This isn't immutable, as the Dalai Lama himself hinted recently, saying that he would "resign" his temporal duties if violence in Tibet got out of control. And I'll believe that when I see it! But consider this from a Chinese government point of view: how can they reasonably be expected to turn a blind eye to a religion that proposes the overthrow of Communist rule? The Chinese government doesn't have to ruthlessly suppress the Tibetans, either, but one would be astonished if they didn't severely constrain Lama-related activities. For an American analogue one need look no further than Texas, with our ongoing uproar over child abuse at the compound of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These days the rule of thumb seems to be, when churches contest fundamental political authority, churches lose. As they should.

But even in exercising what minimal temporal authority he possesses the Dalai Lama is wanting. The most interesting comments I've found along these lines come from Patrick French, formerly the director of the Free Tibet campaign in London, who has had the unusual experience — I empathize with him, from my own Bosnian experience — of being ostracized by a group to which he formerly belonged due to his honest criticism of it. French realized, while writing a book about Tibet, that if the Dalai Lama were to genuinely help the people of Tibet he would "negotiate realistically with the Chinese state." Simple, to the point, entirely correct. Unacceptable to Tibetan separatists.

And why? This is the nub of the problem. In the bigger picture we have a whole long list of places deemed ready for outside intervention. Humanitarians bleat most conveniently, but military muscle moves to its own rhythm, for very different reasons. Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur, etc.

Tibet, also, though not so much recently. The CIA folk who pioneered Tibetan intervention in the 1950s have written about it, as has Joe Bageant (in his earlier incarnation as a contract writer of military history), and many others; indeed, it may be one of the best documented of all CIA interventions.

Many behind-the-scenes reasons from yesterday carry over to today with new ones thrown in. While we don't know for a fact that the CIA is involved in organizing Tibetans anymore, I would be shocked if the Dalai Lama weren't still on the CIA payroll and that some clandestine organizing of separatists takes place inside Tibet. After all, Tibet is a resource rich, imperfectly controlled area — perhaps an anchor upon which to chain the Chinese dragon. And if by chance encouraging separatists causes lives to be lost, what does it matter?

I won't go into proposed Olympic boycotts here except to say it's a silly idea that could have seriously harmful consequences for all concerned. And that talking about an Olympic boycott creates an all too convenient distraction from Iraq.

It is not wrong, however, for caring people to worry what happens to Tibetans. And to Muslims in India-controlled Kashmir (another paradise lost). And to people in the Congo. But, please, before going through the world's woes, put things into their rightful context and try to develop a reasonable (e.g., based on logically strong abstract arguments) set of priorities. Only then might taking the next step of proposing intervention make sense.