Huh? China arrests 50 schoolchildren?

Rusty

Rusty

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 8, 1999
Messages
8,911
You posted Pala's greetings the other day.

( You also also commented on his taste in alleged music - exciting James Mattis into asking where he could get Sherpa music, to which I responded by digging out a link to snowlion, which does sell music, and posting it. )

In the process, I ran across one of their news releases about 50 children returning home from a Tibetan exile school in India to visit their parents being arrested. The article indicated it was likely done to repay the escape of the 17th Karmapa Lama who escaped across the border into Nepal, then India in a week long flight 12/28/99 ->01/??/2000.

A further article called "The Flight of the Lama" is at
http://www.snowlionpub.com/pages/news.html

and explains more. I guess it would if I knew what it was talking about. Anyway, I gather there are, in Tibetan Budhism, 4 living reincarnated lamas, the Dalai Lama (#1), the Panchen Lama, who is #2 and was selected by the Dalai Lama but disappeared into chinese hands, and the 14 yr old Karmapa Lama is now with the Dalai Lama in India.Does the Karmapa Lama rank #3 or 4, and where is the last Lama. Where should I look for more info?
 
Pala knows all this stuff but he is not here and almost never responds to email. I'll bet the folks at Snowlion would know if you emailed them direct. They are good people, mix of all sorts.

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ
 
I thought there were lots of "little" lamas overall, like one lama for every different little region in Tibet.

Maybe there are only four "big" lamas.

As it happens, I just finished reading "Ethics for the New Millenium," (by the Dalai Lama) which I had borrowed from a Buddhist friend who happens to be Laotian.

Still trying to turn him on to khukuris!
smile.gif


-Dave

------------------
"...not men, not women, not beasts, but this."
 
Dave,

Re: four lamas, you may be thinking of the four major monastic sects of Tibetan Buddhism, each of which has a head lama. The Dalai Lama is one of them (head of the Gelugpa), and there's the Panchen Lama (recently escaped into India), the Tashi Lama, and the Karmapa, who head the Saskyapa, Nyingmapa, and Karguypa schools (I can't remember which goes with which!)

Beyond them, there are lesser ranks of lamas many of whom are also thought to have reincarnated from previous holy men, or who are supposedly emanations of bodhisattvas or other mythical beings.

As someone who's both an aspiring Buddhist scholar and a former Chinese schoolteacher, though, I have to say that the situation is very complicated, and making simplistic "Good Tibetans/Bad Chinese" paradigms ultimately makes a true solution to the Tibet problem more difficult. (Not that anybody here's doing that, but I just felt the need to play Devil's Advocate and put a moderating word in for those PRCers who can't seem to make a good impression on anybody!)
 
Hi folks,

Been a while since I've posted. Re: Tibetan Buddhist sects and reincarnated Lamas, here's what little I know:

Ruel is largely correct - Tibetan Buddhism has four major sects, Gelugpa, Karmapa, Nyingmapa and Shakyapa. H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama, besides being the head of the Tibetan people is also head of the Gelugpa sect. The 17th Karmapa heads the Kagyupa sect. I'm afraid I don't remember the heads of the other two sects at the moment. Anyway, besides the heads of the sects, there are a lot of other reincarnated lamas and anis (nuns). As far as ranking goes, the generally accepted norm seems to be, the Dalai Lama is number 1, the Panchen Lama is number 2, and the Karmapa is number 3.

There is some controversy going on over the Panchen Lama and the Karmapa. After the previous Panchen Lama passed away some years ago, the Dalai Lama, as is the norm, gave recognition to the next Panchen Lama, unfortunately, this child has disappeared - the Tibetan-government-in-exile claims that he and his family has been kidnapped by Beijing, who have gone on to give their endorsement to another child as the "officially recognized" Panchen Lama.

In the case of the Karmapa, there is some internal strife going on between the regents, with Ugyen Thinley, the 14 year old Lama who escaped to India recently, being recognized by all the regents save one, as the 17th Karmapa. One of the regents and his followers have forwarded another person as their Karmapa. H.H. The Dalai Lama has endorsed Ugyen Thinley as the 17th Karmapa too, and this has gained widespread acceptance among Tibetans from all the different sects. My folks are staunch supporters of Ugyen Thinley, the Tsurphu Karmapa (Tsurphu is the head monastery of the Kagyupa sect in Kham, eastern Tibet, with the head monastery outside Tibet being in Rumtek monastery, Sikkim, India).

The 17th Karmapa is the highest-ranked Tibetan monk to escape from China after the Dalai Lama in 1959.

Within Tibetan Buddhists there is actually not too much of a hard divide between the sects. My mother, who is supposed to be a Karmapa, actually has as her main religious teacher (Chawey lama or root guru) a Nyingmapa Lama. My late grandmother who became a Nun after my grandfather passed away started her training under Nyingmapa teachers before going on to take further teachings under Kagyupa lamas.

- Sonam
 
You're right, Sonam, I stand corrected -- it was the Karmapa, not the Panchen Lama, who recently escaped. There's a new book out called "The Search for the Panchen Lama" which is ostensibly about the enduring dispute between the two nominees.

Although the Dalai Lama-ship is #1 (the Mongols having replaced the Tibetan monarchy with it), it is arguably beneath the Panchen Lama-ship. The latter was created by the famous 5th D.L., who conferred it on an esteemed tutor.

The trouble is, the DL is supposedly an incarnation of Avalokitesvara, while the PL is an incarnation of Amitabha. Since Avalokitesvara, a Bodhisattva, is an emanation of Amitabha, a Buddha, the PL would technically outrank the DL.

While all this is fascinating, it's a little to much for me, which is why I am sticking to Buddhist dialectics. I really want to find a Madhyamika teacher, but Texas isn't known for its philosophical climate...!
 
Ruel, you're right about the grey-line between rankings of The Dalai Lama and the Panchen Lama. Thankfully, most people are not overly concerned about these rankings!

And Uncle Bill, ever since I took this new position at work, my workload has effectively doubled, leaving me with very little free time to browse the Web. Thankfully they're paying me better and I'm doing stuff I like, so I can't complain
smile.gif


- Sonam
 
Hi Uncle Bill!

I am here in Phoenix today. I was in Phoenix all weekend long, but I was away from the computer playing with my dad's new grinding wheel.

His axes are all very sharp now.
biggrin.gif


Ruel--I'll take you up on the "good Tibetans/bad Chinese" argument. While I'll gladly admit that Tibet ain't/never was/probably never will be perfect, I say Maoism still sucks no matter whether you're Chinese, Tibetan, or Nepali. When I took some classes on East Asian Studies I quickly discovered that the EAS majors had all been indoctrinated with the "good Chinese/bad Americans" argument which disgusted me to no end.

These were supposed to be educated people and there they were preaching the gospel of Maoism.

I don't miss academia all that much.
frown.gif


-Dave

------------------
"...not men, not women, not beasts, but this."
 
Talked to Pala last night and he told me that the Maoists had killed 150 people in the Kathmandu Valley since I left Nepal last of Feb. Not good! Pala said he avoided going out at night now.

Strange, years ago I remember walking the streets of Kathmandu at 3 AM with more money in my pocket than most Nepalis will see in a lifetime and never gave it a second thought. I would not do this today.

And, Bhanis, we hope you will be able to attend the Konvention last weekend in August but I know it is a long and expensive journey and that you have burned all your vacation -- but do the best you can. You and the knowledge you would bring would be a welcome addition.

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ
 
Al Capone used to say it was easier to persuade someone with a friendly smile and a gun than with just a friendly smile.

Sounds like the Maoists consider anyone who doesn't object ( and dead men aren't known generally for a lot of activity or raising objections after they're dead ) as persuaded, and to the devil with bothering to smile.

Sounds like a few ( hundred ) scholarships for promising Nepalis at the John F. Kennedy School at Bragg (?) would only be belated recognition of the Gorkha's contribution to freedom in the indochina theatre during WWII.
 
Hi Dave K,

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being a Mao apologist. But I do think it's unfair to:

A: Treat China, or even only the Chinese Communists, as a group who thinks with one mind and acts with one purpose;

B: That that 'mind' is obsessed with how to exterminate all opposition, especially religious opposition.

Let me try to explain, NOT advocate, the general Chinese position. First the historical context as understood by China:

1.Historically, the Chinese have seen their neighbors as adopting Chinese culture (ie. "civilizing") to varying degrees. To them, Tibet has been Sinified to a considerable degree. Fashion, weapons, architecture, and art, among other things, are largely Chinese-influenced.

2. China and Tibet were both conquered by the Mongols in the 13-14thc. At that time, the Mongols converted to Tibetan Buddhism, and ever since, there had been a very close association between the Chinese monarchy and the Tibetan priesthood. The Ming continued the practice of receiving recognition of the emperors from high-ranking lamas.

3. The Mongols later placed the Dalai Lama as the political head of Tibet, eliminating the king. Later, the Mongols, allied with the Manchus who also were converts to Tibetan Buddhism, conquered China and assumed the monarchy.

4. During the Manchu Qing dynasty, Tibet became a province of the Chinese empire and was directly ruled by Chinese governors. (That actually got started when Tibet asked China for protection from the Gorkhas, who invaded in the 18thc.)

Now the present context, again from the Chinese view:

5. At the end of WW2, there was a power vacuum in Central Asia. The Chinese felt that if they didn't assume control of Tibet (which they still considered a province), somebody else would anyway. The Tibetans were in no condition to defend themselves.

6. China is terribly overpopulated in the lands of China proper. Yet there in the west were lands that were sparsely populated, and could act as a pressure valve to alleviate demographic pressures.

7. Tibet borders lands that have traditionally been hostile to China, and the Chinese fear that if they don't secure their Western flank, the inhabitants there will be incited to attack China proper. Remember that Western China for centuries was habitually raided by nomads -- including the Tibetans themselves. (They occupied the Imperial Capital in 750.) The Chinese particularly fear Islamic Fundamentalism.

8. In the Communist view, theocracies like that previously in Tibet perpetuate feudalism and enrich themselves while the people wallow in poverty. While far from being wholly accurate, there is some truth to this.

9. Lastly, they will say that China has introduced modern medicine, technology, infrastructure, etc. that Tibet wouldn't have had if China weren't in there.

To sum up, these are not meant to excuse Chinese atrocities in Tibet. However, I hope you can see that the Chinese are not simply brainwashed monsters; their actions in Tibet have been guided by historiography and modern geopolitics as much as by communist fanaticism. Remember too that far more damage was done to Chinese cultural properties than to Tibetan ones during the Cultural Revolution.

As one who's lived in China, I can say without hesitation that the people are not as 'brainwashed' as you might think. Further, they are alot more Americanized that you would ever think. Most of them either don't know or don't bother with the situation in Tibet. Then there are those Chinese who actually are interested, and those people go to the local bookstore and buy books on Tibetan Buddhism. That's right, books on Tibetan Buddhism, published by state-run presses -- hardly what you'd expect from the type of 'sucky Maoists' you mention.

All I'm saying is, don't be so quick or so sweeping to judge the Chinese. It's a very complex situation, and there's a whole lot going on that you're not aware of. You can support Tibet without slamming China. In fact, the best way to help Tibet is to help change China from within, and Americans will never do that by taking a narrow, stereotyped, and antagonistic view of the Chinese.
 
I confess to having an antagonistic view of tyranny and slavery. Even when they prosper.

China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet looks almost as sound as the UK's claim to sovereignty over Ireland.

And lots of colonial powers have brought education and infrastructure and such with them, and found that their subjects were less than grateful.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
Ruel: it's very possible the views that you passed along ( albeit did not necessarily espouse ) have merit. Re the general Chinese population, that is. I only have problems being tolerant of intolerant people ( while they remain breathing that is ), and what I've heard of the Maoists, Shining Path, etc., doesn't seem to recommend them. I could be wrong of course. However, I think I'd feel safer discussing dialectics with them in handcuffs and at the point of a shotgun ( mine ).

Addendum: have heard it claimed that the era of modern day terrorism was ushered in by one of the jewish groups blowing up a wing of the King David hotel prior to the British pullout and independence. On the other hand how does that indicate a watershed compared to the previous millenia of terrorism. Being half sarcastic or cynic, but also curious as to any explanations.

[This message has been edited by Rusty (edited 06-13-2000).]
 
To me it seems that most places I've been in the world the people are generally okay but governments often are not. And when the people don't control the government then the government controls them. And that is about all I know about politics.

------------------
Blessings from the computer shack in Reno.

Uncle Bill
Himalayan Imports Website
Khukuri FAQ
 
The term "terrorism," for political assassination and bombing and such, is older than any of the aftershocks of WWII, but seems to go back to some radical anarchists of the late 19th and early 20th century. Some of them preferred to call it "propaganda by the deed."

And I'm not aware of any history of countries on the far side of Tibet from China being hostile to China, at least not until quite recently. The general direction of the Great Wall is another matter altogether.

Tibet's topography was a pretty effective barrier to both conquest and commerce. Goods and ideas went the long way around, through Afghanistan and Turkestan by land, or around Southeast Asia by sea.

And Tibet or even Sinkiang not the sort of places whose conquest can absorb any significant part of China's "population pressure" as the conquest of North America did and still does for a lot of other countries. An independent Tibet would probably benefit by having a large Chinese immigrant community, though nativist nationalists there, as in other places (looking over my shoulder to California history!), would be reluctant to admit it.


------------------
- JKM
www.chaicutlery.com
AKTI Member # SA00001
 
Hi Rusty,

1. "I only have problems being tolerant of intolerant people". I agree wholeheartedly with this. The atrocities committed by various Communist groups are not something endemic to communism itself, but are examples of this very kind of intolerance -- ideology become fanaticism. Atrocities are committed by people of every political persuasion. Is communism more susceptible to this kind of fanaticism and intolerance? Probably, because of its dialectic of revolutionary change, but not necessarily.

2. With respect to Chinese communism, it's important to realize that it is in a POST-Maoist phase. Classic Maoist ideas like collectivization and regenerating revolution have been rejected even in the official Party literature. "Communism with Chinese characteristics," as it's now called, is in a crucial transitional period, and the US government, among others, needs to recognize the progressive elements in the Chinese government and support them. But anti-Chinese sentiment, largely uninformed, running so high among the American people makes that all the more difficult, and ultimately more difficult for Tibet.

3. As the Buddhism says, all phenomena arise from causes and conditions (pratitya-samutpada). This applies to the situation in Tibet too. Events and people have been shaped by historical forces larger than themselves, and people attach themselves to one dialectic or another in order to make sense of it all. And again, like Buddhism says, attachment to these causes is the root of suffering.
 
Hi James, I agree with you post except for one statement: "And I'm not aware of any history of countries on the far side of Tibet from China being hostile to China".

Remember that the Mongol Empires of Chagathay and the Golden Horde were to Tibet's west, and Tamerlane planned a Mongol re-conquest of China (but he died en route). During the Qing dynasty, the Chinese were constantly at war with the Muslims in what's now Xinjiang (though it was the Chinese themselves who started it by invading them). The modern Chinese fear Islamic fundamentalism as much as we in America do -- probably more, since they're right next door, as it were.

Before the Mongols, the Tibetans themselves were quite powerful and a fair military match for China. To Tibet's southeast, also on China's western border, was Nanzhao, and to the northeast a bunch of semi-sinicized kingdoms. So both the lands to the West of China, and many beyond, were historical enemies and some residual memory of that still lingers in the collective Chinese mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top