Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Anything goes (almost).

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:06 am

Rinpoche indicates precious and is usually only used for tulkus but there are exceptions.

Current and former abbots are called Khen Rinpoche and Khensur Rinpoche and this is often shortened to Rinpoche by their students when addressing them.

Similarly, with a teacher one feels very close to, even if they don't have a position in the hierarchy, one can refer to them as rgan Rinpoche (pronounced Gen Rinpoche). Gen indicates teacher, and Rinpoche indicates precious.

For example, Geshe Sonam Ngodup, who is my teacher, is a petri geygan at Sera Jey monastery, so his students in formal situations (such as making a request or offering for his health, etc.) may refer to him as Gen Rinpoche རྒན་རིན་ པོ་ཆེ་, though everyday use would simply be "Gen" or "Gen-la". Occasionally they might use Rinpoche by itself when addressing their teacher as a mark of respect, but in a private situation.

Sku Shogs
སྐུ་ཤོགས is used by older Tibetans mostly who have a strong enduring respect for the Sangha, who would not use the word
གྲྭ་པ (tra pa or monk) even when referring to Sangha as a group. Younger Tibetans often use the first name of the Sangha member which it what I prefer, though less commonly if they are very devout they might use Sku Shogs.

"Lama" བླ་མ་ is an interesting one because as was mentioned it is actually quite a high title. But not just in India but in Nepal as well, Lama is used for all monks, even by Sherpas, for example, who are a Buddhist ethnic group. Lama is also a common surname amongst the Sherpa people. But the word itself is quite lofty, indicating qualities. Rangjung Yeshe dictionary quotes from Lord Padmasambhava in its blurb on the term ''lama'':
In the Lamrim Yeshe Nyingpo, Padmasambhava says: "The vajra master, the root of the path, is someone who has the pure conduct of samaya and vows. He is fully adorned with learning, has discerned it through reflection, and through meditation he possesses the qualities and signs of experience and realization. With his compassionate action he accepts disciples." In short, someone with the correct view and genuine compassion. lama; guru, spiritual teacher; Guru, master; supreme spiritual teacher of weight or substance. teacher, priest, highest one, spiritual master, preceptor.


Quite lofty indeed, which is why I laughed the other day when someone told me the word "Lama"by itself was not high enough for their particular teacher.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 06, 2013 8:22 am

yegyal wrote:Yes, I have for many years, but I guess you're still going to tell me that they call old monks 'rinpoche.' Well, Indians refer to five year old monks as 'lama' but it doesn't make them lamas.



Titles are used loosely and thrown around quite easily. Addressing an elderly Tibetan monk as rinpoche is harmless and done with deferential respect.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 06, 2013 12:49 pm

Indrajala wrote:
yegyal wrote:Yes, I have for many years, but I guess you're still going to tell me that they call old monks 'rinpoche.' Well, Indians refer to five year old monks as 'lama' but it doesn't make them lamas.



Titles are used loosely and thrown around quite easily. Addressing an elderly Tibetan monk as rinpoche is harmless and done with deferential respect.


It is harmless, but they think you are an idiot.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:31 pm

Indrajala:

Elsewhere we've discussed varying religious explanations for the cultural destruction of Tibet. In this regard, I brought up the point that I seldom hear anyone, especially Tibetan Buddhists, point out it was the bad political decisions of the Tibetan government that failed to deter the PRC takeover of Tibet.


No, it was the fact that Tibetan Government had been subject the whims of the Qing Dynasty Ambans for most of the nineteenth century that lead to Tibet's weakened political structure in the nineteenth, plus the fact that Tibetan was used as a football during the great game between Britain and Russia. Also, if you recall correctly, the Tibetans had to repel a Chinese invasion as well as deal with the Younghusband expedition.

I imagine this has something to do with the issue that if you criticize the former government, you're indirectly criticizing the 13th Dalai Lama Thubten Gyatso, which may be perceived as criticism against the present 14th Dalai Lama.


Don't think Tibetans are so naive.

In any case, while the pro-Tibetan lobby frequently lays full blame on homicidal communist forces from China, there were a few factors that made the takeover of Tibet relatively easy.

- Tibet was very reluctant and slow to modernize both its infrastructure and military, thus posing little challenge to the battle hardened mechanized army of the PRC. There was almost no military deterrent.


The Tibetans did not have the industrial infrastructure to build such a military, nor the economic wealth to buy such a military. So your point is invalid.

- The Tibetan government kept foreigners out and didn't make an active move for international recognition until it was too late. They didn't establish embassies in the capitals of world powers. After WWII when it was clear the British were moving out of India, it would have been apparent that Tibet should have entered onto the world stage.


The policy of Xenophobia was an understandable response to the encroachment of colonial powers in Asia. Tibet's regions at that time border both China and Burma directly, as well as Nepal, etc. and a great deal of trade contact made the Tibetans aware of what was in store for nations like China (and themselves) as well when colonial powers were let in. Look at Japan -- they had an isolationist policy for centuries, but they also were not a landlocked nation.

- Despite several famous prophecies about the imminent downfall of Tibet, it seems the government didn't do much in the way of serious defensive works to deter foreign aggression.


Religious prejudice on the part of the Gelug-controlled Goverment of Tibet ; all these prophecies came from the Nyingma school, specifically the treasure tradition.

- Lhasa didn't really have control over places like Kam. It was bandit territory that even the government avoided.


A large part of Kham was controlled by the King of Derge, and during the 19th Century, Derge was the center of the religious and cultural renaissance called "The Ris med" movement. Western Kham was controlled by the King of Nangchen. Chamdo was controlled by Lhasa. You should get your facts straight. All you are giving evidence of is that your study of Tibetan culture, history and religion lack depth and nuance.

Yes, there were bandits in Tibet. There are still bandits in Tibet [in Golog]. There are also bandits in Tokyo.

Arguably in such anarchy and ill-managed areas a foreign invading force could have just rolled right in, deep into Tibetan territory, as did happen. The Tibetan government didn't do much to secure their borders or even consolidate themselves as a proper nation state which in turn made it easy for the PRC to claim sovereignty over Tibet without much protest from the international community.


It is difficult when the Chinese and British are writing treaties about you without your participation.

    "Early British efforts to create a boundary for north-east India were triggered by their discovery in the mid-19th century that Tawang, an important trading town, was Tibetan territory.[5] Britain had concluded treaties with Qing China concerning Tibet's boundaries with Burma[6] and Sikkim.[7] However, Tibet refused to recognise the boundaries drawn by these treaties[citation needed]. British forces led by Sir Francis Younghusband entered Tibet in 1904 and made a treaty with the Tibetans.[8] In 1907, Britain and Russia acknowledged Chinese "suzerainty" over Tibet.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Accord_(1914)


Now, granted, what's past is past, but nevertheless the narrative of Tibet's downfall, which is an intrinsic part of Tibetan Buddhism nowadays, is quite slanted and one-sided.


Nonsense, it is not slanted and one-sided at all.

And the fact is that the fall of Tibet had far more to do with Colonialism in Asia than it has anything to do with some innate failure on the part of Tibetans to defend their own nation. You forget that eighty thousand khampas showed up to fight the PLA in 1959. You forget than the invasion of Tibet took nine years to complete, starting in 1950 when the PLA started "liberating" Tibet. You forget that the international community just stood by and watched as the PLA invaded Tibet.


Good Tibetans versus Evil Communist Chinese. That's perhaps easier to digest than the reality where China could opportunistically seize Tibet owing in part to the bad political decisions of the Lhasa government. Understandably, there's going to be a reluctance to acknowledge that point. Still, the pro-Tibetan propaganda line doesn't really help matters much because it is skewed and heavily biased.


Nonsense, Tibet was a victim of several factors: western colonial policy, specifically, Britain's presence in India. Tibet was also subject to Qing dynasty in the 18th and 19th century, who poisoned several Dalai Lamas to maintain control over Lhasa (there was a lot of money in the Tibetan salt and tea trades). The Qing deliberately kept the Lhasa government weak and under their control. The primary reason that Kham and Amdo were not under the Lhasa Gvt., is that they were territories of China from the early 18th century onward, not because Khams was filled with bandits.

In fact, it was the 13th Dalai Lama who threw off the shackles of the Qing (which is why he is considered a hero) and tried to modernize the army and so on without success.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby yegyal » Thu Jun 06, 2013 1:45 pm

:good:
yegyal
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:02 am

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:15 pm

Malcolm wrote:The Tibetans did not have the industrial infrastructure to build such a military, nor the economic wealth to buy such a military. So your point is invalid.


Was there an attempt to do so? That's the key question.

Japan got the ball rolling on it early on.


The policy of Xenophobia was an understandable response to the encroachment of colonial powers in Asia.


That's just an excuse for a poor political policy.


Look at Japan -- they had an isolationist policy for centuries, but they also were not a landlocked nation.


Right, but when they realized that policy wasn't going to work any longer, they opened up trade and diplomatic negotiations with foreign powers and established themselves as a recognized sovereign state.

Religious prejudice on the part of the Gelug-controlled Goverment of Tibet ; all these prophecies came from the Nyingma school, specifically the treasure tradition.


Again, not reacting in an intelligent way to a dangerous situation while prophecies all talk about Tibet's imminent downfall.


All you are giving evidence of is that your study of Tibetan culture, history and religion lack depth and nuance.


Well, an eyewitness account by Heinrich Harrer states that in the 40s Kham was in fact bandit territory that the Lhasa government had no control over. Nobody had control over it. At the time it seems it was anarchy, at least in the areas he visited and according to the people he spoke to.



It is difficult when the Chinese and British are writing treaties about you without your participation.


It is difficult to participate in diplomatic negotiations when you fail to play the game of formal diplomacy.



You forget that eighty thousand khampas showed up to fight the PLA in 1959. You forget than the invasion of Tibet took nine years to complete, starting in 1950 when the PLA started "liberating" Tibet. You forget that the international community just stood by and watched as the PLA invaded Tibet.


The insurgency of course happened, but how well coordinated was it? The invasion took time, sure, but that's the roof of the world. The failure of the international community to respond is an intriguing question because the western power bloc reacted differently in Korea and elsewhere. It seems to me this was largely because foreign powers just didn't know about Tibet. How many Tibetan representatives at the time could have met with officials in London or Washington?



In fact, it was the 13th Dalai Lama who threw off the shackles of the Qing (which is why he is considered a hero) and tried to modernize the army and so on without success.


He might have tried, but his government appears to have acted unwisely resulting in the downfall of Tibet. Nevertheless, at the same time you had all these prophecies predicting the downfall of the culture. Did it seem inevitable?
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:22 pm

I just want to say that my emotions have run the gambit with the Tibetans, from idealization, to profound disillusionment, to a growing appreciation tempered with knowledge (I hope this is the last phase!). While it would be dangerous (and foolish) to overidealize Tibet as a profound Shangri-la, the opposite, to depict them as backward feudal serfs, is equally unwise (not accusing anyone here of that, it just seems the discussion tends to run into one of these 2 extremes in much of the information that is out there).

To put it bluntly, China is swiftly becoming a colonial power and the paradigm of colonialism that began with the Communist takeover of various outlying areas of the Sinosphere has not shifted with the market economy. China is slowly eroding away the territories that surround it and its motives are not benign. It started with Tibet, but has not ended there- it is continuing in Ladakh and Bhutan. India is very concerned, and it should be: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/drag ... 97314.html http://articles.economictimes.indiatime ... li-keqiang. This is in addition to years of already atrocious policies aimed at securing Nepal strategically and preventing Tibetans from seeking asylum there or using it as a throughfare to India.

I know there are many other countries that are guilty of similar atrocities- in my country of Canada our treatment of the First Nations People has been abhorrent. But the Tibetan people still have a vibrant culture, and if we sit back and allow it to be worn down due to past mistakes in our own countries, does that not make us doubly guilty?

There is no more evident sign of China's shameless unwillingness to have real discussion about the issue than its constant attempts to vilify HHDL and fund groups opposing him. Fortunately, so far Western media has remained unconvinced despite these relentless attemps http://www.economist.com/node/10880709

The Tibetans do not have the only transmission of a complete path, I agree. However, I believe that Buddhism in Tibet is remarkeable within the Buddhist world for several reasons:

1. The compilation of the huge plethora of teachings available in the Sutras and Shastras into manuals that integrate all the essential aspects of the path in a way that is easy to practice- think Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Lam Rim Chenmo and Kunzang Lamai Zhalung (Words of My Perfect Teacher).

2.Unlike other countries where Mahayana traveled, such as China, Japan, and Korea, Tibet did not have an eastablished Confucian culture so Mahayana Buddhism was accepted and integrated into the culture relatively easily without having to reconcile itself with a strong existant philosophy.

3. The timing of the two main transmissions of Buddhism taking root in Tibet coincided with a degeneration of integrated Sutric and Tantric Mahayana Dharma in India, so Tibetans studied with or in rare cases invited the "last of the greats" in terms of Indian scholars (Naropa, Shantarakshita, Atisha etc.).

4. The translation efforts in Tibet were in many cases a process of differfent translators working together under Royal patronage, working according to the same guidelines. (In China this occurred to some extent, but in small blocks and not in as integrated a way)

5. Tibet's isolation kept the dharma rather pristine when the rest of the Asian regions were dealing either directly with colonialism, or its cultural impact even if they kept political independence.

6. Guru Rinpoche on a supernatural level was able to pacify many of the obstacles that allowed Buddhism to become rooted more quickly (I realize some people will think it's nutty to note this, but it is based on a lot of my own research and questions to teachers)

7. Tibet's isolation and rapid adoptation of Buddhism led to an environment of support for the teachings, which allowed great scholars and practitioners the means to achieve realization on a level unparalleled for such a small population.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:27 pm

Was there an attempt to do so? That's the key question.


The 13th Dalai Lama made repeated attempts to raise a modern army and communications web, but was opposed at every turn by entrenched elites who had the naieve idea that Tibet could never be penetrated as it was a land of dharma.

http://buddhism.about.com/od/The-Dalai- ... Part-3.htm

The 13th Dalai Lama had traveled through China and India and was painfully aware of how backward and insulated Tibet had become. So he attempted to modernize Tibet.

He initiated a program that sent groups of Tibetan boys to Britain to be educated. He also opened secular primary schools around the country and built a medical school in Lhasa. He reformed the prison system, applying uniform standards and abolishing capital punishment and most corporal punishment. He had electric street lights installed in Lhasa. He also make regulations to reduce exploitation of the peasants by the wealthy landowners.

Determined to defend Tibet's independence from China, the 13th Dalai Lama decided that Tibet's army must be modernized. He turned to the British for help, requesting weapons and instructors. The British wanted a strong Tibet to buffer India from China and were willing to help. But the Tibetan government was broke, so new taxes were levied on the monasteries as well as the landowning aristocracy.

The 13th Dalai Lama also initiated religious reforms. He curtailed the ability of monks to run businesses outside the monasteries. He stopped the common practice of awarding religious degrees for money. He also stopped monasteries from levying taxes on laypeople.
Last edited by JKhedrup on Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:35 pm

Tibetan Buddhists don't produce enough merits to dodge Tibet's karmic effects.

Just putting that out there.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:38 pm

Putting it out there in the hopes of accomplishing........?
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:50 pm

You tell me.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:53 pm

This conversation is gettin toó Zen for me...

But I think it is very dangerous to open up this kind of discussion, as often it happens as a sort of one-upmanship between the various Buddhist traditions.

Buddhism degenerated and fell to communism in the following countries:

China,Viet Nam, North Korea (Mahayana)
Tibet (Vajrayana)
Cambodia, Laos (Theravada)

So it would seem a rather silly door of conversation to open to me. The atrocities against Buddhist practitioners and the decimation of Buddhist cultures in all of these countries indicates that the practice of neither Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese/ Viet Namese Mahayana, or Theravada was enough to dodge the karmic effects as you put it.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:57 pm

Indrajala wrote:
Malcolm wrote:The Tibetans did not have the industrial infrastructure to build such a military, nor the economic wealth to buy such a military. So your point is invalid.


Was there an attempt to do so? That's the key question.

Japan got the ball rolling on it early on.



Japan had ports and a healthy trade relationship with the Western colonial powers. They were able to afford a modern Navy, and they were not corrupt like the Qing.



The policy of Xenophobia was an understandable response to the encroachment of colonial powers in Asia.


That's just an excuse for a poor political policy.


It's not an excuse, it is a fact.


Look at Japan -- they had an isolationist policy for centuries, but they also were not a landlocked nation.


Right, but when they realized that policy wasn't going to work any longer, they opened up trade and diplomatic negotiations with foreign powers and established themselves as a recognized sovereign state.


Nonsense, they were forced to open their doors by the United States. No one wanted anything from Tibet because no one understood that there was anything there. People were only interested in Tibet because of border issues.


Religious prejudice on the part of the Gelug-controlled Goverment of Tibet ; all these prophecies came from the Nyingma school, specifically the treasure tradition.


Again, not reacting in an intelligent way to a dangerous situation while prophecies all talk about Tibet's imminent downfall.


All this proves is that Tibetans were keenly aware of their predicament and shows that at least outside of the moribund, Chinese influenced government of Tibet, there was considerable anxiety about what the Chinese would do for over a 100 years. You can understand that Tibet was much like Italy prior to Garibaldi. There was no "Tibet" -- that is why most of your arguments are bogus. The Tibetans even today are not united around questions of ethnicity and tribe. Tibet is a Western political construction for western Colonial purposes.



All you are giving evidence of is that your study of Tibetan culture, history and religion lack depth and nuance.


Well, an eyewitness account by Heinrich Harrer states that in the 40s Kham was in fact bandit territory that the Lhasa government had no control over. Nobody had control over it. At the time it seems it was anarchy, at least in the areas he visited and according to the people he spoke to.


Harrer? Are you serious? The Gelugpas hated Kham because it was a Nyingma stronghold. So of course they would claim it was full of bandits. In fact Khams was most intellectually developed region of Tibet, far more open and interesting than the intellectual moribund monastic cities in Lhasa.

And it was not anarchical in the slightest. For Christ sakes, why dont you read books by people who grew up there and wrote in Tibetan about their experience their. Basing yourself on the reports of Nazis is ridiculous.

Look, the whole story can be traced in this way: in 1705 Lhazang Khan, at the encouragement of Kangxi Emperor, attacked Lhasa and murdered virtually every one in the Govt and took teh 6th Dalai Lama captive. After the sixth was murdered, a seventh Dalai Lama was recognized, and with this one, the Qing Dynasty seized control of Lhasa as well as Kham and Amdo after Tashi Rabten and Zhungar Mongols were defeated (who themselves had wrested control of Lhasa from Lazang Khan in 1717).

The Kangxi Emperor (1622–1723) declared Tibet a protectorate of the Qing Empire and in 1727 installed two high commissioners, or ambans, and a garrison of Qing troops from China in Lhasa.[10] The walls of Lhasa were torn down and "Kham (with Batang, Litang, Tatsienlu, etc.) annexed to the Chinese province of Sichuan. The Qing protectorate, which was to last till the end of the Qing Dynasty (1912), was established."[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelzang_Gy ... Dalai_Lama

So you see, Tibet was been an occupied nation most of the last two hundred and eighty six years, except from the period of thirty three years i.e., 1913-1950, when conditions made it possible for the Tibetans to throw off Chinese rule and declare independence. But as you can see, even though they did, while the British (to their advantage) accepted that Tibet was an independent nation, the US never did.

[
quote]
It is difficult when the Chinese and British are writing treaties about you without your participation.


It is difficult to participate in diplomatic negotiations when you fail to play the game of formal diplomacy.[/quote]

You might as well blame American Indians for being screwed over by the US Government because they too were either not invited or did not understand the rules. Hell, while we are at it, lets just wash away the Holocaust too, because the Jews were not able to negotiate well with the Nazis. After all, Africans just let themselves be sold into slavery. There is no injustice in the world, just incompetent peoples and nations that allow themselves to be exploited and massacred.

You forget that eighty thousand khampas showed up to fight the PLA in 1959. You forget than the invasion of Tibet took nine years to complete, starting in 1950 when the PLA started "liberating" Tibet. You forget that the international community just stood by and watched as the PLA invaded Tibet.


The insurgency of course happened, but how well coordinated was it? The invasion took time, sure, but that's the roof of the world. The failure of the international community to respond is an intriguing question because the western power bloc reacted differently in Korea and elsewhere. It seems to me this was largely because foreign powers just didn't know about Tibet. How many Tibetan representatives at the time could have met with officials in London or Washington?


No one would supply the Tibetan insurgency with arms until after 1959. Then, the CIA did for a number of years until Nixon abandoned them.

The United States, as a matter of official policy has always considered Tibet a part of China, and therefore, no one would ever hear an embassy from Tibetans advocating for themselves. In 1943 the US State Department wrote:

"The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet."[55]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_re ... ite_ref-58

Therefore, at no time would the US even have considered helping the Tibetans against the Chinese in an overt war.

In fact, it was the 13th Dalai Lama who threw off the shackles of the Qing (which is why he is considered a hero) and tried to modernize the army and so on without success.


He might have tried, but his government appears to have acted unwisely resulting in the downfall of Tibet. Nevertheless, at the same time you had all these prophecies predicting the downfall of the culture. Did it seem inevitable?


The 13th died in 1936. He tried his best having inherited a moribund government that had been eviscerated for one hundred and eighty six years the corrupt politicians of the Qing protectorate.

But when you understand the history a bit better, blaming the Tibetans for losing Tibet is just like blaming a girl for being raped.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby JKhedrup » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:03 pm

But when you understand the history a bit better, blaming the Tibetans for losing Tibet is just like blaming a girl for being raped.


I agree in principle though the image is a sad one. I agree because you could use the "karma and isolationism"argument against any number of colonized groups whether it be Tibetans, Uighurs, Australian Aboriginees, or 1st Nations in Canada and the USA.

When I learned the language and started to be able to speak to Tibetan refugees in India about their experiences is when I really understood the profound tragedy of what had happened to them. The world has an opportunity to improve this situation and simply doesn't because of money.

Tibet is just the beginning, the PRC has ambitions elsewhere- Viet Nam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Bhutan etc. are all feeling the effects of these attempts at subtle expansion.
A foolish man proclaims his qualifications,
A wise man keeps them secret within.
A straw floats on the surface of water,
But a precious gem placed upon it sinks to the depths
-Sakya Pandita
JKhedrup
Former staff member
 
Posts: 1965
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 8:28 am
Location: the Netherlands and India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby LastLegend » Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:40 pm

JKhedrup wrote:This conversation is gettin toó Zen for me...

But I think it is very dangerous to open up this kind of discussion, as often it happens as a sort of one-upmanship between the various Buddhist traditions.

Buddhism degenerated and fell to communism in the following countries:

China,Viet Nam, North Korea (Mahayana)
Tibet (Vajrayana)
Cambodia, Laos (Theravada)

So it would seem a rather silly door of conversation to open to me. The atrocities against Buddhist practitioners and the decimation of Buddhist cultures in all of these countries indicates that the practice of neither Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese/ Viet Namese Mahayana, or Theravada was enough to dodge the karmic effects as you put it.


I made a statement and that was that. But I am gonna stick to causes and conditions as explanation for everything that happens.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Sherab Dorje » Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:09 pm

Indrajala wrote:The insurgency of course happened, but how well coordinated was it? The invasion took time, sure, but that's the roof of the world. The failure of the international community to respond is an intriguing question because the western power bloc reacted differently in Korea and elsewhere.
Korea and elsewhere were afterwards and largely an American thing. I believe that France and Britain had their hands full with India and Vietnam, plus the costs of the First and Second World War. As for Russia, it was also recovering from WWII and was and in the midst of internal power struggles with the death of Stalin.

The other point is that only China really had a large (and expendable) enough infantry force required to conquer Tibet.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Indrajala » Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:56 pm

JKhedrup wrote:When I learned the language and started to be able to speak to Tibetan refugees in India about their experiences is when I really understood the profound tragedy of what had happened to them. The world has an opportunity to improve this situation and simply doesn't because of money.


What the communists did to their own country is also tragic. A lot of traditional Chinese culture was eradicated with millions upon millions dying under Mao. The PRC executes over 10,000 people (officially) every year, too.

In any case, nobody is going to argue with China anymore over Tibet. PM Harper might meet HHDL, but then sign key trade deals with the PRC while letting them buy up domestic real estate and natural resources.

The other thing is that Tibet is so strategically essential to China's interests now to the point that access to unearned wealth needed to support China's increased standard of living is dependent to an extent on commanding the waters on the plateau. The power that comes with having that territory enables China to stake claims on resources it otherwise couldn't realistically demand. An autonomous Tibetan government under the PRC is not in the interests of the PRC at the moment. In any case, the clear policy is forced assimilation of minorities. Xinjiang and Tibet are being rapidly colonized by Han Chinese settlers.

It is an age old story. Provinces like Fujian and Yunnan in the old days were not Chinese at all. From the fifth century onward a lot of the south was opened up to slow colonization. Now from Harbin down to Hong Kong you have most of the population thinking they're Chinese. Colonization and assimilation of Tibet and Xinjiang is part of Beijing's long-term strategy for stability and unity. From the looks of things they'll succeed, too.
Flower Ornament Depository (Blog)
Indrajāla's Contemplations (Blog)
Exploring Classical Chinese (Blog)
Dharma Depository (Site)

"Hui gives me no assistance. There is nothing that I say in which he does not delight." -Confucius
User avatar
Indrajala
Former staff member
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm
Location: India

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Malcolm » Thu Jun 06, 2013 6:39 pm

smcj wrote:
I hear there is a lot of tension in Dharamsala between the Tibetans who come from Tibet and the ones already living there or born there. Apparently the Tibetan Tibetans are disappointed because there standard of living diminishes when they arrive in India (this applies to Lhasa Tibetans).

They are free to go back. They don't.


In fact, they often do.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

" The one who teaches the benefits of peace,
he is said to be a ṛṣī; the others are the opposite of him."

-- Uttaratantra
Malcolm
 
Posts: 10218
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Nilasarasvati » Sat Jun 08, 2013 4:51 am

LastLegend wrote:
JKhedrup wrote:This conversation is gettin toó Zen for me...

But I think it is very dangerous to open up this kind of discussion, as often it happens as a sort of one-upmanship between the various Buddhist traditions.

Buddhism degenerated and fell to communism in the following countries:

China,Viet Nam, North Korea (Mahayana)
Tibet (Vajrayana)
Cambodia, Laos (Theravada)

So it would seem a rather silly door of conversation to open to me. The atrocities against Buddhist practitioners and the decimation of Buddhist cultures in all of these countries indicates that the practice of neither Tibetan Buddhism, Chinese/ Viet Namese Mahayana, or Theravada was enough to dodge the karmic effects as you put it.


I made a statement and that was that. But I am gonna stick to causes and conditions as explanation for everything that happens.


Lastlegend, are you saying that "it happened because they deserved it" ? Because that's what it seems like.
User avatar
Nilasarasvati
 
Posts: 428
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?

Re: Government of Pre-PRC Tibet

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sat Jun 08, 2013 7:22 am

To me the statement:
But I am gonna stick to causes and conditions as explanation for everything that happens.
Carries no connotations of deserving/undeserving, blame/innocence, etc... It seems you are adding unnecessary layers of meaning.
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

>