Re: [Marxism] From the vaults: Demystifying the Dalai Lama

2015-08-16 Thread Louis Proyect via Marxism

  POSTING RULES  NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

http://louisproyect.org/2007/02/28/the-angry-monk/

For most people, including me, Tibetan politics consisted exclusively of 
two radically opposed camps.


On one hand, there is the traditional Buddhist leadership of the Dalai 
Lama that is highly visible in the West and that enjoys a reputation as 
spiritually enlightened and politically progressive. With celebrities 
like Richard Gere spreading the word and a Nobel Peace prize belt under 
his belt, the Dalai Lama is lionized everywhere he goes. There is 
occasional grumbling about his adherence to traditional Buddhist 
teachings that homosexuality is impure (but not for non-Buddhists, bless 
his heart) but nothing sufficient to drag him down to the level of 
ordinary mortals.


On the other hand, there is the perspective of the Chinese government, 
especially when it had some kind of leftwing credentials, that the 
Buddhist priests were a kind of a parasitical feudal growth that needed 
weeding. When the Red Army poured into Tibet in the early 1950s, this 
was interpreted by Maoist-leaning radicals as something like the Union 
army taking control of the South during Reconstruction.


It is to the enormous credit of Swiss director Luc Schaedler to reveal 
another player in Tibetan politics in “The Angry Monk,” his excellent 
documentary now available from First Run/Icarus Films. This is a 
portrait of Gendun Choephel (1903-1951), a legendary figure in Tibet, 
who was opposed to both the religious elite and to forced Chinese 
assimilation. The film not only sheds light on a most unique 
personality. It also is an excellent introduction to Tibetan culture and 
politics.


Choephel began life as a Buddhist monk but evolved into a scholar of 
Tibetan history and a political activist during his extended visit to 
India in the 1930s, where he became inspired by Gandhi’s revolt. He 
decided to travel to India after coming into contact with Rahul 
Sankrityayan, an Indian researcher of ancient Buddhist texts in Tibet. 
Surprisingly, Sankrityayan was also a Marxist revolutionary who fought 
for Indian independence. (It should be mentioned that many of these 
texts were burned in huge bonfires during the Chinese Cultural 
Revolution, a barbaric act that rivals the Taliban’s destruction of 
ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.)


When in India, Choephel not only politicized, he left behind the kind of 
Puritanism expressed in the Dalai Lama’s strictures against 
homosexuality. He was proud of his ability to sleep with 4 or 5 
prostitutes in an evening and to get roaring drunk in the process, as 
Golok Jigme, a 85 old monk and former traveling companion of Choepel, 
reveals in an interview. In addition to writing the very first history 
of Tibet, Choepel translated the Kama Sutra into Tibetan! In the 
introduction to this classic work on sexual techniques, he wrote:


As for me — I have little shame I love women. Every man has a woman. 
Every woman has a man. Both in their mind desire sexual union. What 
chance is the for clean behaviour? If natural passions are openly 
banned, unnatural passions will grow in secrecy. No law of religion — no 
law of morality can supress the natural passion of mankind.


Choephel was the quintessential modernizer. Like Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal, 
he wanted to reduce the power of the clergy. In a 1946 poem, he wrote:


In Tibet, everything that is old
Is a work of Buddha
And everything that is new
Is a work of the Devil
This is the sad tradition of our country

In 1946 Gendun Choephel took up residence in Kalimpong, a town that sat 
on the India-Tibet border, where he joined the Tibetan Revolutionary 
Party, which was founded 7 years earlier. He designed (he was a gifted 
artist as well as a scholar) their logo: a sickle crossed by a sword.


The Tibetan Revolutionary Party sought to overthrow the tyrannical 
regime in Lhasa. When Gendun Choephels arrived in Lhasa, the capital 
city, he was arrested by the Tibetan government, which had learned about 
his activity from British operatives working out of India. He was 
accused of insurrection and thrown in jail for three years.


Two years after his release, the Red army overran Tibetan troops in 
eastern Tibet and took control of the country. A physically ailing and 
psychologically broken Gendun Choephel characterized the invasion in his 
characteristically blunt manner: “Now we’re fucked!”


“The Angry Monk” is also an excellent introduction to some of the more 
sophisticated thinkers in today’s Tibet, who are interviewed throughout 
the film. I especially appreciated the comments of journalist Jamyang 
Norbu, who derided the Western obsession with Tibetan 

Re: [Marxism] From the vaults: Demystifying the Dalai Lama

2015-08-16 Thread MM via Marxism
  POSTING RULES  NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

 On 16 Aug 2015, at 4:12 AM, Philip Ferguson via Marxism 
 marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu wrote:
 
 https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/from-the-vaults-demystifying-the-dalai-lama/
  
 https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/from-the-vaults-demystifying-the-dalai-lama/

I know there are very good reasons for the fanatical opposition to organised 
religion that one encounters among many Marxists (which doesn’t however mean 
that such fanaticism doesn’t generate blind spots). I also realise the Dalai 
Lama’s long record of favourable comments on Marxism were not widely known at 
the time this article was written. But I would have thought they were 
sufficiently well known by now as to warrant mention in a covering note upon 
dragging this piece up out of the vault and brushing off the cobwebs.

One can certainly take issue with his interpretation of what has come to serve 
as Marxist orthodoxy - ironically one of the most anti-Marxist formulations 
conceivable - or even, maybe a bit less problematically, with his more social, 
inter-personal theory of revolutionary change - based more on waging compassion 
than on waging physical class struggle - but I think it strains credulity 
beyond the breaking point to dismiss remarks like the following, from 1993, as 
those of a feudalist-totalitarian agent of the CIA and its capitalist 
overlords, which the linked piece would seem to require:

Q: You have often stated that you would like to achieve a synthesis between 
Buddhism and Marxism. What is the appeal of Marxism for you?

A: Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is 
founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned only with gain and 
profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal 
basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production. It is also 
concerned with the fate of the working  classes--that is, the majority--as well 
as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism 
cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the 
system appeals to me, and it seems fair. I just recently read an article in a 
paper where His Holiness the Pope also pointed out some positive aspects of 
Marxism.

As for the failure of the Marxist regimes, first of all I do not consider the 
former USSR, or China, or even Vietnam, to have been true Marxist regimes, for 
they were far more concerned with their narrow national interests than with the 
Workers' International; this is why there were conflicts, for example, between 
China and the USSR, or between China and Vietnam. If those three regimes had 
truly been based upon Marxist principles, those conflicts would never have 
occurred.

I think the major flaw of the Marxist regimes is that they have placed too 
much emphasis on the need to destroy the ruling class, on class struggle, and 
this causes them to encourage hatred and to neglect compassion. Although their 
initial aim might have been to serve the cause of the majority, when they try 
to implement it all their energy is deflected into destructive activities. Once 
the revolution is over and the ruling class is destroyed, there is nor much 
left to offer the people; at this point the entire country is impoverished and 
unfortunately it is almost as if the initial aim were to become poor. I think 
that this is due to the lack of human solidarity and compassion. The principal 
disadvantage of such a regime is the insistence placed on hatred to the 
detriment of compassion.

The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the 
failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still 
think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.


From: http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html 
http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes1.html

_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

[Marxism] From the vaults: Demystifying the Dalai Lama

2015-08-15 Thread Philip Ferguson via Marxism
  POSTING RULES  NOTES  
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly  permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*

https://rdln.wordpress.com/2015/08/16/from-the-vaults-demystifying-the-dalai-lama/
_
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com