19 Comments:

Dala Lama said he supports 2008 Olympic game in Beijing for he is a wise man and know it is a good thing for China and the whold world including Tibet.I don't know what happened in Tibet and I don't think I have right to judge those anti-China protester recently, but I definitely know hosting 2008 Olympic Game is a good thing for China and the world. So if you support Dala Lama, please follow his suggestion:don't boycott 2008 Olympic game in Beijing.

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 18:32  

Being a Tibetan in exile,we always demand and request the Chinese govt' to hold a talk with H.H. the Dalai Lama.But we never get a positive signal from their side.
They always show us some confusing signal with full of precondition.
So, if these signal is not like past one.Then holding talk will definately helps both the parties.Especially the Chinese and the Tibetan people.and also clear the misunderstanding between the Chinese and the Tibetan people.These talk may help the Chinese leader to get the nobel peace prize.
Lastly, I will earnestly request the Chinese authority to tell the talk with the Dalai Lama before the situation get out of control. If the talk turns out to be success then we, Tibetan and Chinese brother will Cheer for Olympic together.

One world. One dream and One talk with The Dalai Lama.

By  Unknown, at 25 April, 2008 18:34  

Being a Tibetan in exile,we always demand and request the Chinese govt' to hold a talk with H.H. the Dalai Lama.But we never get a positive signal from their side.
They always show us some confusing signal with full of precondition.
So, if these signal is not like past one.Then holding talk will definately helps both the parties.Especially the Chinese and the Tibetan people.and also clear the misunderstanding between the Chinese and the Tibetan people.These talk may help the Chinese leader to get the nobel peace prize.
Lastly, I will earnestly request the Chinese authority to tell the talk with the Dalai Lama before the situation get out of control. If the talk turns out to be success then we, Tibetan and Chinese brother will Cheer for Olympic together.

One world. One dream and One talk with The Dalai Lama.

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 18:46  

anonymous: I agree that the Games should be a good thing for China and the world. This news today is the first sign that the responsibility of holding those games might actually bring some good.

If the games only served to legitimize China's terrible policies in Tibet, nothing I can do but simply not watch them. If Chinese leaders now show some goodwill for solving the problem, not just play games with talks of no substance like they have for the past 6 years of "talks with HHDL representatives", I'll be grateful and I'll watch the Games happily.

His Holiness has been more than generous towards Chinese leadership, now it's their turn to reciprocate. I hope their decision is genuine, I really want to feel optimistic. Today there's a light at the end of the long dark tunnel.

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 19:08  

Hey Agam,

Excellent news! It certainly made my day. Are they just throwing Tibetans a bone, or are there real reasons for hope that CCP/PRC/China/Chinese people will hear some Tibetan voices instead of stifling them or drowning them out. Just for a change, you think?

"Opening Pitch in the Egg Nest Event to be Thrown by His Holiness."

Word of advice for Beijing: You don't have to say "His Holiness" if you don't want to. But you most definitely do have to use the complete name "Dalai Lama." "Dalai" alone is grating to the ears and chillingly disrespectful. Tibetans and Tibetan Buddhists everywhere (basically the very people you shrug off as the "Dalai clique") find it plain offensive.

Alternatives: You can call Him "The Presence" or "Wishgranting Jewel."

Try to remember it's not just His Holiness that you're talking to. It's a nation, with nationalistic sentiments not that much different from your own Chinese people's, and perhaps just as easily hurt or offended.

Your
Dava

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 19:18  

Namgyal: You hit on the main question. Will it be more of the same as last 6 years of "talks" about nothing? Or is it genuine this time?

If it's genuine, you'll be proven right again. It would benefit the Tibetan People and the Chinese People alike. It would not be far fetched, with a dramatic breakthrough on the Tibet issue (as he always likes to call it: a mutually agreeable solution), that a Chinese leader could be in line for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I love your statement, that with success on this matter, Tibetan and Chinese brothers will cheer the Olympics together. Wonderful, and I do hope that some of our Chinese commenters will read that.

How about this? The meeting happens within the next few days, and bears some progress. The demonization of Dalai Lama by Chinese state media comes to an end, as do the forced denunciations imposed on monks and other people across Tibet. CCP's "re-education" sessions can be ended quietly. The Party wishes for joyful scenes of Tibetans celebrating the torch's entry into Tibet. They invite Dalai Lama to enter Tibet together with the Olympic Torch.

OK I'm dreaming too much maybe, but it's nice to dream sometimes!

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 19:20  

dava: "Opening Pitch in the Egg Nest Event to be Thrown by His Holiness."

Excellent! Great minds think alike ;-)

Maybe the idea I read on (I think it was) Tibet Talk a few weeks back isn't so far fetched after all. Invite His Holiness to escort the torch into Tibet!

About the "His Holiness" thing, I wondered if they ever used that to refer respectfully to the Pope. But they don't talk much about him so I have no idea.

You're right about the grating terminology - if they're serious about this, they need to do something about that. CCP has gone so far off the deep end over the past 6 weeks, that dialing it back will look like retreat. It'll be difficult for them, but let's wait and see.

The style of rhetoric in state controlled media over the next few days will tell a lot.

Fingers crossed. I better light some candles for the Buddha too.

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 19:29  

it's a good news, even the best brothers quarrel sometimes...

the most important thing that the two brothers should do now is: sit down to talk and try to overcome their common enemy!

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 19:56  

harry fang: Agreed that the brothers really need to sit down and discuss things.

What puzzles me is, if the brothers have been having difficulties with each other, who exactly is their common enemy?

It's a certain party's policies over more than half a century which have brought things to such a difficult crisis point. Would that be the common enemy?

I have a sneaking hunch what you might be getting at, but better if you could clarify first. Thanks!

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 20:07  

Disagree. Han Has given Tibetan too much. In a country, every one should have equal right. Tibetan should obey the law too. They got a lot of benefit from Han and enjoy more right than the Han. But, they still want more? What is the reasons?

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 20:51  

It's a good development in the right direction. I think everyone is keeping their fingers crossed.

I am from China. I really wish all ethnic groups in China can enjoy a peaceful, stable and prosperous life in the big family. I have attended a recent protest event against violence outside one of Dalai Lama's lectures. Got a booklet of "Engaging Wisdom & Compassion". Talked/argued with a few Tibetans as well. I would say there is quite a gap to be covered. Also I got a feeling that these oversea Tibetans(the ones I talked to are all originated from people in exile not directly from Tibet) are quite different from those in Dharamsala in their thoughts and reactions to recent events. This might be the groups among Tibetans that most welcome the coming talk. I am not sure if Dalai Lama is ready for the talk because I don't know how big this base is. If the talk is still up to the Tibetan gov in exile, it will probably again leads no where. Hope I am wrong this time.

By  Unknown, at 25 April, 2008 21:11  

anonymous #2:

First of all, I get criticised for not always explicitly putting the responsibility for this mess on the Chinese Communist Party government of China, because sometimes I just say "China" and some people take that as a swipe against the citizens of China.

So let's get away from "the Han have given this and that to Tibetans." The CCP controls everything, and anything given to or taken from Tibetans is because CCP took or gave it.

So consider what things CCP has taken from them since Mao invaded, and consider what CCP has given them since. Then imagine ('what if') that these same things were taken from / given to the Chinese nation by an imaginary, more powerful 'other' people who knew best for the Chinese what they needed.

And picture this: those other powerful people couldn't understand why you weren't grateful to them. Meanwhile your people in China were restricted from even holding their deepest spiritual beliefs, and required in fact to denounce them.

A few million of you lived in exile, lets say in Mongolia, where you did your best to preserve the traditional Chinese nation, customs, language - Chinese civilisation itself. Inside China, these things were disappearing rapidly. But they were getting modern roads and railways, stores and commerce - all operating primarily in a foreign language. A modern life, factories for the locals to work in, they gave you it all.

Who would complain, right? You should be grateful?

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 21:37  

Feng:

At least you're keeping an open mind on the issue. I wish there were more overseas Chinese like you. Or maybe we just don't hear about them enough.

When you say you were protesting against violence outside the Dalai Lama venue, you mean protesting ongoing state violence or protesting the Tibetans who rioted on March 14? Both?

I fail to see how Dalai Lama could be seen as unready to talk. He's been almost begging for some genuine communication with the authorities for a very long time. CCP government of China finally opened the door to meet his representatives in 2002, but they would never agree to discuss anything substantial. They would later dismiss the envoys' visits as "social visits and sightseeing".

I think you must have an unreasonable bias against the responsible authorities in Dharamsala. I don't know where they find their patience. Have you actually been to Dharamsala, to have such firm views about the Tibetans who live in exile there?

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 22:00  

While I applaud the Chinese announcement that they will meet with His Holiness's delegation, I do so with cautious optimism. With 104 days to go until the Olympics begin, the Chinese are plotting their strategy to secure a successful Games. And 104 days could easily be consumed in accepting, planning, and holding these talks, while giving the Chinese a credible response to the international community: "We're working on this; in the mean time, come and enjoy our Games."

But this much is clear: the protests, the threat of the boycott, the international coverage and response of the Tibetan's struggles . . . all of these things have been effective. And personally, I believe it is the proposed boycott that has finally brought the Chinese to this point.

By  Anonymous, at 25 April, 2008 22:02  

Agam, this kind of talks can be traced back to the 1980's. But there has been essentially no progress. Both sides have to be blamed. At the beginning Chinese gov was a bit naive and yielded too quickly to Dalai Lama's representative' demand to visit Tibet. However, the representatives agitated turmoil in Tibet (in late 80's) intentionally or unintentionally during those visits. IMHO, that was not a good start.

I have not been to Dharamsala. Yes, I do have a bias here. Firstly, what's in their so called "constitution", free Tibet, right? Then what's the point of central gov sitting down with them to talk? Secondly, separate of church and state. Are they doing that? Thirdly, there are quite some higher people (TYC for example) favorite violence (and I should say on the edge of terrorism). Does Dalai Lama have the whole control here?

You talked about culture invasion in another post. Maybe you have some points there. But don't you see the whole China is under the western culture invasion. Have you seen pictures of Tibetans in Tibet wearing suits and ties, ridding motocycles and going to western fast food restaurants? Are those Han Chinese's culture? This is a globalization era. Everyone is paying a price. Even Dharamsala has to learn English and practice western style of PR, isn't it?

Lastly, just want your opinion on one of Chinese gov's policy. Chinese gov does ban children younger than 16 from becoming a monk. Is it against the freedom you are seeking?

By  Unknown, at 25 April, 2008 22:47  

sjburris: That's been in the back of my mind all day, too. I'm just plain enjoying the feeling of optimism, I don't want to spoil it yet. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now, is how I'm feeling at the moment.

But it has been crossing my mind this afternoon, that this sounds awfully like another lesson from Burma.

A number of times over the past 6 weeks, a statement, a decision or a strategy choice has had a very similar parallel with some things that happened during the Burma uprising. That was only 7 months ago, and fresh in my mind since I covered it closely.

The Burmese freedom movement also has a single, powerful icon in its "spiritual leader." A Nobel Peace Prize winner, who just today US Congress unanimously decided to award with it's highest civilian honour (the Cong. Gold Medal, which was also presented to HHDL last October).

When world opinion and attention was at its highest (around that same time, October 2007), the Burmese military regime announced the opening of a dialogue with Aung San Suu Kyi, who lives under house arrest in Rangoon.

A special official was appointed for this dialogue role, Minister for Relations. He met with ASSK, they were seen on TV, sitting in great ceremonial chairs, for about 12 seconds tops. They were talking.

The TV news narration gave the name of the guest house where they met, the beginning and ending time and the number of minutes in the meeting. The name of the meeting room in which they met. The full names and titles of any other officials present.

We have no idea what they said to each other. She's probably met with him 3 times since then. The scene gets 5 - 12 seconds on-screen, just so people know it happened, and they get the briefest glimpse of her.

It got the international community off their back. It's the status quo all the way now. They allowed a UN rep to visit, the big cheese wouldn't even see him.

That's what I'm afraid of, but I don't want to really think about it til tomorrow. If the talks happen in the next few days, I can wait til then. Give 'em the benefit of the doubt, I say, until they prove it wrong.

The number of foreign leaders stating not to go to the opening, I'm sure has been having strong effect. It's just been another, and another... every week or so. The media attention on the torch and protests which followed it - even through China's back yard.

I also wonder if some commercial interests didn't have some quiet sway. Coke has been under enormous pressure to keep its brand clean. Teaching the world to sing, and all that.

My comments are getting too long, sorry. Thinkin' out loud here.

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 22:48  

feng:
It might have looked like turmoil to the nervous authorities, when Tibetan representatives visited in the 1980's, but it was really just pure, unadulterated devotion. It should be telling you how much they need to feel close to him, that some would nearly rip off pieces of clothing from the envoys, to have some part to keep, something from where he is.

The authorities were horrified that the Tibetans didn't throw stones at the visiting representatives of HHDL. It's what they actually expected! That's how much they believed in their own propaganda.

All you need to do to answer your own questions about their constitution, form of government, separation of religion and state, and so on is to do some research. I'm sure you can find translations of their founding documents. You can easily find out about the parliament and how it operates, how elections are carried out (constituencies all around the world), who the ministers are, which departments they head, how the prime minister is chosen (by popular election, like parliament) etc. So you're criticising them for what they haven't said and haven't done.

And you don't know TYC either, it seems. Sure Xinhua says they advocate terrorism. They trick you, see. TYC is known for disagreement with Dalai Lama on one issue: they demand full sovereign independence, as Tibet once was. He can lead Tibetans to accept genuine autonomy within China, and that's what he's trying to do.

There is a growing divide among Tibetans on the 'Middle Way.' People only have so much patience, and HH has been telling them to remain patient for a very long time.

So Chinese gov't can say, "TYC opposes Dalai Lama's so-called 'Approach', they're more radical, so they are terrorists." But they also call him a terrorist.

In fact TYC does not oppose his principle of non-violence. Every thing they do is based on Gandhi's principle of Satyagraha. When they're hauled off to the paddywagons, passive resistance all the way. You can check this stuff out yourself, and you really better. Look up Satyagraha on Wiki, and then research what TYC has actually been saying and doing.

Everywhere is experiencing an amalgamation of humanity's cultures, it's modern life. It's globalization, like it or not. People often yearn for simpler times, which normally mean their ancestors' times, when life was totally different from somebody else's ancestors' a thousand miles away.

Now we can fly to the other side of the world, a thousand ways we are all connected. What you call "Western culture" (fast food, malls, motorcycles, commerce, trade, music, etc.) is just where the global culture is going.

Offer people something, like movie houses, and they'll go if they like it, and won't if they don't. If it catches on, they'll want more of it. You don't need to eat fast food at the mall, there are other ways to spend your day.

If you let them build the movie house in their customary style, rather than in your customary style, they'll probably like it even more.

Your last question: I'm not seeking anything but the right of the Tibetan people to seek what they want.

Here in Thailand, the temples were very important in providing basic education before the modern period (when the Kingdom began to seek western knowledge and science, under some foresightful monarchs). Thailand was never colonized by outside powers, though all her neighbours were (except for a short term Japanese puppet gov't during the war).

The temples still provide basic education for many, in addition to Buddhist teachings in their communities. Novice monks are common in SE Asia, and who knows that in another society, they might have ended up as street kids?

I don't think there's any law here, a minimum age to enter the monkhood or to learn as a novice. I don't see why there would be. Just about every Thai man becomes a monk, even for a few months, at least once in his life. It makes merit for his parents.

Does that answer your question?

By  Agam, at 25 April, 2008 23:50  

I see where you are coming from and to be honest I see a big gap. Yes, I read xinhua news. But I also read news and blogs from various sources of a wide spectrum. You don't have to argue here what TYC is or is doing. Its leader speaks for itself. If sovereignty is what they are after, it's justified for whatever they are called. And there is no point of talking, don't you agree?

Your answer to my question also reflects the gap. In a modern country, church should be separated from state. Religion should be kept out of public education. Yes, it's ok to take your kids to Sunday school or the temple or teach them whatever you believe or want them to believe. But put them under religious career in a young age is totally a different animal. If one calls this an interference of the culture or something more serious, I am sorry I have to say, so be it. The theocratic era is gone, it is over.

It will be great if they sit down and talk about real issues that matter to most Tibetans not just a small proportion of them. Where Dalai Lama fits is certainly one of those. We will see. Peace.

By  Unknown, at 26 April, 2008 00:29  

Dear Ag,

Although this discussion seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of your blog, I would just like to say, in reference to some of the comments, that child ordination is not a product of Tibetan culture. It's universal to Buddhism.
The Vinaya Sutra clarifies rules found in earlier Vinaya sources which say that the young person has to be mature enough to scare the crows away himself (as for instance at mealtime, if a crow comes to snatch food from his dish... a younger child would get frightened or cry if this happened). You find this rule in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist countries.

Here are the precise words of the Tibetan translation of the text: rab tu byung ba'i phyir nye bar 'ongs pa la lo bco lnga lon nam zhes dri bar bya'o | | ma lon pa bya rog skrod mi nus pa dang | nus pa lo bdun ma lon pa rab tu dbyung bar mi bya'o | | Roughly: You must ask the candidate if he has reached 15 years old. If he has not, is he unable to scare away the crows? If able, he must not be given novice ordination [in any case] before he is 7 years of age. (Full ordination as bhikshu shouldn't take place before age 20, but a special sub- rule makes it possible at age 18.)

Tibetans are just following Buddhist scriptures. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of government let alone 'theocracy.'

When I was that age my parents could have sent me to boarding school (or even worse, military school), and nobody would have told them they couldn't. I would not have liked it if they had, but even that is beside the point. Do parents have the right to see to the education of their own children or don't they? In whatever culture, we can talk about what parents *should* or *shouldn't* do about their children, but that is a very different question from what is their right to do.
Hope that helps clarify.

Yours,
Dan

By  Dan, at 26 April, 2008 15:26  

Post a Comment