I did learn a few things from this movie, but my overwhelming impression? What a silly man! I mean, early in the movie Ray talks about Dalai's infectious laugh, which we then get to hear. I found his laugh to be irritating, forced (at times), and too frequent. He also struck me as arrogant, in a first impression sort of way.
As a Buddhist Leader
I admit that I've never read any of his writings nor heard anything of him, except that he's charismatic and has influenced a lot of people. [Oh, and Hollywood
ONE: Who is his teacher?
TWO: Which Buddhist scripture does he regard as supreme?
Regarding ONE: He embraces the patriarchs of his particular school. This whole "teacher" thing, however, is very problematic to me. Among various popular press Buddhist journals (for example, Tricycle, What is Enlightenment?), new practitioners are encouraged to connect to a teacher. More than "encouraged," the notion of the master/disciple relationship is touted as critical.
I see teachers as doing more harm than good. If you want to learn about Buddhism, it is most beneficial (at least in the beginning) to connect to a group of practitioners. However, be wary of teachers. One of the main teachings of the Buddha is "to rely on the Law, not on persons." I feel that too many teachers try to become "the Law." Also, the Buddha taught about the "wisdom that comes of itself," "teacherless wisdom," and the inherent risks of forming attachments.
After practicing Buddhism for 21 years, I am convinced there is only one appropriate teacher for this age - and that's Shakyamuni Buddha who (contrary to popular belief) is still alive and well, and quite willing to teach us - if we are open to letting him.
Regarding TWO: Same problem as with ONE: Dalai embraces the texts particular to his school. Shakyamuni Buddha spoke of The Lotus Sutra as being his ultimate teaching, and urged his disciples to "honestly disregard" his earlier, preparatory (i.e., provisional) teachings. However, being only human and steeped in his own country's tradition, Dalai formed an attachment to the writings peculiar to his sect. [Again, the dangers of forming attachments.]
Conclusion Regarding ONE and TWO:
The Dalai Lama is a heretic. I know that's a word with a horrible history, but I don't hesitate to use it here for one reason: The Dalai Lama should know better and someone's got to tell him.
His Meeting with Mao
In the movie, we're told of a dinner party at which the young Dalai is sitting next to Mao, who leans over and says [something like], "Religion is the opiate of the people." That's when Dalai realizes that the Tibetan religious status quo won't be allowed to persist.
However, Dalai should have responded to Mao by saying:
"I know what you're saying, but please reconsider Buddhism. Your own country, China
“The Buddha spoke of an ideal ruler called a ‘wheel-turning sage king,' and I hope you decide to become one. I know that your Communism doesn't believe in kings, but I also know your people look up to you as a strongman. You can use this high regard to their advantage by helping to thoroughly liberate them. Liberating the people is the loftiest of ideals, which is exactly what the Buddha tried to do in his time - regardless of gender or class or unsavory past. I hope you can do so in your time, and I hope you'll consider giving China
“Buddhism can give the Chinese Communists the classless society they envision. Better than that: A society where everyone is a Superman, working doggedly to attain their own enlightenment and that of their neighbors.
“You showed the mind of a seeker of truth by looking beyond the horizon [literally!] for a teaching which would benefit your people. All I ask is that you don't disregard the ancient wisdom of your own homeland. And I would like to offer my services to you, in this endeavor."
Okay, that didn't happen
Even though Dalai never spoke these words to Chairman Mao, I feel that China
As a Buddhist, the DL knows that nothing happens by accident - that the destiny of individuals and nations is based on laws of karmic retribution. So he can't really feel too badly about Tibet
Shakyamuni Buddha was able to prevent an invading army from entering his homeland, by simply sitting in meditation in the path of the advancing army. This force turned back at least once (and perhaps a second time, though my recollection is hazy on that count). However, this invading force did eventually return and bypass the Buddha, resulting in the subjugation of his country. Not even the Buddha was able to single-handedly thwart the karma which dictated the conquest of his native land. But at least he tried.
God-King
There was a scene in 10 Questions that bothered me, showing 30,000 of the young Lama's countrymen surrounding him to "protect their God-King." That's backwards: Great bodhisattvas are supposed to protect their people, not the other way around.
I am reminded of the Five Cardinal Sins of Buddhism:
(1) Killing one's father, (2) mother, (3) or a monk of great spiritual attainment; or (4) causing disunity among members of the Buddhist order; or (5) injuring a Buddha.
Stop right there: How is it that killing a Buddha is not listed among those top five sins? Simply because it is not possible to kill a Buddha. That is the level of attainment for which the Dalai Lama (and all Buddhist practitioners) should aspire: To become Buddhas. Nobody talks about actually becoming a Buddha (complete with the supernatural powers described in the Lotus Sutra), though Shakyamuni Buddha himself made it clear that everybody could do so. [So let's start talking about that, more and more often.]
To me, that's where the Dalai Lama falls short: He never had it in his mind to become a Buddha. If he had, his mission on earth would have been made far easier.
What would "the Base" think?
If any among the GOP Base would view 10 Questions, they would probably react by saying: "What a goof!" Which is too bad, since the Lama himself promotes religious tolerance. But merely paying lip service to brotherhood is not good enough - not for a Buddhist who should embrace the doctrine of conversion through Skillful Means. People are way too skeptical these days to be persuaded by a simplistic monk. To my fellow Buddhists, I say:
We can reach even those in Baseland, those who comprise a New Silent Majority: Those who live in the Old Confederacy who don't think NASCAR racing is all that, who don't shout hallelujah when the local preacher mixes politics with religion, who weren't football heroes or cheerleaders (or especially popular in any other way) in high school or college, who despise having to vote for the lesser of two evils offered by the Dem/Pubs. These are the New Silent Majority who have theological questions but are afraid to ask them, who have significant intelligence which their society does not appreciate, and great love of a country which is sadly lacking in statesmen though has politicians galore.
We can reach these people by showing them bold leadership and a compassionate vision of the future. It is time to break the mindset imposed by narrow visions and narrower religions, which limits our presidential candidates to only a small range of issues. I hope that my blog entries on this site have shown a wide variety of political options, which can inspire even more from the People themselves. I'm counting on arousing the deep-seated desire of all people to become Buddhas. That desire has been within all of us since the infinite past, but (as the Buddha preaches) will not become manifest until the time is right.
The time is right - now. Let's do it.
Steven Searle for U.S. President in 2012
“Declare your independence by voting for
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment