Edward Wong in yesterday's New York Times reported on the Chinese Communist Party Governor of Tibet announcing during the National People's Congress that it will definitely be the CCP who chooses the successor of the XIV Dalai Lama and not the exiled Tibetan monarch himself. Unfortunately, as with a number of issues, the Dalai Lama has not helped his cause by being somewhat ambiguous about the future of the Dalai Lama. At various times he has stated that he might choose his own successor in his lifetime, he might mystically arrange for his successor to be discovered outside of Tibet within the exile community or he might in fact be the last Dalai Lama -a prospect hard to even imagine. According to the article, and this is really nothing new but not usually spoken of so openly, the CCP has essentially said that regardless of the actions of the 14th, upon his passing it is they who will oversee the selection of the next Dalai Lama who, we can be sure, will be as loyal a communist as the CCP-selected Panchen Lama, rival to the Panchen Lama selected by the Dalai Lama who lives under house arrest somewhere in the PRC. It seems, at best, the Tibetan people may face a future with two rival claimants to the throne in Lhasa, one in exile in India and the other a Communist stooge. Isn't it funny though, and we have seen this extensively in the west as well, how atheistic republican leaders who condemn all religion at the same time are quick to claim formerly monarchial powers within the religious community. Hypocrisy knows no bounds...
Monday, March 8, 2010
Red China to Name Next Dalai Lama
Edward Wong in yesterday's New York Times reported on the Chinese Communist Party Governor of Tibet announcing during the National People's Congress that it will definitely be the CCP who chooses the successor of the XIV Dalai Lama and not the exiled Tibetan monarch himself. Unfortunately, as with a number of issues, the Dalai Lama has not helped his cause by being somewhat ambiguous about the future of the Dalai Lama. At various times he has stated that he might choose his own successor in his lifetime, he might mystically arrange for his successor to be discovered outside of Tibet within the exile community or he might in fact be the last Dalai Lama -a prospect hard to even imagine. According to the article, and this is really nothing new but not usually spoken of so openly, the CCP has essentially said that regardless of the actions of the 14th, upon his passing it is they who will oversee the selection of the next Dalai Lama who, we can be sure, will be as loyal a communist as the CCP-selected Panchen Lama, rival to the Panchen Lama selected by the Dalai Lama who lives under house arrest somewhere in the PRC. It seems, at best, the Tibetan people may face a future with two rival claimants to the throne in Lhasa, one in exile in India and the other a Communist stooge. Isn't it funny though, and we have seen this extensively in the west as well, how atheistic republican leaders who condemn all religion at the same time are quick to claim formerly monarchial powers within the religious community. Hypocrisy knows no bounds...
One wonders when Silvio Berlusconi might try and make himself Pontiff. Or would Obama beat him to the punch?
ReplyDeleteMore seriously, I'd imagine that the communists may prefer there be no Dalai Lama - imagine if their stooge gets some thoughts of his own and resents the Chinese. Then the Chinese come back to the same situation they're in now. Less of a headache.
Still, if they do, then there probably will be rival claimaints (thank heavens the title is not hereditary!).
And you're right on the hypocrisy. Nothing new there though.
Well, this is one thing I really don't understand about the PRC. Berlusconi or Obama don't try to tear down the Pope because they know that no one really listens to him when it matters. Most "Catholics" voted for Obama after all, despite having possibly the most anti-Catholic platform in recent history. I really fail to see why Red China seems so unnaturally paranoid about the Dalai Lama, especially after having several decades of brainwashing over the Tibetans and getting the Dalai Lama to back down from independence to "meaningful autonomy". Sometimes I think they give him credit for having far more influence than he actually does. Like how they freak out every time some president or leftist elites talk to the Dalai Lama. So what?! None of them are or ever will actually do anything to help him, so why does China get so bent out of shape over it? And just as with western religious leaders the liberal elites who love to quote the Dalai Lama and get their pics taken with him totally ignore him when he says something they disagree with -like opposition to abortion or homosexual relations.
ReplyDeleteI believe I can explain China by using Europe. Of course my account has to be purely Anecdotal as I read the Article I am referring to some time back and no longer remember who wrote it or were it was Published. Still, its useful in Illustrating my point here.
ReplyDeleteI read a typically Left Wing Article about the need for a Stronger Federal Alliance in Europe, a Sort of United States of Europe, based around the American Model, but with distinctions that better Suited the European Value System. By this the Author meant the Liberal, Socialistic ideals that have so completely taken over Modern Europe with a Coating of a few traditional Flares.
Most of the Article was the typical Fair until I reached the part were it said the Papacy should actually play a Vital Governmental Role. This surprised me, but as I read n I saw the same old Game as ever. The Author argued that the Pope was the Senior most Voice for Spirituality and Morality in Europe and already Universally Recognised, so it was proposed that the Pope be made a sort of President of a counsel of the Great European Faith Groups. The Pope would also however take on a Prominent Role in European Society and Government, performing a range of Important Ceremonial Duties like Swearing in the President, or speaking in times of Trouble so as to Comfort the European Populace. He would also head up committees and keep moral and Ethical Concerns on the forefront, and act as an Advisor to the European Parliament on such matters as Humanitarian Aid.
But there was a Catch.
The Catholic Church was also advised to make itself more palatable to this role by Modernising its Teachings and abandoning its Medieval Moral Philosophy and embracing the fullness of our Modern Understanding. These Reforms were argued as necessary to save the Catholic Church as well as to make it easier for it to act in representing all o the People of Europe, not to mention how unjust it is ot keep Catholics locked into the Past.
Oh, and the Pope should be appointed by the European Union’s Central Government instead of by the College of Cardinals. That way the Post would be more Democratically selected, and would better represent the will of the European People.
It was also argued that this would restore an Ancient Tradition, as the Author said that in the Olden Days the Emperor of the Roman Empire Selected the Pope. This would simply Restore that.
I found it a bit Ironic that the Author seemed to love Tradition and want it restored when it suited His or Her purpose, but when it went against what was personally believed by said Author, Tradition should be scrapped as outdated and oppressive.
It seemed a Double Standard. But the Principle behind this was the same. The Federal Government of a Federal Europe should appoint a sort of Peoples Pope who would dispense the Moral and Ethical Teachings that the European Union wanted him to, whilst maintaining his Position that gives him Traditional Loyalty and Support, and that Grants him a position of Authority that Is well established by which they can hang their own Hats.
Even without the Proposal I listed above, which is not part of the European Unions present direction, Modern Liberals have argued over the Catholic Church for years. Many want to see it comelier Abolished, and utterly despise the Papacy. Others want it Reformed to match the views of the Modern World in contrast to how Primitive and Medieval its current teachings are, and argue that it needs to let go of Obsolete Teachings and Governance Models to accept the newer, and better, modern way. To this end, some have even Proposed Creating a Democratic Catholic Church in Which Priests are elected by Parishes, and Committees, also duly Elected, run them, in which Bishops are Regionally Elected, and in which the Pope sits in with a President who Co-Chairs a Universal, Democratic Church. You can find the Democratic Constitution for the Catholic Church online.
They all Share one thing in Common, and this is that they do not like the Current Catholic Church but see in it a Certain Authority that must be either Eliminated or Brought under their Control.
ReplyDeleteThe reason is obvious. It doesn’t matter that the Pope isn’t Listened to by the Majority, what matters is that he exists.
The Fact that the Pope exists bothers them. He represents something contrary to their views. He doesn’t push for Modern, Secular Democracy, doesn’t stand for Modernist Values or Morals, and in fact his Teachings often contradict modern assertions.
Modernists, both those pushing Secular Liberal Democracy and those pushing for a Humanist derived Moral Code, do not like to be Contradicted as they prefer to think of their claims as self-evidently true. Anyone who uses Logic and Reason will automatically come to the same conclusions they have.
At least that’s how they see it, and want others to as well. They want to create a situation in which no other perspective is ever presented, and people just automatically follow the beliefs that they have been Taught to them by the Ideologues who brought us this Modern world.
If anything exists that contradicts the Current alignment of things, then people may question the current arrangements or beliefs. This is why its of Vital Importance that everything agree with them, for offering any Real Alternative means thy have to Defend their beliefs and recognise that they aren’t so Self-Evident.
If, on the other hand, everything is Uniform and in line with them, then there is no such problem, everyone just goes along with it.
They want that.
What they say is Self-Evidently true. that’s the Goal, to create the Illusion that what they say is Self Evidently True. The Existence of a Figure of any Authority, even purely Symbolic, which undermines the Illusion that what they say is Self Evidently true, or worst, that openly Contradicts hem, is ultimately a Great Risk to them.
This is Ultimately about Ideology and they can’t stand the idea that another idea may win people over or contest their claims.
The same is especially True o the Dalai Lama. He Represents a Tibet that was a Free and Sovereign Nation. A Tibet Ruled by a Buddhist Monarch, in which the people had Freedom and Prosperity. He Represents a Time when the Communists had not Taken Over, and an Ideology that Stand sin Contrast to Communism, in Sharp Contrast to Maoism. A Path of Peaceful Enlightenment and Compassion, against the ideology that teaches us that Power Comes at the Barrel of a Gun. A Philosophy of acceptance and Obedience rather than Revolution.
His existence also calls into Question the Legitimacy of Chinese Rule in Tibet, and of the Very Philosophy that lead to it.
He also represents failure. He escaped capture and never faced Communist Re-education camps or Reform through Labour.
So it doesn’t matter than so few really listen to him. his Symbolic Value is what’s important.
Zarove is right - the Chinese Communist Party is a party of control freaks who have the keys to the kingdom.
ReplyDeleteIt is worth remembering, however, that a hundred years ago, China was being carved up by European powers (as well as the Japanese). It still hasn't recovered from that phobia, and the West pressuring it to grant autonomy to Tibet is only making the Chinese hold on to it even more tightly.
There's also the matter of the local Great Game between China and India (China, through Tibet, controls India's water supply which originates in the Himalayas, not to mention also gives it an enormous buffer zone that would be very difficult for an army to traverse).
Zarove, I'd actually quite like to read that article. I personally feel that it is to the Church's advantage that it is a 'glacial' faith - it changes, but slowly, inexorably. And even if it is destroyed, it still leaves a whopping great mark in the landscape. I should probably blog on that soon. (Watch my space :p)
I can see that but at the same time I don't know of any countries that *are* pressuring China to give Tibet autonomy -according to the Chinese they already have it. The Dalai Lama has renounced independence, he has never condoned violence or rebellion -at the end of the day I just can't understand why they freak out so much about world leaders even talking to him. They are control freaks though, no doubt about that. I can also understand the memories of the unequal treaties and so on but today there are no foreign concessions, even Hong Kong and Macau have gone back and most countries in the west are in deep to the Chinese, if not in outright debt to them at least dependent on their slave labor. I'm not as well informed on India but, despite their population and recent advancements I still can't see them as being a real threat to Red China. Going back to what Zarove said, I do think the symbolism, what he represents, matters to them, which should be another indication of how even the most ceremonial of monarchs are worth defending.
ReplyDeleteA little off-course, but on the subject of calls for a more united federal Europe, I would point to some recent remarks by Tory MEP Daniel Hanan who questioned why Europe continues to advocate for larger government, for a bigger European state when the most economically prosperous countries are those like Liechtenstein, Monaco, Luxembourg etc which are the smallest.
It's as Zarove said - the Chinese know they can't control the Dalai Lama. Fate is too fickle for them to trust, and the influence His Holiness has (none of which flows to or from the Communists) is simply too great for them to allow to be held by anyone other than a stooge (if at all). And the West doesn't need to pressure China on Tibet - China still feels as though it is under pressure. I suppose you could say they're very touchy (and extremely nationalist).
ReplyDeleteI am also aware of what Mr Hannan has said, and certainly, his ideas are meritous. Good luck getting the Eurocrats to listen though - they're too busy trying to make Europe into their little paradise (by... making things uncannily resemble the pre-1789 situation, only with them as the aristocracy, and their beloved ideology and bureaucracy as king).
I heard on CCTV 9 that the new Dalai Lama would be picked in accordance with religious customs and such. As your post points out, I have a hard time believing that statement!
ReplyDeleteThey refer to a method of last resort when all the usual ways of divining the person on the reincarnation fail; which is a lottery system. Of course, you can rest assured that all the names to pick from in the lottery will be boys from solid CCP-member families as they did with the Panchen Lama who they then will keep very close to the vest and ensure that he tows the party line -as their puppet Panchen Lama recently did at the National People's Congress, saying how 'happy' the Tibetans were under the benevolent Chinese Communist Party and the officials in turn saying how much their stooge was beloved by all Tibetans. Yeck!
ReplyDelete