Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Tibet and Tradition

Speaking of Tibet, the Dalai Lama just gave a long interview to the BBC. He went out of his way to make it easy for reactionaries to have an opinion on his country.

For some reason, the interview isn’t published in the English website, which shows only a small lame news article.

The BBC Chinese version though has a long and juicy account. Dalailama.com also has a longer account.

What did the Dalai Lama say? He said he is in favor of abolishing all traditional Tibetan culture and formally become yet another NGO in the payroll of the US State Department.

As the Chinese headline says: “Dalai Lama claims reincarnation system is obsolete, must to adapt to Democracy.

The way the Dalai Lama institution works is that Buddhism, as most Indian religions, claims that souls are reincarnated after death, so after someone dies, it’s soul goes into some baby. That needn’t mean anything in particular; but of course Great Men are Great Men, so when a Great Men dies, his soul goes to some baby, then that baby by definition becomes a Great Men.

Tibetan monk leaders thus are not chosen amongst the monastery; instead some baby is brought up from the middle of nowhere, claimed to be the reincarnation of the old Boss, and made Boss himself. It sounds weird, but the Tibetan monasteries already had plenty of practice with kidnapping little boys, and it’s probably not a bad way of avoiding succession wars inside the monasteries. Just bring some complete outsider and get done with it. Although in practice it necessarily was more complicated than this.

In the 18th century the Chinese emperor decided to reign on the selection process, and put the names of several candidates in a Golden Urn, after which a lot was taken; the Buddha–inspired (under close watch of the Emperor) lottery decided who became the Big Fish Lamas in both Tibet, and by then heavily Lamaist Mongolia. This system continues to this day, although of course the Golden Urn is watched by the Communist Party of China.

Well, the present day Dalai Lama, which is of course in exile after he staged an uprising against China in 1959 and failed, has decided not only that the Golden Urn is a travesty; but that the very idea of reincarnation is “obsolete”. “A remnant of feudalism”, he says.

“I am committed to democracy,” he said, “while many of our religious institutions, such as reincarnation, are remnants of feudalism. Today we need to act appropriately to the new reality in which we find ourselves. The future of Tibetan Buddhism doesn’t depend on the institution of the Dalai Lama. It’s the 10,000 monks and nuns now studying in Tibetan centres of learning, mostly in South India, who will ensure the preservation of the Nalanda tradition.”

Well, I’m sorry Mr. Lhamo Thondup, but your whole religion is a remnant of feudalism. But you aren’t supposed to say that. You are supposed to say that the theology of the Gelug School is the eternal truth discovered by sagely monks inspired by the Boddhisattva of Wisdom, or something. If “adapting to the new reality” means giving away all your theology and institutions, why do you even exist? What are your values? Some snippets from the Chinese version:

“I am committed to democracy.”

“The next Dalai Lama could very well be a woman. Women have higher ability for empathy and feeling.”

“If a female Dalai Lama were to appear, she would have a very attractive face.”

There you go, progressive values. All he’s doing is surrendering his tribe to the West; effectively dissolving the Tibetan people as a coherent unit.

Meanwhile in China, Tibetan Buddhism is booming, its monasteries full of people, running a constant confrontation against the Communist government. Thousands of Chinese across the country are converting to Tibetan Buddhism as they find it the only serious religion that keeps its discipline and hasn’t sold out to modernity.

The only reason it hasn’t is because China invaded the place, creating the ethnic tensions that Peter Turchin says are the origin of social order. Meanwhile the Tibetan government in Exile has become a progressive QUANGO funded by the US taxpayer to promote feminism in the Himalayas. And exhorting European countries to accept the Muslim immigration.

So I think we can settle that the correct opinion on Tibet is to be glad Mao invaded, and only be sorry that the Dalai Lama managed to escape.

Advertisements

20 responses to “Tibet and Tradition

  1. Pingback: Tibet and Tradition | Neoreactive

  2. jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 09:03

    Your suggestion that I made my recent post while drunk is opaque.

    Could you clarify your critique?

    • spandrell April 9, 2016 at 09:15

      Asian women are smarter than white women? Come on. Didn’t notice that. There are less women engineers in Japan than there are in the US.

      Short sentences, wild claims, merry tone in general. That’s how I talk when I’m drunk, at least.

      • jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 18:44

        There are, however, quite a lot of East Asian female engineers in the US. In the unlikely event you find a female engineer that actually does engineering in the US, rather than art or sales or generally being a pest or some such, she is East Asian.

        • spandrell April 9, 2016 at 19:00

          The only reason that happens is because USG requires engineering companies to hire women, and Asian women are so slightly more suitable for the task (actually wanting to earn money). Japan does no such thing; China does no such thing, and thus Asian women in their natural habitat do not become engineers.

          • jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 19:46

            The usual procedure for getting around affirmative action is to hire female “engineers” to do something other than engineering. http://blog.jim.com/economics/famous-barbie-realism/

            (That, or trannies. The best woman for a job is always a man who claims he is a lesbian)

            However, east asian female engineers sometimes do actual engineering – indicating that East Asian females are substantially smarter than white females.

            • spandrell April 9, 2016 at 20:26

              In my wide and close experience, the IQ figures reflect reality pretty well. Asians are just a little bit smarter on average, both men and women. It may be that the difference is larger at math, which would explain something; at any rate white women aren’t into engineering for plenty of good social calculus reasons. Asian women in Asia aren’t into engineering either because it’s full of icky betas and they won’t touch that with a 10-feet pole. White women in the US perhaps mistakenly believe they still live in their own country.

              • jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 23:29

                “In my wide and close experience, the IQ figures reflect reality pretty well. ”

                They don’t reflect reality because sex normed:

                1. It is obvious that on average men are substantially smarter than women.

                2. If men were not smarter than women, they would not sex norm IQ figures.

                Because we don’t have figures on whether men are smarter than women, neither do we have figures as to whether the difference is less between east Asians than between whites.

                But it is obvious that sexual dimorphism is substantially greater in whites than east Asians, and it seems equally obvious to me that the IQ difference between men and women is substantially greater in whites than east Asians.

              • jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 23:47

                > “at any rate white women aren’t into engineering for plenty of good social calculus reasons.”

                The intake into Computer Science 101 is about fifty fifty, indicating social calculus is not a large factor – but the female fifty is affirmative action.

                Very substantial numbers of white females graduate computer science. None of them get real jobs programming. They wind up in the art harem, or doing hr or sales type jobs, and are nominally classified, like barbie, as engineers to meet the quota.

                So, social calculus not a large factor.

              • jamesd127 April 9, 2016 at 23:54

                Similarly, academia is full of affirmative actioned female mathematicians, but our first female fields prize winner is a tranny. That is not the result of social calculus.

              • jamesd127 April 10, 2016 at 00:02

                When chicks graduate in computer science, but wind up in the art harem, it is not the result of social calculus.

              • Dan April 13, 2016 at 21:44

                “Similarly, academia is full of affirmative actioned female mathematicians, but our first female fields prize winner is a tranny. That is not the result of social calculus.”

                Nope. Maryam Mirzakhani is a woman married to a Czech dude, and they have a kid.

                http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/august/fields-medal-mirzakhani-081214.html

                • jamesd127 April 13, 2016 at 23:59

                  > Nope. Maryam Mirzakhani is a woman married to a Czech dude, and they have a kid.

                  Check her photos.

              • Eli April 14, 2016 at 16:51

                Many women with short hair don’t look attractive. Nothing exceptional, but nothing repulsive either.

              • Steve Johnson April 14, 2016 at 22:43

                This:

                is an actual woman. Look at how narrow her shoulders are and how slender her neck is.

                This one shows that she has a narrow, tapered waist – also shows her hands.

                Definite woman.

  3. Pingback: Tibet and Tradition | Reaction Times

  4. Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#109)

  5. spandrell April 15, 2016 at 05:41

    Somebody call agnostic so he puts his two cents on Ms. Mirzakhani’s chromosomes.

  6. asyoucan June 6, 2016 at 15:50

    Could you please elaborate on Tibetan Buddhism in present-day China? It would be interesting to read your thoughts on religious life in the PRC, as well.

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s