Partly as a follow up to the last post, which touched on China's plan to appoint the next Dalai Lama -- there seems to be considerable confusion about just what the Dalai Lama is and does. I often run into "commentary" on the Web complaining that His Holiness opposes China because he wants to turn Tibet back into a theocracy.
First, His Holiness the Dalai Lama has made it plain he would not return to Tibet as head of the government, even if he could. He has relinquished political authority even in the Tibetan government in exile in Dharamsala.
Second, it is not a requirement in Tibetan Buddhism for the Dalai Lama to be head of government. When Buddhism first came to Tibet in the 7th century, Tibet was ruled by a king. This was more or less the case for the next few centuries, although at times Tibet was splintered into more than one kingdom, meaning there was more than one king.
Through an alliance with Kublai Khan, the head of the Sakya school ruled Tibet for a time in the 13th and 14th centuries, and I believe the Kagyu school dominated politics in Tibet for a brief time after that. Meanwhile, the first four Dalai Lamas lived and died with no political authority.
It was the 5th Dalai Lama who became spiritual and temporal ruler of Tibet, in 1642. To provide some perspective for western readers, this was the same year the city of Montreal was founded and the English civil war broke out. It's a long story, but through the building of Potala Palace, the Great Fifth symbolically linked himself to Tibet's ancient kings and to Avalokiteshvara, a protector of Tibet. Thus the Dalai Lama came to represent Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet's history and pretty much Tibet itself in the minds and hearts of Tibetans.
However, Tibet's history seems to have been one upheaval after another. The 6th Dalai Lama was kidnapped and died when he was only 24. For various reasons the 7th and 8th Dalai Lamas played minor roles in the governing of Tibet. The 9th through 12th didn't live long enough to be rulers.
So through most of the 18th and 19th centuries, a succession of regents and generals actually governed Tibet. Not until the 13th, who was enthroned in 1895, was there a Dalai Lama who actually ran things. Even the 13th was limited by opposition from heads of other schools, who opposed many of the reforms he had wanted to make.
This is all by way of explaining that having a Dalai Lama in charge of government is simply not necessary for the future of Tibetan Buddhism. His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama has said many times that it would be best for Tibet to have a secular, elected government. So, even if Tibet were to be freed, and the Dalai Lama once more lived in Potala Palace, the days of Tibetan Buddhist feudalism are over.
No comments:
Post a Comment