ltlee1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Mar 31, 3:34 pm, Tak To <ta...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>Jakub A. Krzewicki wrote:
>>
>>>niedziela, 30 marca 2008 04:12. carbon entity 'ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'
>>><ltl...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> contaminated talk.politics.tibet with the
following
>>>letter:
>>
>>>>You are quite right. However, theocracy is not central to buddhism.
>>
>>>So what about the Chakravartin figure in the Indian Buddhism which had
an
>>>influence on Vajrayana?
>>
>>Chakravartin isn't an im****tant aspect in many sects of Buddhism. OTOH,
>>many religion has the similar yearning for secular rule deriving from/
>>coinciding with devine rule. The rise of theocracy in Tibetan society
>>is simply an accidental result of history.
>>
>>
>>>As an european socialist and an Aryan who shares
>>>the Eurasianist view of comrade (or if you will Count) Nicholas Roerich
>>>--- the aristocrat, spiritual teacher and artist who became a devoted
>>>Russian Communist and had also an influence on shaping the politics
>>>(including the secret services!) both of USSR and USA in the 1930's ---
>>>I see an onlky remedy to the Caliphate Islamic Eurabian theocracy in
the
>>>linking of European socialism with the Buddhist Chakravartin figure.
I'm
>>>not just a lonely follower of this idea among the european socialists.
>>>Although it's rather hardly popular in Poland, there is much more of
people
>>>like me in Russia, Germany or the Scandinavian Countries. This is one
of
>>>sources of the exceptional popularity of Dalai-lama both in the West
and in
>>>the former Soviet Union.
>>
>>This seems to be neither here nor there.
>>
>>>>It
>>>>is the remnamts of Bon influence.
>>
>>Not really. The monastary system was essentially set up during the
reign
>>of Trisong Detsän (756-797 or 804) to consolidate Buddhism (sup****ted
by
>>the royal court) power over Bon (sup****ted by the old chieftans). It
>>continued to flourish after the decline of the Tibetan Kingdom simply
>>because it managed to find external patronage from the Mongol and later
>>Machu emperors. Becuase of this reliance on (or subjugating to,
depending
>>on one's point of view) external military power, it is perhaps arguable
>>whether Tibet was truly politically independent during those periods.
>
> As I had answered the other poster, I attributed theocracy to Bonpo
> influences because at that time Bon was the dominant religion under
> which theocracy was practiced for serveral centuries. I did not meant
> to say that Bon was the only religion which allowed or had theocracy
> as its central tenant.
There was no indication that there was a theocracy (of Bon) at the
time Songtsän Gampo introduced Buddhism. The theocracy was based
on the monastry system, which was introduced later, and for expanding
Buddhism, not Bon.
>>>Don't be so unprecise --- the extant school of Bon (Yungdrug) is also
in
>>>fact the Buddhist School, although not from India but from Afghanistan
and
>>>Tajikistan. You should rather call the primitive religion you mentioned
>>>"Shamanism" than "Bon".
>>
>>Bon is by no means only Yungdrug! Not that Mr Lee was right, or the
>>article in Wikipedia either for that matter -- at least the latter is
>>clear about the other aspects of Bon. It was also a fact that Bon and
>>Buddhism have been thoroughly mixed in Tibetan culture for over a
>>millenium. (But it would be too far to call Bon a Buddhist school.)
>>
>>
>>>>And China was rssponsible for
>>>>establi****ng Buddhism firmly in Tibet (cultureal genocide?) about 800
>>>>yeaars ago. Princess Wen Chen
>>>>"brought in a second wave of Buddhist influence equal , if not
>>>>greater, to the first."
>>
>>Not really. Even though Songtsän Gampo (born 604, died 650) did his
>>best to im****t Buddhism from China (along with other aspects of Chinese
>>culture), the religion was not widespread until the reigns of Tride
>>Tsuktsän (704-754) and Trisong Detsän. These kings im****ted (and
>>translated) text from India, invited monks from India as well as sent
>>monks to India to study Buddhism.
>
> I don't know what is the gap between my "firmly established" and your
> "widespread."
FWIW. what I said was "_not_ widespread".
> Suffice it to say the "Jokhang is the first
> acknowledged Buddhist place of wor****p in Tibet and is thus regard as
> the spiritual centre of the country."
Would you consider Lamaism "firmly established" in China? After all,
the royal family of Qing practised Lamaism and there was even a Lamaism
temple (Yonghe Palace) in Beijing.
Btw, I am not sure what "second wave of Buddhist influence" refers
to. (And I am not sure if that was your idea or you were quoting
someone else.) When was the "first wave"? Was there a confusion
between Princess Wencheng and Princess Jincheng who was married to
Tride Tsuktsän?
> Anyway, firmly established among
> the elites and widespread among Tibet are not mutually exclusive.
It was not clear that it was widespread among the elite. A ****lla
monk Hyech'o (Huichao 慧超 in Chinese) visiting Tibet at that time
observed that there was neither temple (presumably besides Jokhang)
nor monk there.
In any case, my point is that even though Tibet first im****t
Buddhism from China, the overall effect of Chinese Buddhism on
Tibet culture was minimal.
>>>Maybe the money for the first Buddhist temples in Tibet was from China
but
>>>the very human capital of spiritual teachers didn't mostly arrive from
>>>China, they all but some exceptions which are hardly not worth
mentioning
>>>were just the Vajrayana Mahasiddhas from India, some of them the
refugees
>>>from the Islamic invaders. Therefore a kind of the alliance of China
with
>>>the Wahhabi and Deobandi-dominated world of Islam --- which is both
deathly
>>>menace to Europe and maximally intolerant to the Buddhist Dharma --- is
>>>like adding insult to the injury in the Western public opinion which is
>>>shaped by the Eurasianist socialists. When Drikung Kagyud Lamas bless
the
>>>Russian troops of presidents Putin and Medvedev which fight with the
menace
>>>of al-Qaeda in Chechnya, the Chinese rapprochement with the
fundamentalist
>>>and pro-American Musharraf's regime and the countries like Saudi Arabia
is
>>>seen in Europe as a kind of an actual "stabbing in the back". I see
this
>>>menace not only as an Eurasianist and an European socialist, but also
as a
>>>Polish patriot who is proud from the glorious victory of king John
Sobieski
>>>in Vienna.
>>
>>It seems that "Eurasianist" (or "Euro-Socialist", whatever) view is
>>overly harsh on China. China is no more in alliance with Wahhabi than
>>Anerica or most of Western Europe is. Not that China is practising
>>a moralistic (i.e., based on human rights, etc) foreign policy --
>>the Chinese foreign policy is simply not about moral issues but
>>"national interest", like most nations in the world.
>>
>>>>Basically, when two peoples meet each other, cultural changes are
>>>>inevitable. Yes, one can yell cultural genocide when Buddhism took the
>>>>poace of Bon belief.
>>
>>>Except for the extant Yungdrug Bonists many of whom sup****t the
Dalai-lama.
>>
>>Mr Lee was referring to a much earlier form of Bon. The Bon-Buddhism
>>conflicts are well recorded in Tibetan history. (As in other
"religious"
>>conflicts in history, they were essentially a political conflicts.)
>>
>>>>But without this change, there would not be
>>>>today's Tibetan Buddhism. Theocracy is not compatible with the 21st
>>>>century.
>>
>>>Maybe not theocracy in the traditional form, but the socialist and
>>>democratic theocracy and monarchy in the syndicalist workers' state
>>>postulated by the Eurasians and Mladorossi in Russia, or by the comrade
>>>Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, former Chief of Partido
Carlista
>>>in Spain. I was recently suggested to form such a political party in
Poland
>>>by a group of aristocracy which sup****ted the former Communist
Government
>>>and presently I thorougly consider this proposal. The popularity of the
>>>propaganda for this movement may be wide because of the origin of the
>>>majority of the pre-WW2 Polish proletariat and the first socialist
>>>activists like Warynski, Pilsudski and Dzierzynski (the last one
>>>unfortunately a Luxemburgist and consequently a national traitor to the
>>>Bolsheviks) from the huge social class of lesser nobility disposessed
and
>>>degraded by Tzarists after the January uprising 1863.
>>
>>What is this "non-traditional theocracy"? Who has the authority in
>>creating and interpreting law? What role does devine knowledege
>>and authority play in this system? If there is no role for divinity,
>>how can one justifiy the term "theocracy"?
>>
>>In any case, theocracy or oligarchy is less im****tant than the
>>socio-economical fact that most of the population are practically
>>serfs to a large, unproductive class. Don't tell me that the
>>majority of an enlightened people would prefer spending their
>>tax money on beautifying temples instead of hospitals and schools.
>>The fact is that if one tskes away the political and economic powers
>>of the temples, their hold on the spiritual aspect of life would
>>diminish accordingly.
>>
>>>>It will have to go the way like other components of Bon.
>>>>China's prseence is incidental.
>>
>>>If the idea of Trikaya and Nirma****aya/Tulku is a Bon only component,
how do
>>>you explain the fact that it was present also in the _Indian_
Vajrayana?
>>>This idea is rather close to the Europeans because the local religions
like
>>>Orthodox and Catholic Christianity have a similar idea of Trinity and
the
>>>Incarnation/Created Body to the Vajrayana, so the propagating Buddhism
here
>>>is not really an intellectual challenge, rather a political, cultural
and
>>>occult challenge of replacing one fading "mystical body" with the
another,
>>>fresh and energetic one, to protect the European culture from the
rapidly
>>>growing Moslem poisonous jungle.
>>
>>I don't quite agree with Mr Lee either.
>>
>>OTOH, I have a rather dim view of the role of religion in the
>>modern world.
>>
>>Btw, I highly recommend the book "Prisoner of Shangri-La -- Tibetan
>>Buddhism in the West" by the Tibetanist Donald S. Lopez. It gives
>>a clear account on how the West has misinterpreted Tibet through
>>out history.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To takto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
|
