[Buddha-l] modern buddhist teachers

[Richard Hayes]

On Jul 2, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Curt Steinmetz wrote:

> I don't really think the criteria I proposed are all that difficult to
> work with - especially given the examples from Hinduism that I  
> included:
> Vivekananda, Gandhi and Aurobindo.
>
> HHDL probably comes the closest - in fact I believe he is the only one
> even in the running. He is extremely popular among Asian Buddhists -
> especially in Taiwan and Japan (as well as, naturally, among Central
> Asian Buddhists). And yet where Aurobindo, Vivekananda and Gandhi were
> all committed to the complete liberation and independence of India,  
> HHDL
> has adopted a far more accommodating approach with respect to the  
> brutal
> conquest of Tibet by the Chinese, which I think greatly undercuts his
> potential appeal and influence (and importance), although it sells  
> well
> among aging hippies in the West.

The Dalai Lama seems to be far more interested in the well-being of  
people than in the independence of countries. He is not by any means  
indifferent to the well-being of Tibetans, wherever they happen to  
live. Wanting to liberate India from the colonial administrative of a  
much smaller nation, as some 19th and 20th century Hindu leaders  
wanted to do, is a much more reasonable enterprise than wanting to  
liberate a country with a population of 2.6 megapeople from a nation  
that has a population of 1.3 Gigapeople. Being prudent and patient is  
often wiser than being quixotic and hot-headed. Putting the well-being  
of people above the essentially meaningless symbolic independence of a  
nation shows a firm grasp of Buddhist values.

I have heard the Dalai Lama say that if the Tibetan people ever again  
have their own government somewhere, it will be a democratically  
elected government with a constitution that provides for a guarantee  
that some seats in the parliament be reserved for women. On that same  
occasion I also heard him say that the institution of the dalai lama  
is a thing of the past and that it makes no sense for a dalai (or any  
other) lama to be a political head of state. He also said that the  
study of abhidharma is likely to keep Tibetans in the dark ages and  
that a knowledge of classical Indian Buddhist philosophy is far less  
likely to help people than a knowledge of modern science. He also says  
he thinks it is far more important for Tibetans to learn English than  
to learn classical Tibetan. All this may have been said to please all  
the aging hippies in his Canadian audience, but it certainly sounded  
as if he actually meant it. People who know the Dalai Lama fairly well  
report that they are convinced he means these things. If he does, then  
he is every bit the progressive visionary that Vivekananda was (and I  
don't say that lightly, since I regard Vivekananda as the most  
inspiring visionary of the 19th and 20th centuries put together). Like  
Vivekananda, the Dalai Lama thinks people are much better off staying  
with the religion of their childhood rather than trying to convert as  
adults to an essentially alien way of thinking and acting. What  
Western Buddhist or neo-Vedantin could possibly disagree with that?

Vivekananda proclaimed that the 20th century would begin the Age of  
the Śūdra. Can anyone who has witnessed the ridiculous and  
embarrassingly maudlin histrionics in the wake of the death of Michael  
Jackson doubt that Swami-ji got that one right? Judas Priest, there's  
a military coup in Honduras, a velvet coup in Iran, a North Korea that  
is testing missiles and probably producing plutonium, a rogue US  
president sending marines into Afghanistan, a worldwide economic  
collapse and more dire predictions than ever before about the effects  
of global warming, and three-quarters of the allegedly free world is  
distracted by the death of a guy who could do interesting dance moves  
while singing godawful music. But I digress, as is my wont.

Carry on.

Richard