Part One
Upset Tibetans and other Dalai Lama defenders have a point when they warn the CCP pushed the spread of the viral ‘tongue’ video, but they do themselves and the Tibetan cause (as well as the reputation of Buddhism?) no favours with over-the-top criticism of the genuine reactions of millions of non-Tibetan observers.
Millions of non-Tibetan observers are still reeling from the CCP export of Lockdowns. Some will recall the Dalai Lama adding his voice to the global ‘vaccine’ push which was not-so-safe nor effective. It was sensible then to question ‘authority’ and whether any one group, any ‘experts’ or any ‘leaders’ have the right to silence the concerns of others, and it is sensible now.
As yet another Tibetan scholar labels anyone appalled by the Dalai Lama’s actions as “unfair” “impure” “ignorant of Tibetan custom” and “disrespectful”, whilst calling the media coverage of it all “irresponsible” and “sensationalist” and “CCP propaganda”; let’s take a meditative moment to try to ensure mature consideration of different perspectives, to avoid closing down discussion and exacerbating further division.
It might help to consider how 4 main group dynamics are at work: To roughly categorise
Group 1 - ‘appalled/horrified global viewers of the video who are neither Buddhist nor from the Himalayan regions.
Group 2 as Tibetan (and also worldwide Buddhist) devotees also appalled/horrified/upset at global reactions,
Group 3 MainStreamMedia including the BBC, and
Group 4 the CCP propaganda machine.
There are of course many of other groups quietly trying to work it all out (likely including many Buddhists who are not necessarily Dalai Lama devotees), but the main intent in this article is to address the dangers of division and propaganda in the roughly divided two “appalled” groups.
Btw I’m aware some would cynically say the BBC (and most other MSM?) should be in Group 4 these days.. and as we shall see this article, along with wishing to heal the divide between groups 1, 2 and even 3, is going to outline how the BBC’s ‘pinned’ article on this, likely shows they do indeed belong in Group 4.
The video – clip or longer version – did not “lack any context” as a (Tibetan) Associate Professor of Human Communication Studies at California Uni stated. Context was there. The context which so many indignant, “horrified” “distraught” Tibetans genuinely failed to see? Honestly, as the same was levelled at those appalled by the video, the appalled Tibetans could save their outrage.. We hopefully all agree that outrage should be reserved, if expressed at all, for really serious things like the way the CCP… Or for child abuse. Which brings us back to the deeply unsettled feelings of many who watched the video. Although claims have been made that the widely circulated “highly edited clip” is ‘out of context’, many would disagree – in fact the whole video can be seen as equally unsettling but for a wider set of reasons.
A hugely significant ‘context’, which seems so oddly ignored in Tibetan indignation and apparent inability to understand Group 1 feellings on this: The Dalai Lama is the world’s most famous Buddhist monk.
His Tibetan-ness is secondary. Certainly to the wider world of Group 1. Whether the Dalai Lama is Tibetan or not, the reason he has had a planetary teaching platform (and international fame as a result) is down to Buddhism. His monastic robes make pretty clear he is a Buddhist monk as well as a teacher. Leaving aside obscure Tibetan customs (we’ll come to ‘Che le Sa’ later), what conduct is most reasonable for Group 1 to expect of the Dalai Lama? That of a Buddhist teacher and monk.
It’s clear from so many Group 1 shocked responses to the viral video that the issue was particularly due to the Dalai Lama being a such a respected teacher of such a respected religion. His nationality as Group 2 rightly point out, was not considered. But that is totally understandable because Buddhism, even Buddhist ethics, has been the Dalai Lama’s chosen subject matter for an international teaching schedule spanning decades.
Whether Terry Wogan or Oprah Winfrey, various hosts will have heard “I’m just a humble monk”. Although the humble monk Tenzin Gyatso is not a personal teacher of mine, as I’m Buddhist, and was a Vajrayana Buddhist monastic for nearly 20 years, living in the West, I’ve relatively frequently heard the Dalai Lama talk. I also watched him scale the giddy heights to global fame. He seemed fine with it and the cultural adaption which necessarily came with it. He sat on a regular chair which was no higher than Oprah’s. One can easily believe this was motivated to spread the word of the Buddha. It seemed fair enough to use the position to also draw attention to the plight of Tibet and Tibetans.
Even whilst it was quietly accepted by those ‘in the know’ that something of a myth was developing regards the title ‘Head of Tibetan Buddhism’ (with its four main lineages none of which the Dalai Lama is actually head of) the Dalai Lama was the head of the Tibetan Government in exile and as such Tibetan Leader. Although I know a few Tibetans who wanted to put the record straight, at least in private, the global fame over-rode what Group 3 would consider unimportant details. It was perhaps too challenging on TV to explain the humble monk His Holiness did have an overall leadership role, but rather than of all (or any) Buddhist lineages, it was as Head of an exiled Government. Most Tibetans weren’t going to quibble with whatever Oprah introduced him as. Tibetan politics and who actually heads what blurred in the background as the Dalai Lama become the most globally recognised and internationally celebrated Buddhist monk. (Ironically there were a few situations with various westerners who came across abuse in monasteries and Buddhist communities who sought assistance from ‘the Head of Tibetan Buddhism’. They subsequently voiced disappointment that he didn’t seem to do anything about it, but that may have been because apart from using the platform of western fame to expose it, behind the scenes the Dalai Lama didn’t really have the power to intervene.
Whether anyone thinks of the Dalai Lama as the Head of Tibetan Buddhism or not, there is a growing understanding, gleaned from history - from other heirachies and abuse in all sorts of organisations, that without functional systems for investigating complaints, the devotion of many disciples is often an exacebating problem in the effective investigation and stopping of abuse. What this boils down to is that it must be possible for any person in an elevated position to be questioned. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that was a major teaching from the Buddha himself. Watch what I do. Question what I say.
That is a reason Group 2 might be wise to tone down their devotional demonstrations as although Group 1 might have been silenced with the cultural card (and certainly most of Group 3 have been), Group 1 might quietly become more concerned as it becomes clear from Group 2 there is likely no situation in which criticism of the Dalai Lama would be accepted.
So here we are, with the Dalai Lama a Buddhist teacher and monk, and also a Tibetan.. Although Vajrayana Buddhist monastic conduct took on a notably more ‘relaxed’ form in Tibet than Buddhist monastic conduct in other countries, there’s a limit.
What so many of us saw in the video, was the limit. It seems a little untenable that Group 2 can’t understand at least that much.
Now that we witness the silencing of Group 1 because its difficult to voice concern against Group 2 accusations of ‘you don’t understand Tibetan culture’, it seems a good idea to question how Group 2 can ignore the Buddhist monastic conduct expectations. Wouldn’t they share those expectations with Group 1? Do they see their Holiness as above monastic conduct? Isn’t that likely to make Group1 all the more wary?
Have Group 4 have been particularly crafty? Is it Group 2 who have fallen for a CCP trick as much as Group 1? What anyone thinks about the Dalai Lama is perhaps less important in terms of world peace (or Group 4 world domination) than how Group 1 and 2 see each other. The CCP would be delighted if Group 1 end up thinking Group 2 are indoctrinated, unable to keep children safe and deluded by religious beliefs, and Group 2 believe everyone in Group 1 is impure, a threat to their future and deluded by the CCP.
Although Part Two of this article will look at evidence the BBC are adding their hand to Group 4 aims.. it is neither the CCP, the BBC or the Dalai Lama who hold the power now - to prevent furthur divisions and heal those recently arisen. It is all the rest of us. Personally I can’t see a way we can heal divisions without the courage to give voice to differing views. The Buddha in his kindness, and wisdom, also encouraged a healthy dose of scepticism. I find myself questioning what it is to be actually practicing Buddhism whilst feeling I may be equally confused by the Dalai Lama and CCP. Having worked for the BBC though, I’m interested in which articles they run and how - and often its easy to see the subtle propaganda. I don’t feel confused at all. Tessa Wong’s piece- the piece the ‘pinned’ as the BBC’s lasting comment on the tongue debacle is worthy of inspection. Group 4 couldn’t have written it better themselves.