http://www.trimondi.de/SDLE/Index.htm - 14k

As to your labelling what I wrote “accusations”, I think that’s rather inaccurate. What I did was piece together several other information sources to further my own understanding of a historical situation with which I was unfamiliar. The connections between the CIA and the Tibetan resistance are a matter of public record. This is not something I cooked up and decided to run around accusing people of. If you want to argue the validity of that information, feel free to take it to the original sources.

The Dalai Lama’s throne and in fact all the relics in the Potala are not considered to be the personal property of the Dalai Lama, they are the property of the state.

What you seem to be leaving out here is that most of the people in Tibet were living in serfdom and were also essentially the property of the state. Isn’t human life more valuable than jewels and thrones?

Nothing about that implies that the Dalai Lama gained personally from that.

I never said that, and you’ll see that I even used a quote to illustrate the fact that he himself never gained personally from CIA funds. But then, he’s also the leader of a nation, and thus to say he didn’t benefit from it on some level is more absurd than anything I said. That’s like saying the President doesn’t “get” anything from living in the White House. Sure he doesn’t own it, but that doesn’t matter.

As for the Dalai Lama receiving CIA funding, this should not be taken to imply that the Dalai Lama worked for the CIA.

So in other words, when I get paychecks from my company, I shouldn’t consider myself to “work” for that company? That’s a nonsensical argument.

Rather, it should be taken to imply that the CIA helped subsidize the escape and re-establishment of his government.

I absolutely agree. The point I’m trying to make is that the CIA didn’t do this for altruistic reasons or simply because the Dalai Lama is a spiritual leader. They did it to fight communist China.

You really need to look into the historical situation in much more detail before making broad accusations like this.

i love it!

tim, “you need” to do this and that. it’s an imperative. “you HAVE to.” after all, it’s not like it’s your site or anything; you’re here to take instruction from those more knowledgable than yourself.

regardless of his cia connexions (which, really, one can take or leave as one wishes), i’ve never been fond of the dalai lama because he’s more conservative & restrictive than the pope. here’s a good article on the subject (bug me not required):

In reality, Tibetan Buddhism is not a values-free system oriented around smiles and a warm heart. It is a religion with tough ethical underpinnings that sometimes get lost in translation. For example, he condemns homosexuality, and all oral and anal sex. His stand is close to that of Pope John Paul II, something his Western followers prefer to ignore. His US publisher even asked him to remove the injunctions against homosexuality from his book, Ethics for the New Millennium, for fear they would offend US readers, and the Dalai Lama acquiesced.

he’s also given up on the ‘free tibet’ movement, and now claims that tibet should submit to chinese governance:

Dreams can last a long time, but often enough give way to pragmatic reality. A dream that lasted 46 years ended today, when the Dalai Lama, spiritual and temporal leader of the Tibetan people, in a statement on the 46th anniversary of the annexation of Tibet by China, asked Tibetans to give up their dream of an independent country, saying he believed that “China is the best for Tibetans’ progress and future.”

not that it’s the wrong idea, or that a mind shouldn’t be changed, but the figure that the west holds up as THE DALAI LAMA is far more complex and imperfect than the celebrity spiritualists would have us believe.

The Dalai Lama’s throne and in fact all the relics in the Potala are not considered to be the personal property of the Dalai Lama, they are the property of the state. The Dalai Lama, as is specified in the vows of a monk which he has always upheld, does not collect personal property or wealth. His only possessions are a few spiritual texts, a watch or two, and his robes and ritual objects (a rosary, etc.). When he requested that a new throne be built it was not his personal possesion but rather that of the state — the Tibetan Government. In the context of the Tibetan belief system, the creation of this throne was an offering to the protective dieties of Tibet, and the effect of making such an offering would be to bring about the karmic causes which would result in Tibet being protected from Chinese invasion. In fact, to be perfectly accurate, the Dalai Lama was making this offering of a throne, rather than receiving it. This is exactly like the case in which a wealthy person sponsors a charity drive. In this case, the Dalai Lama sponsored the creation of this throne (and his office also contributed precious gems and labor and other funds for its construction). So it is not correct to position this as the Dalai Lama receiving the offering; he was offering it along with the people of Tibet, and once offered it was not his property.

When the Tibetan Government went into exile along with the Dalai Lama of course they took whatever they could from their treasury. How else would they fund their exile government, and take care of the hundreds of thousands of homeless exiles who followed them to India? All other governments would do the same. It is perfectly rationale, and furthemore, justified. Nothing about that implies that the Dalai Lama gained personally from that. In fact, quite the contrary — he would have been much better off personally if he had simply submitted to China in the first place. Instead he chose to resist and was forced into a very difficult exile as a result. Furthermore, had the Tibetan government left their precious relics in Tibet, the Chinese would have simply destroyed them, as they did to almost all the monasteries and historical relics and artworks that were left behind. So even merely from the perspective of cultural preservation, it was necessary to remove those precious historical objects from Tibet before the Chinese army could get to them.

As for the Dalai Lama receiving CIA funding, this should not be taken to imply that the Dalai Lama worked for the CIA. Rather, it should be taken to imply that the CIA helped subsidize the escape and re-establishment of his government. The CIA did fund the Tibetan resistance, and also provided money for the Dalai Lama’s relocation and the continuity of government. If funds were provided for his office, that does not in any way imply that he himself benefitted personally from that. Think about the complexity of trying to relocate an entire government and exile community, and run an insurrection, and establish international outreach and an office in NYC etc. Now add to that the complexity of doing this while being invaded, hunted, and while still a very young man with no political experience. That is the situation that the Dalai Lama faced at that time. Not only would the expense have been large, but the use of funds would probably be a bit disorganized as well — after all they were on the run as exiles, and were outside of their ancient feudal civilization for the first time. They didn’t have the luxury to squander money for personal gain — they were fighting for basic day-to-day survival!

But hey, the best columnists to read are the ones that provoke you the most…

Amen to that!

Yeah, Hitchens often has some interesting things to say… he’s a contrarian’s contrarian, which is probably why I like to read his writing, even though I disagree with him on a number of issues (such as the Clintons and the Iraq War). But hey, the best columnists to read are the ones that provoke you the most…

http://www.cultnews.com/archives/000281.html

I’m not saying that this nutcase has anything to do with the Dalai Lama. But how strange would it be if he really was telling the truth? No one ever pictures the Dalai Lama being mixed up with criminal activities, but who is to say he is above that?

Personally, it would crack me up if the Dalai Lama was discovered to be some sort of shady underworld figure. It’s always the ones you least suspect…

As for the Dalai Lama, yeah, old news. The Tibetans aren’t the pure, spiritual teddy bears that they’re portrayed as by romantics… they were basically a feudal people who had been exploited by a monastic elite for centuries. The sixty tons of treasure is just another case of that. Of course, I won’t blame that on Tenzin Gyatso- he was young, and under the thumb of numerous corrupt courtiers to boot. And the man he’s become is a far cry from the boy that he was.

In the Cold War, we pretty much paid off anyone who would fight the communists, even if they amounted to underwear-clad yahoos with air rifles, as long as they were in a position to stick it to the USSR or China (at least until the early 70’s, when Nixon made the smartest move of his career and played pattycake with Mao. Now, if only Condy Rice would shove Bush on a plane to Tehran to do the same move today, and close one more front in this sorry “War on Terror”…) The resistance in Tibet was pretty pathetic, but they never had a chance to begin with given the kind of numbers the occupying force of the People’s Liberation Army had on their side. Freeing Tibet is about as lost a cause at this point as giving the Dakotas back to the Lakota Sioux- it just ain’t going to happen.