Washington Post hints at
big changes afoot for Tibetan Buddhism. Is there a local story in
that?
Ira Rifkin November 14, 2017
GetReligion
Tibet ceased to be an
independent nation nearly six decades ago. Moreover, the likelihood
is that Tibet — birthplace of the Dalai Lama and home to a unique
and dramatic form of Buddhist practice — will remain under Chinese
domination for the foreseeable future.
In short, the Dalai Lama’s
immense international popularity (primarily in Western democracies)
and the good deal of advocacy on behalf of Tibet by Western
supporters over the decades has, politically speaking, achieved
virtually nothing.
Why’s that? Because China’s
massive economic and military power trumps, on the international
stage, any sympathy for Tibet in Western capitals.
If that’s not enough,
there’s now a new – and surprising – threat to Tibetan nationalism.
The Washington Post wrote about it last month.
That threat is Indian
citizenship.
India, home to some 122,000
Tibetan exiles, earlier this year decided to grant many of them
Indian citizenship. Until now officially stateless, the Tibetans
who accept Indian citizenship will gain a slew of government perks
withheld from non-citizens. That includes an Indian passport,
allowing them to leave India and travel the world with far greater
ease than previously.
That raises at least three
questions. One’s political, one’s religious and one’s journalistic.
As usual, the three are interrelated. To begin:
* What does accepting
Indian citizenship mean for the Tibetan national
movement?
* What impact will this
have on Tibetan Buddhism?
* Three, why did the Post
story not address question two – given how central Tibetan
Vajrayana Buddhism is to Tibetan cultural and political
identity?
Yes, we're talking about
the possibility of a slow but eventual assimilation into Indian
cultural identity. (Tibetan exiles living in other nations,
primarily in Europe and North America, can already get
citizenship.) Here’s a pertinent extract from the Post
story:
For years, the Tibetan
movement has hung its hopes on international support for its
exiles.
Heart-rending stories of
Tibetans walking through icy mountain passes to reach India — their
land seized, their monasteries razed, their prayers silenced —
buttressed U.S. efforts to isolate China during the Cold War and
have continued to rake up support on college campuses and outside
Chinese embassies worldwide. “Free Tibet” long ago became a
familiar cry.
But without a stateless
population to [fuel] the sympathies of Western democracies, some
fear that the Tibetan struggle could crumble.
“What’s happened is that an
entire nationality, so to speak, has given up on its nation,” said
Giriraj Subramanium, a lawyer in Delhi who has argued more than a
dozen Tibetans’ cases for passports in the Delhi High Court. “Tibet
is over” is a common refrain among his clients, he said.
The piece goes on to
explain that the citizenship issue has divided the Indian Tibetan
community between hardcore nationalists and those opting for what
they see as a more pragmatic solution to their statelessness; often
younger Tibetans. It also notes that so far relatively few exiles
have actually opted for citizenship.
That’s likely to change, I
believe. Here’s why.
The Dalai Lama, now 82, has
already relinquished his status as Tibet’s political leader (he
remains Tibetan Buddhism’s spiritual leader) and has even said he
very well could be the last in his lineage because Tibetans may no
longer need a figure such as himself in the modern
world.
(Dalai Lama is a title; the
current Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, is the 14th in the lineage,
dating from 1578. Tibetan Buddhist beliefs regard the Dalai Lama as
a reincarnation of his predecessor.)
Impermanence – the belief
that nothing is static in the material universe, that change is the
only constant – is a key philosophical and religious principle in
Buddhism, including the Tibet form.
Barred from their homeland
and absent their traditional religious and cultural moorings, will
exiled Tibetans, now citizens of India and other democracies,
assimilate at increasingly faster rates? Their doing so makes
perfect sense if constant change is a cornerstone of your
traditional world view, after all.
To be clear, It’s not about
forgetting Tibet so much as it is accepting — understanding on a
deep level – that everything in this world is in constant flux; the
past is gone and the future is unknown. There’s only today – this
moment, actually -- so make the best of it.
The Post piece ignored this
angle, focusing, as it did, solely on the story’s political side.
But it's key and can't be overlooked when discussing Tibet and its
people, for whom religion is culture and culture is all about
centuries of religious practice.
Stories about the
possibility of Tibetans receiving Indian citizenship have been
kicking around for years. Here’s a piece from 2013 that ran in
Tricycle, a leading American Buddhist publication. It advocated for
citizenship as a realistic solution to the Indian exile
problem.
This Times of India story
from earlier this year sums up how the citizenship issue has been
handled by the Indian government.
Here’s one more question.
This one’s for journalists.
If the practice of Tibetan
Buddhism is changed by changes in Tibetan culture, what might that
mean for the many Western practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism? Will
their focus on Tibetan culture lessen?
Will Tibetan Buddhism in
the West transform similarly to Mindfulness meditation, drawn from
South Asian Buddhist practice, by dropping its ethnic
flavor?
If you cover an area with
Tibetan Buddhist centers – here’s one list (others are also
available on the web) of U.S. Tibetan centers to get you started –
why not drop by and ask about this?
If you're fortunate, you
may even find an ethnic Tibetan there. He’ll (yeah, they're
generally men) be the one teaching the Westerners Vajrayana
meditation practices.
By the way, other than the
Post story cited above, my online search turned up nothing recently
published on this topic by an American news outlet. Might this be
the time to change that?