Religion No Longer Essential For Ethics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/dalai-lama-facebook-religion-is-no-longer-adequate-science_n_1880805.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-derr/beyond-religion-altogether-religious-notes-on-dalai-lama-post-religious-ethics_b_1885346.html

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/news/regions/asia-pacific/dalai-lama-tells-internet-religion-no-longer-adequate

http://markandrewalward.blogspot.com/2012/09/dalai-lama-religion-is-no-longer.html#.UF54Vo1lRXM

The Dalai Lama has brought himself into the spotlight yet again with a Facebook and Twitter post 2 weeks ago stating, in brief, that “grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate.” He’s brought praise from atheists and humanists, to say nothing of preaching from Christians and others who insist that you can’t have ethics without a spiritual or a religious basis. I spoke in part about Gyatso’s text “Beyond Religion: Ethics For A Whole World” which he referenced in a Facebook post I spoke about in “An Ethics For Everyone” These claims are controversial, but a remotely objective look at them, without presuppositions on either the sacred or secular, we can see there are commonly held values that we can utilize in a shared ethics and morality. The distinction between ethics and morality is difficult, but I have one perspective I’ve read on that is both concise and accessible. It is also pertinent to lay out these shared ideals about right and wrong, of good and evil, and elaborate how they make sense in a secular worldview, with no recourse to divine revelations. And finally, the supposed inconsistency of absolutist and relativist ethics can be resolved by a moderate point of realism, or even pragmatism if we want to be more philosophical. Ethics and morality are complex areas of life, but we shouldn’t needlessly complicate them with unnecessary or otherwise irrational factors that aren’t pertinent to our basic determination of what is right and wrong.

Ethics can be explained as an individual’s code of what is right and wrong, developed through experimentation in a sort of practical fashion. Morality, on the other hand, is a shared societal or cultural code which people are expected to conform to. The former is more individualist, but not so opposed to collaborative efforts, while morality creates a sense of collectivism that is concerning, but doesn’t deny individuals to a certain extent. In short, ethics are personal tenets and more experiential in nature, developed by an almost scientific methodology, while morality is a cultural set of beliefs concerning what is good and bad, almost to the effect of mores and norms, which are closer to taboos; related to acceptability instead of culpability. The distinction of individual and group values could potentially create a polar dichotomy, where each opposes the other. But instead I would suggest a prioritizing of the individual without eschewing the collective, more specifically, the community of which we are inevitably a part of in one way or another. Any community is composed of individuals to begin with, so the nuance is recognizing that there will be some disagreements, but there will also be common ground that exists by necessity of the average human being functioning remotely normally (i.e. not a sociopath). In that way, you have coexistence without conformity to the letter of the law. The spirit would still be recognized, so that’s not gone either. A society where one can have ethics that don’t necessarily conflict with morality, but morality doesn’t override ethics is an ideal and possible existence we can work out.

The values that are essential to ethics, according to Tenzin Gyatso, are: love, compassion, patience, tolerance and forgiveness: and can be found and discerned outside of religious authority. Objectors will claim that in scientific and secular reasoning, since ideals and values are non material things, they can’t be verified or demonstrated in the way we demonstrate gravity or other things with clearly physical properties. The problem with that argument is that it applies to numbers, yet they are believed to be extant in their own sense, just like concepts of truth, justice, even logic, which are immaterial and abstract in their nature. The verifiability and falsifiability of something isn’t strictly limited to the physical, especially when, by its very premise, it is admitted to be non physical. It’s more important in some cases whether it has practical value or relevance to human affairs. Love, compassion, forgiveness, patience and tolerance all have some basis in neuroscience, no doubt. But our experience and practice of them is more important in considering their universal value to everyone. When you love, you can understand compassion; when you are compassionate, you can practice forgiveness; when you practice forgiveness, you gain patience; when you gain patience, you develop tolerance. The interrelation of these values is complex, no doubt, but I would say the basis is compassion, which is a form of love that is nuanced, not granting it without some degree of reciprocity, but nonetheless understanding and not becoming either selfish or abusive. With compassion, you understand love, forgiveness, patience and tolerance, since they all have their connections to compassion, the core value and the one commonly misunderstood as passivity, but should be an active practice.

Ethics can be objective, true regardless of our opinions one way or the other, without being absolutely and ultimately true, which would suggest no critical thought on our part. And they can be subjective, dependent on the individual’s perspective, without being hard relativist, where there is no underlying ground for making claims of truth and fact to begin with. This is a hard position to convey with people tending to have fairly simplistic ideas of how right and wrong or good and evil work, thinking many times in black and white, but ironically admitting of grey areas when it comes to their own gain or loss. That entails we acknowledge in some way the relativity of ethics, but only when it applies to self interests. If it involves much more people, we try to sound more consistent and morally upright, but our hypocrisy cannot be pushed away. To accept the relativity of morality and ethics is not to abandon them as binding on us in any sense. It’s a basic necessity of human life to have rules that restrain us or otherwise guide our actions. But we shouldn’t take them as unquestionable or not subject to alteration or even abandonment if they merit it. Cultural influence on the acceptability of something should not be the primary voice. Popularity is not an acceptable standard, especially if it’s just based on conformity instead of critical thinking. Our voice of reason, even a sort of innate common sense or conscience, should guide us, especially when the practice being judged as condonable is, in fact, damaging in one form or another. Dehumanizing people through slavery or even trying to appear equal through such a thing as civil unions contrasted with marriage is not ethical and should not be painted as such for the sake of social expediency. We should work hard at always improving our ethics and not letting them remain easy for us to follow. As the proverb goes “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Skepticism about ethics shouldn’t go to the level of nihilism, but it shouldn’t be abandoned because it might breed insecurity or fear. It’s how we face the fear and insecurity that further tempers our future principles.

Of course it will be difficult for many people, who tend to only be philosophers when it comes to things that have already passed, mulling over them. Or we fixate on religion and spirituality as something of more philosophical import than the fundamentals: logic, ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics and epistemology. Speculating on the mysterious and awe inspiring can be done right or it can be wasted contemplation without underpinning it with sound thinking. Understanding things and also recognizing the limits of our knowledge of them are both essential to having a well thought out and realistic worldview. We shouldn’t live seeking to merely go through every day in security, especially if it ruins any possibility of change, innovation or progress. Of course, not all progress is good, not all innovation is beneficial and not all change will make things right. It is our response to these things is reflective of our character. Patience is a virtue and compassion is the ideal from which we develop that. And we don’t need any supernatural underpinning to discover compassion’s importance. Until next time, Namaste and aloha

Discussions With The Dalai Lama

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/06/dalai-lama-turns-76-in-washington-will-meet-with-congressional-leaders/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/top-u-s-lawmakers-meet-with-dalai-lama/

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/16/obama-meets-with-dalai-lama/

The 14th Dalai Lama’s still in the news even after getting himself out of his political position in Tibet last month. He’s recently finished an 11 day visit to Washington, during which a birthday celebration was held July 6th for him, a Kalachakra sand mandala, a practice of making a visual representation of the world and its interconnectedness, was made as a sign of goodwill towards America, a discussion was held at the Capitol, where the Dalai Lama explained his stepping down from politics in Tibet and China and he met with President Obama, causing more contention in U.S.-China relations.

Tenzin Gyatso’s 76th birthday was attended by other people related to peace activists, including Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King III, son of MLK Jr. Bishop Desmond Tutu also attended in spirit through a video conference, stating alongside Gandhi and King that the Dalai Lama’s efforts towards peace were admirable and should be seen as a prime example for future activists. All these generations of people working towards peace are an encouragement to people like myself who feel small in comparison to these veritable giants who have worked much of their lives to advance the cause of pacifism in one way or another.

More importantly, however, was the Dalai Lama’s explanation to U.S. congressional leaders as to why he surrendered his political position to a more suitable candidate. It wasn’t simply that he felt he wasn’t capable of serving in that position, but that there was a necessity to separate the religious and secular aspects of life in Tibet, similar to what many would advocate in one way or another in America. He wants to avoid the allegations of hypocrisy that would no doubt come up, since he had long since been in a position of both religious and secular power in Tibet. So for him to finally separate himself from the political sphere reflects progress in his beliefs conforming to his behavior.

A lot of concern has been voiced as to the effect these engagements with U.S. political leaders will have on relations of the U.S. with China. China believes that the Dalai Lama is dangerous, a separatist. But either they don’t listen to him or try to skew his words in some way to say he’s advocating independence of Tibet, which has never been his explicit goal and if it ever was, he’s changed his position over time. The U.S. has always tried to maintain good relations with Tibet, potentially in order to keep in good with China as well, which we’ve done pretty well on since at least Reagan, from what little history I know. President FDR gave the Dalai Lama a watch as a sign of friendship and George W. Bush gave him the Congressional Gold Medal in 2007.

Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama in 2010 caused uproar in China, which I covered in part in “On Tenzin Gyatso (In General)”. The President also had a meeting with Tenzin Gyatso just recently, which made Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu outspoken on this, as he was the last time this sort of engagement of what China considers a political/religious revolutionary with the head of such a political powerhouse as the U.S. .

A lot of this is based on the persistent misunderstanding of the Dalai Lama by the Chinese government. They understand the U.S. supports Tibet remaining part of China, but they think that just because the U.S. gives ANY support to a man who, by his own words, only wants Tibetan autonomy; which it doesn’t take a genius to distinguish between by just using a dictionary; that the U.S. is breaking its promise to support Tibetan association with China. But I don’t think anyone is advocating that Tibet become independent merely by associating with the Dalai Lama. This is especially true since he himself has said, as I’ve repeated twice now, that he only wants autonomy within the Tibetan area, not at all opposed to being part of the People’s Republic of China.

All in all, I respect Obama for persisting in spite of the Chinese government’s consistent opposition and disapproval of these meetings the last two years. At the same time, one could argue that’s it not practical or reasonable to keep pushing the issue, unless Obama plans to engage with the Chinese and communicate what the Dalai Lama has told him about only seeking autonomy, not independence as a country. But of course the Chinese government could potentially become more hostile to American support of the Dalai Lama’s sentiments. This is a very touchy situation politically, but the Dalai Lama’s own religious obligations to seek peace far override any concerns he’d have about the Chinese, especially since he’s been through enough running away and living in exile most of his adult life. I respect him and wish him well in this endeavor to engage with other world powers who’d support his cause to grant Tibet autonomy under Chinese rule. I only hope he doesn’t have to become another martyr, since his own people would probably memorialize him in some way if they could get their hands on his remains, or even just sanctify him as a sort of saint, which can exist in Buddhist practices.

Admittedly, the Dalai Lama is already understood by many Buddhists to be this sort of person, this Buddhist “saint” if you will, which is known as a bodhisattva in Sanskrit. This is a Buddha who puts their enlightenment off to be reborn again and help others learn the Buddha dharma and achieve nirvana. In the Dalai Lama’s case, he’s the 14th in a line of sages in the Tibetan tradition who are believed to be reincarnations of the bodhisattva of compassion, Avalokitesvara, more commonly exposed to Westerners as Guan Yin from Chinese traditions. I don’t necessarily believe that literally, but Tenzin Gyatso does give off an air of metta, or loving kindness,in the purest sense. It leaves you speechless almost, or at the very least, in awe of his “holiness” if you will. Here’s wishing him well in the future. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Dalai Lama Denies Leninism

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/11/dalai-lamas-im-a-marxist-comment-sparks-curiosity/

Even though the Dalai Lama was just in the news recently on his retirement from the political position he held in Tibet, he’s now in the news again, for markedly different reasons: he identified himself as a Marxist (oh no!). This is technically not really new information, since he has expressed deep appreciation for Marxism in relation to his Buddhism in the past. But many people might initially think, “Wait, he just got out of politics in Tibet, why is he still going on about political positions?” His bringing up Marxism was in response to a question about his sociopolitical position in a talk with Chinese students at the University of Minnesota. He qualified, however, that he was not a Leninist. This was an important qualification, since it distinguishes him from more stereotypical Marxists/Marxist-Leninists who advocate a revolution of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie to create a classless society in the future. Of course, I don’t know much about Marxism or Communism beyond one political science class I took my last year in college, so my readers can correct me if I’m wrong about that little detail.

Ironically, Tenzin Gyatso got interested in Marxism when he visited China, probably also using his meetings with Mao Tsetong in the past as counterexamples of what he feels went wrong with attempts to implement Marxism and Communism alike in China decades ago, though it still remains in some form, many would claim. Similarly in Russia, a prototypical example many use even today to represent Communism as a “threat” to America, Marxism, as manifest in the form of the Soviet Union, was still focused, in the Dalai Lama’s opinion, on selfish pursuits of profit and empowering the state over the governed. It’s not as if the Dalai Lama hates capitalism, though, he just thinks it doesn’t give any moral basis. I don’t think anyone ever said it did, but Marxism doesn’t necessarily give those moral foundations either, except in Marx’s original theory. If anything, there might be a better title for what the Dalai Lama is, though there’re so many variations of Marxism itself that he might still be able to fit it in somewhere.

Another thought people will bring up is the supposed opposition to religion inherent within the system of Marxism. The quote thrown around from Karl Marx himself, that religion is the “opiate of the masses” is somewhat ripped out of context. The full setting for Marx’s critique of religion reveals a more precise criticism of organized religion, one might say. He says prior to the opium reference that religion is the “sigh of the oppressed creature” so in a sense, he sees it as something of a necessary evil. He claims overall that religion shouldn’t be used as a way to manipulate people, but should be replaced with more solid truths of economics, etc. There is also a more potent metaphor to consider; if religion is like opium, then it is symptomatic of a pain that religion, similar to opium, cannot actually resolve, except temporarily. People use religion to soften the blow of losing a loved one, but one could say they don’t really face up to the basic reality of life: people die, and the sooner we accept that as natural and ethically benign, excluding non-accidental or natural deaths, the sooner we can progress as humans to soothe our pain more conclusively, though not completely. That kind of solution would be just as bad as becoming addicted to religion as a drug that you have to get more and more of to keep forgetting suffering.

In this sense, the Dalai Lama’s attraction to Marxism is also something I could agree with in the nominal critique of religion as a painkiller instead of a salve. Religion can function in some sense as an actual healer, though certainly not a panacea. At best, it can reduce people’s confusion about things, if even temporarily, in seeing patterns in existence to make them feel like they’re somewhat in control. But one could hope that this could be overcome, almost in a Freudian critique of religion as a childhood neurosis (anxiety) that we carry into adulthood because we refuse to confront our frailty as humans. Religion in terms of ethics might be a start as well with the charity that is inspired by devotion to a faith and its teachings. But if we consider Buddhism as more a philosophy than a religion, then there is a claim that the Dalai Lama could be advocating a removal of religion. But he clearly understands religion as something innate in the world. Even if more people begin to become non-religious in time, there will always be people that cannot really get out of that thought pattern, possibly because of a psychological disposition. But that’s not the end of the world or something to try to change by scientific means as if religion is truly a disease in that sense.

To go back to the opium analogy, religion is more a response to the disease we all suffer as human beings: unsatisfactoriness, called dukkha in Buddhism. It’s usually translated as suffering, but that makes it sound too focused on all the bad things as the problems in life. Even good things in life can be dukkha in a Buddhist perspective. We can become attached to them, we can think of them as the end all to our lives, acquisition of them as a way to feel fulfilled, etc. The fact that life needs to be given meaning through a person’s experience attests to this disease we all suffer. And the cures to it vary: religion, philosophy, even politics. Are all of these inferior? Perhaps they can all work together in some sense, but I can’t really speculate further than the inkling I have that the Dalai Lama may be more of a socialist than a Marxist, unless there are indeed more things involved with Marxist philosophy than I realize.

But people would wonder this on a practical level: shouldn’t the Dalai Lama focus on peace activism in his own general studies in Buddhism instead of branching out into politics and socio-economic theories? He says he’s different from Chinese and Russian Communists, but wouldn’t it be better for him to call himself a socialist in the sense of equitable distribution if that’s what he’s really after in terms of his activism? Perhaps so, but to be realistic, the Dalai Lama is not strictly the inheritor of the new generation, since he will no doubt fade into the past as one from the early 20th century. People like myself will have to take up the mantle of the new age upon us and work towards peace, justice and humanity. But we can’t deny that we are strongly influenced in one way or another by Tenzin Gyatso, the 14^th Dalai Lama. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Dalai Lama Departs Lightly

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/31/india.dalai.lama/

Last time I talked about the Dalai Lama was months ago in “Christine O’Donnell and the Dalai Lama” . I briefly looked at a manga adaptation of his life which I’ve since read. I might speak on that a bit, but for the most part, I’m interested in his official announcement of retirement from being a political leader for Tibetan autonomy. He emphasized that he will still be a spiritual leader, but he also thinks it’s time for a new person to take on the responsibilities that he shouldered along with being a lama, which has its own importance in Tibetan culture, from what I understand.  If anything, this reflects an understanding Tenzin Gyatso has of his position of authority in Tibet that Christopher Hitchens critiqued him on. As much as he advocated peace and equality of humanity, the contention is that he was complacent to impoverished situations in Tibet itself, while he was treated like a king, even if he was also trained in Buddhist monasticism.

Tibet’s a difficult place to live, especially considering their funeral practices would make many people squirm. To sum it up, the body is prepared in such a way that it can be left to the elements and carrion birds to consume. It’s actually something that appeals to me, though I imagine non-Tibetans wouldn’t be permitted to actually have that kind of funeral, plus I’d traumatize many acquaintances who thought of me as still holding some of my Christian heritage of respecting the body. But to be frank, if I die, people won’t remember me primarily by my body so much as the memories I created with them. Perhaps they’ll remember my face, but I think they’d remember the goofy things I’ve done, such as getting peanut butter stuck in a toaster by toasting bread with the peanut butter already on it.

Many Tibetans seem to object to the end of the 14^th Dalai Lama’s 60 year reign, possibly because of lingering attachments to this charismatic figure who  apparently wasn’t so eager when he became the leader of the country at 15 years of age. The manga adaptation seems a decent backstory, from what little I understand. It certainly introduces it through a medium I’m always reading these days (reading about 18 series on a ‘religious’ basis whenever they update) and the historical facts don’t seem to be stretched; at best there might be technicalities about the Chinese governments’ treatment of the Tibetans, considering that, from what I understand, China views Tibet as just another part of China, like Taiwan. The issue of independence as a country was never Gyatso’s goal. Autonomy was all he sought; simply being able to practice their native culture and religion as well as manage internal affairs, the government taking care of more international affairs between both parties. All in all, the general tone seems to be a somber acceptance, though I’ve never followed the Dalai Lama significantly beyond the few stories I even mentioned him, one of which was over a year ago, “Tenzin Gyatso (In General)”. 

At 75 years old, I imagine not being involved with the political aspects of his position will be a weight off his shoulders. Focusing on the spiritual advisor position of sorts and seeking out world peace among other things is more his forte, especially considering his education was primarily in Buddhist studies since a young age, allegedly having the level of a doctorate in Buddhist philosophy on his graduation at 23. I wholeheartedly support this move, since, as even the Dalai Lama said, to paraphrase; it’s in the nature of democratic systems to balance power and delineate it to those possessed of skill in those areas. So people objecting to this change in power forget that Tenzin Gyatso does care about his people, but his area of expertise has never been politics so much as general activism of peace and nonviolence as well as other passions including interfaith dialogue and dabbling in physics from what I’ve heard. All the best to Jamphel Ngawang Lobsang Yeshe Tenzin Gyatso (yes, that’s his full name). Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Christine O'Donnell and the 14th Dalai Lama?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/22/gop-candidates-witchcraft-dabbling-worries-wiccan/






http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/23/review-the-14th-dalai-lama-a-manga-biography/

Again, I’m trying a split topic blog like I did last week. Firstly, we have the questionable conflation of Satanists with Wiccans, witches and other pagans of various stripes by GOP candidate Christine O’Donnell. Not that she doesn’t have other controversial claims, but this one is especially relevant with the consideration that the general term “pagan” applies to at least a quarter of a million people in the U.S. alone, according to Selena Fox, head of Circle Sanctuary, which associates with pagans across the world. The demographic numbers for self identifying pagans allegedly ranges from 500,000 to a million in the U.S. alone. I’m reminded of a prediction by a writer of a questionable work on Wicca and its supposed evil beliefs, Steve Wohlberg, that Wicca would be the third largest religion in the world by 2012. If that’s the case, then it’s true what Rev. Fox (yes, that’s the title apparently) says: we need to further educate people about pagans and how the vast majority are not crazies who kill animals and drink blood.

The political implications are not nearly as relevant, since most people would forgive O’Donnell for past teenage mistakes. The problem is how seriously someone would take her claim that she both “dabbled in witchcraft” and “dated a Satanist”, potentially confusing people into equating the two, when they are pretty distinct systems, holding clearly different perspectives on divinity as well as ethics in particular. The whole notion of a Left Hand Path originates in Satanic thought, whereas Pagan thought is commonly an attempt in some way to return to one’s cultural roots. This is especially true for Pagan Reconstructionism, which attempts to derive the ancient religious practices and create structures based around them to bring the pre modern practices into the modern world. I only hope that this article and the issues it has brought up become more widespread knowledge. This is especially so for those attempts of another GOP member, Bob Barr of Georgia, to illegalize Wicca in the military twice, both times failing. It’s a great accomplishment that America recognizes the diverse, but also remarkably aligned pagan tradition, represented on veteran graves by the pentacle symbol, not to be confused with the pentagram, which is a reversed pentacle, associated with Satanists and Wiccans alike, but in reality only used by Satanists commonly. Here’s to the future of paganism in one way or another, since people will always look back to the past for virtually any religious significance, be it the more mainstream religious texts or the archaeological history that is rooted in many pagan faiths. They’re both just as valid, even if sometimes people fill in the gaps with their own ideas. But that’s how religion is, an ever evolving story.

Onto more bright things, there is a manga adaptation by Tetsu Saiwai of the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso’s life that I may consider purchasing. It reminds me of the collection of Buddha manga by Osamu Tezuka I’ve had sitting in my bookcase for at least a year now. I want to reread them eventually, to remind myself of what really made me like them. Historical accuracy, the legends that are injected, and the potential misunderstandings about Buddhism that people could draw from it aside, the graphic novels are astounding. I would probably spend nearly an hour sometimes without even realizing it just reading through half of a novel, if not an entire novel in one sitting. The art is presented in such a way that you feel like a kid, but the subject material isn’t exactly something a kid could really appreciate. There’s death, tragedy, a lot of really serious scenes, and literally a lifetime of a single man encompassed in 8 graphic novels, thousands and thousands of pages no doubt. With Tenzin Gyatso as a subject, the adaptation will no doubt be a shorter series. But from what I’ve read, it presents a perspective on the man’s life that will make you want to read more into his thoughts about life, and Tibetan Buddhism’s perspective as related to other Buddhist sects that exist in Asia. The book releases September 28th and I imagine Amazon will be the place to pre order or order it when it arrives in stores and in publication lists. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

On Tenzin Gyatso (In General)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/02/22/americans.love.dalai.lama/index.html?hpt=C2

.http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/18/obama.dalailama/index.html




While I probably should be making commentary primarily on the sage's visit with the President of the U.S. in the White House, my main concern lies with his semi retirement he announced about 2 years ago. While I'm not a Tibetan Buddhist and while I probably would find a great deal of his thought on Buddhism a bit too Tantric and monastic for my tastes, the guy's general outlook is something I can seek to imitate. His tenet of achieving peace through peace (nonviolence, that is), has earned him the comparison to Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. And he has met with virtually every president since the mid 40s or early 50s (to my estimation).

There's always the complex topic of his advocacy for Tibetan independence; though technicaly he has clarified that he seeks autonomy for Tibet, not independence and sovereignty in the political sense. That would be part of the reason why his visit with President Obama was viewed with skepticism/pessimism about how it would reflect on U.S. -China relations on the issue of Tibetan autonomy/independence/freedom. Considering that the issue of Tibet is nearly identical in importance to that of Taiwan, I can see how people think this might loosen some relations with Chinese government. Though the Dalai Lama is hardly a separatist as Beijing officials have termed him. But he is not without controversy even regarding his status as an advocate of Tibetan preservation, since he was also accused of using his influence within Tibetan Buddhism to nominate the 17th Karmapa, something of an equivalent to the Dalai Lama within the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism. Some suggest he nominated the choice he did because he thought it would have influence on saving Tibet. I cannot speak further on this besides stating that the context of this issue is probably all the more complex because it is dealing with a country that is still theocratic to a great degree (as Christopher Hitchens has noted).

Another reason why the visit was seen as contentious was that it was in the White House instead of a more neutral or religious themed location, such as a church or a more public venue. I can sympathize with those critics in suggesting that the location should've been changed. While Tenzin Gyatso is a political figure representing Tibet, he is first and foremost in the minds of even his fellow Tibetans a religious leader. From my understanding, he is the 14th in a series of rebirths (or reincarnations if you prefer a more familiar term) of sages that are key within the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Buddhism. But the association of the White House as a solely political and thus areligious area seems suspect if we're to regard it as the home of a president who is regarded as religiously observant himself. Inviting another religious figure into his home suggests to me that Obama was attempting to bridge a gap that exists between the "East" and "West" on a mutual search for world peace. Choosing to have him at the White House only suggests they are politically aligned as much as they are religiously aligned; that is to say, as they are ethically aligned.

To speak more on the present Dalai Lama would be a bit longwinded even for me, so I will end with the thought that it may be best for him to retire or semi retire, especially since he is in my grandparents' generation and while he may be in somewhat better shape, he has had surgery for a gallstone (ironically reflecting a similar but distinct surgery my paternal grandmother had on her gallbladder). And by that merit, he has to take the Buddhist tenet of mindfulness seriously. Though like the Buddha Gautama he may continue his quest up till the day he dies, in which case, he can be seen as more identical to Gandhi and MLK Jr. than before.