The Dalai Lama on the Chinese

I’ll kick this off with a less than friendly subject. I bought the book Awakening the Mind, Lightening the Heart to start a little Buddhist library. I thought it would be an obvious choice since it’s a translation of a Tibetan text vetted by the Dalai Lama. For the most part, it is a fine translation and got me thinking about many things. On page 75, though, His Holiness interjected a little bit of modern politics.

There have been great political upheavals since the Communists took power. They seem to hate Buddhism as if it were poison. Because of indoctrination, the Chinese react to each other with hostility, suspicion, jealousy, and other negative thoughts. During campaigns to eliminate birds and insects for ideological reasons, even children were recruited. Under such circumstances, their natural instincts to be kind and virtuous are suppressed. On the other hand, in Tibetan families every effort is made to instill virtuous imprints in the minds of the young.

I found this passage curious for a number of reasons. First, current events have no place in a Buddhist text, especially a translation of a rare Tibetan poem, and if he’s not talking about specific experiences with Chinese people then there’s no need for interjections like this. Second, it contradicts what the Dalai Lama himself says about the people of China; he takes great pains to be compassionate and understanding, even with his greatest enemy, just as the Buddha teaches. Yet in this passage his words are filled with vitriol, and no effort is taken to understand the motives of modern Chinese beliefs. Furthermore, since he’s talking about “hostility, suspicion,” etc. my immediate reaction was: “Look who’s talking!”

Yet, I pressed on. There is a Buddhist saying that you should see your own flaws and fix them before pointing out someone else’s flaws, quite similar to Matthew 7:3-5. I read 15 more pages of good teachings, which I assume came from the original 15th century book by Horton Pel which he is translating. Then I came across this, on page 90:

The Communist Chinese are against religion in general and Buddhism in particular. They denounce religion as a poison, claiming that it harms economic growth and is a tool of exploitation. They even say that religion is an empty and meaningless pursuit. Tibetans, on the other hand, believe in the Buddha’s teachinng and see it as a source of peace and happiness. Broadly speaking, Tibetans are indeed happy, peaceful, and resilient in the face of difficulties. Those who oppose religion tend to be more anxious and narrow-minded. It is also noticeable that Tibetans do well without having to work so hard, while the Chinese struggle much harder to survive.

This is beginning to resemble racism, just a little. While there are some insights in this passage (the idea about having to work harder as your life gets easier is an interesting concept I’d like to see more broadly discussed), for the most part it constructs straw men and makes wild accusations. Surely not all Chinese people are like this silly, imaginary fellow who thinks religion is worthless and distracts from capitalism.

I have a high standard for Buddhist texts. If there is something I know to be wrong, I regard the entire text as tainted. Basically, this means I consider most modern essays a secular commentary which I must evaluate piece by piece. (There are notable, and lovely, exceptions, which are usually written by practicing monks.) You don’t see the Buddha talking about his contemporary political enemies. Even Jesus had his Good Samaritan story, which I will update for the Dalai Lama’s benefit:

A Tibetan man was going from Lhasa to Qamdo when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A Rinpoche happened to be going down the same road but, when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Lhoba, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Chinese man came where the man was and, when he saw him, he took pity on him. He gave the man first aid, dressing his wounds and stopping the bleeding. As soon as he was able to travel he took him to a nearby hospital. “Look after him,” he told, “and when I return I will pay for any extra expense you may have.”

Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?

I would love to see such a thing in Buddhist writing.

When I got to page 90 I simply put down this book out of irritation, so I do not know whether there are any more such disagreeable passages.