Questions On Buddhist Connectedness

[thaibebop]

I am always curious to see how the Buddhist world is connected and O was wondering what opinion do Theravadan Thais have on the Tibet issue? How did Thais view the problems earlier in Burma?

Thanks, Thaibebop

[thaibebop]

Wow, nothing? No one has read a news article that gives some opinion on the matter? Talked to a friend or heard a monk say anything? Shucks I thought there would be a lot on this.

[camerata]

What do you think about it, thaibebop? I haven't heard any Thais discussing it as yet.

[suegha]

I think it's a total mess - I can't see how it will end positively!

People being oppressed is never a good foundation for a county to be built upon!

[jumnien]

Religions come and go, the pre-Tibetan, the Tibetan and the post-Tibetan peoples all come and go. Just as there is no true self, there is no true Tibetan.

[thaibebop]

What do you think about it, thaibebop? I haven't heard any Thais discussing it as yet.

Tough call, I think. I am still trying to decide. Before the outbreak of violence I would say that I felt the same as the Dalai Lama, that Tibet should have some autonomy with the PRC. I believed that the best way to reach the CCP was through soft power and economics. Things would change,slowly, but in the future this tenison would not be here. I believed the games should continue as boycotting the event would just push the Chinese into anti-west feelings.

Now, I am a little confused. Who started the violence? If the Tibetans I am not surprised that the CCP is stomping down, but why would the CCP start it as so many suggest? I keep hearing that the CCP is after some form of genocide of the poeple, cultural or physical, yet they have had over 50 years to accomplish either and no powerful opponent to say otherwise, so why are Tibetan people still alive and why is Tibetan culture in Tibet still there? Things just aren't adding up.

So, where is this violence coming from? Have Tibetans and their supporters stopped listening to the Dalai Lama? I want peace and stability in Asia. As a person who studies Asia history I think a solid arguement can be made that much of Asia is still trying to get settled from the most unsettling events of the early 20th century and violence like this will just allow things to slide backwards.

I'll stop here or I will ramble. Okay, your turn.

[thaibebop]

Oh yes, now as far as Burma, I am opposed all the way. I take this stand for I believe that the Burmese Junta can be overthrown if the Burmese people were willing for violence. I don't believe that all the military is completely loyal to the Junta and after the crackdown on monks many might be questioning their loyalty anyway. I would think that Thailand would be nervous about the Junta, Thailand and Burma have a violent pass right? Unstable governments next door make everyone nervous, yet it doesn't seem to me that the Thai government is concerned. I don't think I understand the two states relations very well and want to understand better.

Thanks

[thaibebop]

Religions come and go, the pre-Tibetan, the Tibetan and the post-Tibetan peoples all come and go. Just as there is no true self, there is no true Tibetan.

True, but what karma is developed by allowing their exit to be what it might be?

[camerata]

Now, I am a little confused. Who started the violence? If the Tibetans I am not surprised that the CCP is stomping down, but why would the CCP start it as so many suggest? I keep hearing that the CCP is after some form of genocide of the poeple, cultural or physical, yet they have had over 50 years to accomplish either and no powerful opponent to say otherwise, so why are Tibetan people still alive and why is Tibetan culture in Tibet still there? Things just aren't adding up.

So, where is this violence coming from? Have Tibetans and their supporters stopped listening to the Dalai Lama?

The protests run pretty much to a formula. Monks do something they are not allowed to, like displaying a picture of the Dalai Lama, the police arrest them, then youths demonstrate and sometimes smash things up. Then bullets and tear gas start flying.

Since the Dalai Lama is/was both secular and religious leader of Tibet, the Chinese need to portray him as a criminal traitor. Since Buddhism is a major component of the Tibetan national identity, the Chinese need to destroy or control it. Hence the repression. But the Chinese are patient. They have encouraged ethnic Han Chinese to settle in Tibet over the past 50 years so that one day the Tibetans will be a minority in their own land (as happened to Mongolians) and none of this will matter any more. When Tibetan culture has been destroyed or diluted, ethnic Tibetans will eventually be absorbed into the general population.

Although the Dalai Lama has personally been consistent in advocating non-violence, not all Tibetans agree with him - particularly the younger generation.

You can read the whole story in Tibet, Tibet.

[thaibebop]

Now, I am a little confused. Who started the violence? If the Tibetans I am not surprised that the CCP is stomping down, but why would the CCP start it as so many suggest? I keep hearing that the CCP is after some form of genocide of the poeple, cultural or physical, yet they have had over 50 years to accomplish either and no powerful opponent to say otherwise, so why are Tibetan people still alive and why is Tibetan culture in Tibet still there? Things just aren't adding up.

So, where is this violence coming from? Have Tibetans and their supporters stopped listening to the Dalai Lama?

The protests run pretty much to a formula. Monks do something they are not allowed to, like displaying a picture of the Dalai Lama, the police arrest them, then youths demonstrate and sometimes smash things up. Then bullets and tear gas start flying.

Since the Dalai Lama is/was both secular and religious leader of Tibet, the Chinese need to portray him as a criminal traitor. Since Buddhism is a major component of the Tibetan national identity, the Chinese need to destroy or control it. Hence the repression. But the Chinese are patient. They have encouraged ethnic Han Chinese to settle in Tibet over the past 50 years so that one day the Tibetans will be a minority in their own land (as happened to Mongolians) and none of this will matter any more. When Tibetan culture has been destroyed or diluted, ethnic Tibetans will eventually be absorbed into the general population.

Although the Dalai Lama has personally been consistent in advocating non-violence, not all Tibetans agree with him - particularly the younger generation.

You can read the whole story in Tibet, Tibet.

Tibet, Tibet, that sounds very familiar. Now, I have heard this before though and the Dalai Lhama still wants Tibet to be just atuonomous region in China, which leads me to think that if the Chinese did just pull out, which I don't believe is going to happen, Tibet would not do well on it's own. It is now a place held up by the Chinese economy.

[Plus]

I read an interesting view a couple of days ago - Tibetans protested against consumerism, not the government. They attacked Chinese shops because they destroy their way of life.

It's not about religious freedom - it's at an all time high now, it's not about independence either. They are protesting against cultural invasion, imposing alien value systems.

[camerata]

if the Chinese did just pull out, which I don't believe is going to happen, Tibet would not do well on it's own. It is now a place held up by the Chinese economy.

I guess we'll never know. But the Chinese wrecked the Tibetan economy from the get-go. It had depended on lowland and valley Tibetans growing barley and trading it for meat with upland herders/hunters. The barley had been used to make the Tibetan staple, tsampa (roasted barley), which lasts a long time and can be taken anywhere. But the Chinese ordered Tibetans to switch to growing wheat, presumably for consumption by Han Chinese.

[CuriousGeorge77]

China is taking a lot of natural resources from Tibet as well... its a big country. From what I understand about economics, China is actually depressing the standard of living for its citizens - especially those outside the major cities. Tourism would certianly be better with a 'friendlier' government... so an argument can be made that Tibet would be fine, economically, without China.

[Plus]

Define "fine".

It could be more or less like Bhutan, I think.

We'll never know, as Camerata said.