Tibetan Buddhism is one of several Buddhist traditions

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
41

The Chamdo thing, in fact, is just an example of a serious and curious general flaw of Goldstein’s alleged “history” of Tibet - excluding the history of the most populous areas of Tibet, altogether.

“The fact that the eastern half of the country – most of Kham, and the Amdo, Golok, and Tsedam regions – was either constituted as “Qinghai province” or annexed to the provinces of Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan under Nationalist and then Communist rule [i.e. only since 1912 at the earliest], is not one that can be taken for granted by a serious historian…These are regions of geographic, historic, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural Tibet, former semi-independent kingdoms and principalities with no history of administrative integration with China until recently, and even the local People’s Governments of the PRC there were given “Tibetan Autonomous” status…To exclude the eastern half of the country, where most Tibetans live, from any “history of modern Tibet” is problematic.” [Matthew Akester, JIATS, no. 4 (December 2008)]

42

I think what is going on is that Goldstein is primarily interested in the question of why Tibet fell. This causes him to focus on factional quarrels within the Lhasa elite. That Chamdo battle doesn’t point to any weakness which might explain this; in fact it was hailed as a Tibetan victory. Also, it did not really fall within the control of the Lhasa government (though their fates were certainly linked). His opponents would like to present the Tibetan regime in a more positive, effective light, which the focus on its demise makes difficult. An interesting question is whether Tibet simply fell to an overwhelming force against which no defense was possible, or whether factionalism and reactionary thinking within the Lhasa government and the great monasteries influenced the outcome.

43

Without question, then, a more appropriate title for the tome would be “Why Tibet Fell,” to make it clear his book is a position paper, not, as it misleadingly names itself, a history.

He would then have to explain why, in support of his position, he talks of the fall of Tibet while ignoring the first region to fall. This would be akin to analyzing US involvement in WWII by ignoring Pearl Harbor and vigorously discussing who in Washington D.C. may or may not have used rubber sex dolls (see Goldstein). Mao Zedong, at any rate, certainly did not suffer from Goldstein’s myopia, but rather devoted extensive time, effort, resources and strategizing to the very difficult question of how to make Tibet fall–not by conquering Lhasa, but by conquering Kham, an outcome Mao considered far from guaranteed giving the sound trouncing China had taken there in a war Goldstein apparently hadn’t heard of.

44

Does anyone else find it a tad humorous that the signs say, “Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism”?

It’s the sort of thing cops look for when taking statements, lol. Kind of like, “When I shot the guy, I wasn’t there.”

Personally I feel it reflects the CCP’s age-old flair for gaffes, more than anything.

45

It is! Guess they didn’t have a choice, if they wanted anyone to understand what they were talking about.

46

[quote=“SauLan”]The Chamdo thing, in fact, is just an example of a serious and curious general flaw of Goldstein’s alleged “history” of Tibet - excluding the history of the most populous areas of Tibet, altogether.

“The fact that the eastern half of the country – most of Kham, and the Amdo, Golok, and Tsedam regions – was either constituted as “Qinghai province” or annexed to the provinces of Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan under Nationalist and then Communist rule [i.e. only since 1912 at the earliest], is not one that can be taken for granted by a serious historian…These are regions of geographic, historic, ethnic, linguistic, and cultural Tibet, former semi-independent kingdoms and principalities with no history of administrative integration with China until recently, and even the local People’s Governments of the PRC there were given “Tibetan Autonomous” status…To exclude the eastern half of the country, where most Tibetans live, from any “history of modern Tibet” is problematic.” [Matthew Akester, JIATS, no. 4 (December 2008)][/quote]
I’m glad this point came up, I have a serious question pertaining to this part of Tibetan history. I hope this isn’t too off-topic.
If a huge swath of Tibet was annexed by China in the 30’s, why was there no hue-and-cry arising from Tibet at the time? Didn’t the leadership see the writing on the wall? Why didn’t they protest, and seek international support at that time, rather than waiting? Or did they? I haven’t read about this in discussions of Tibetan history from the Tibetan perspective, or from any perspective, except the Chinese, and even then, no detail is given as to how or why China suddenly “acquired” a large new province. If someone could recommend sources on this topic, I’d appreciate it. I’m aware that the 13th Dalai Lama fled to Mongolia, but nothing is said in these accounts about China biting off a huge chunk of Tibet, and swallowing it. The Dalai Lama’s brother says their family farm was “on the Chinese side of the border” (Qinghai), not that it was in “Eastern Tibet”, in his autobiography. I find this confusing.

47

Many answers, the most immediate being that politicians doodling Chinghai shapes on paper in Shanghai doesn’t represent functional annexation.

Case in point, Mao’s declaration, upon liberating Lanzhou, that China in its entirety had been liberated, the PRC formally established. Not one mention of Tibet on that day.

Mao himself declared the functional borders of Tibet on October 1, 1949.

He did so by declaring, on that date, that the whole of the People’s Republic of China was formally and completely established. No Tibetan regions were represented, yet as he stated in his address, “all regions of the PRC are represented.”

On 2 January 1950, Mao telegraphed Peng from Moscow to reiterate his determination to invade Tibet: “The population in Tibet is not large, but Tibet has a very important international position, and we therefore must occupy it and transform it into a Tibet of people’s democracy."

The day before, Mao had met with Stalin and they had the following exchange:

Mao Zedong: I would like to note that the air regiment that you sent to China was very helpful. They transported 10 thousand people. Let me thank you, comrade Stalin, for the help and ask you to allow it to stay a little longer, so it could help transport provisions to [CCP CC member and commander of the PLA’s Second Field Army] Liu Bocheng’s troops, currently preparing for an attack on Tibet.

Stalin: It’s good that you are preparing to attack. The Tibetans need to be subdued. As for the air regiment, we shall talk this over with the military personnel and give you an answer.

(Minutes of Conversation between I.V. Stalin and Mao Zedung, Moscow, Marxist Internet Archive)

Of course many hundreds of years before all this, Tibet itself annexed vast swaths of China. In my opinion, both China and Tibet have possibly the most liberal interpretation of “border” in human history, lol. The “border” itself, as claimed by both nations across history, could constitute by landmass alone a third country. China hadn’t “annexed” any more of Tibet than Tibet had of China–less, in fact, if you use linguistic and architectural data to establish who had the most control over this area throughout history.

That a hybrid population was not established, in fact, is a testament to the significant differences–linguistic, cultural, ethnic, and social–between the two nations. Oil and water.

48

Does anyone know a place/center for Tibetan Tantric Buddhism in Taipei or Taichung? Link?

From all Buddhism schools, this is the only one that appeals to me. Perfectly logical. Supposedly effective. :bravo:

And yeah, the sign by MRT station is repulsive. Communist? I don’t know. Stupid? Yes.
Anyone interested (incl.Taiwanese women) should understand Tantric practices before joining them, not after. Do some reading at least.

49

Best yet, talk to people in the sangha you’re considering joining.

I’ve been attending Deer Park since the 1980s – a Gelug, tantric school – and there have been zero sexual activities. My experience as a woman has been to feel completely safe, welcome, and equal.

Tantra as a system of practice does not equate to sex, inappropriate or otherwise, and never has.

It would be kind of like suggesting that sutra reading is about developing hand-eye coordination. It’s just a completely wrong interpretation of the fact that, say, some people read sutras extremely fast, demonstrating incidental hand-eye coordination. Hand-eye coordination is simply not the point. If some rare, long-time practitioners have developed incredible hand-eye-mind coordination which allows them to read and absorb the sutras at an exceptional speed, that’s great–but you don’t need to educate yourself on the “dangers” of forced speed-reading when considering attending a sangha–because speed-reading will not be enforced, nor even mentioned, and neither will exceptionally rare sexual practices (nor is the latter likely to even receive mention).

50

[quote=“LhasaLhamo”]
I’m glad this point came up, I have a serious question pertaining to this part of Tibetan history. I hope this isn’t too off-topic.
If a huge swath of Tibet was annexed by China in the 30’s, why was there no hue-and-cry arising from Tibet at the time? Didn’t the leadership see the writing on the wall? Why didn’t they protest, and seek international support at that time, rather than waiting? Or did they? I haven’t read about this in discussions of Tibetan history from the Tibetan perspective, or from any perspective, except the Chinese, and even then, no detail is given as to how or why China suddenly “acquired” a large new province. If someone could recommend sources on this topic, I’d appreciate it. I’m aware that the 13th Dalai Lama fled to Mongolia, but nothing is said in these accounts about China biting off a huge chunk of Tibet, and swallowing it. The Dalai Lama’s brother says their family farm was “on the Chinese side of the border” (Qinghai), not that it was in “Eastern Tibet”, in his autobiography. I find this confusing.[/quote]

During the Ching (now Qing) dynasty, the concept of “middle kingdom” ceased to exist as the East Asian area was under the control of the Great Manchurian Empire. In other words, while the piece of land is still called China by westerners, it is no longer “China” in substance. During the period, a lot of the Tibetan land was controlled by the Manchurians during their 300 year of ruling. Tibet was NEVER part of China during the 300 years cause China literally did not exist.

Most Chinese nowadays will deny the existence of the Great Manchurnian Empire and call it the Ching (Mainland name Qing) Dynasty. They even deny the existence of the Mongolian Empire and call it the Yuan Dynasty. How stupid is it? Can I call the Ottoman Empire the Ottoman Dynasty of Turkey? :loco:

Now, Mainland China claims that the Tibetan land was under the control of the Great Manchurian Empire; and therefore, should be under the control of Chinese and the People’s Republic of China. You see the logical fault here? One of the slaves of a common master is now claiming ownership of another slave previously owned by the common master!

At least, Manchurians respect the Tibetan during their occupation. Manchurians allowed Tibetans, Chinese, and Mongolians to enjoy most of their religious freedom and almost full autonomy by adopting a different set of regulations for each race. This is no longer true under the current communist occupation! No religious freedom, no more domestic language, no more administrative independents. Even worse, there is strict population control by forced abortion, Han Chinese colonization, seizure of land, no free religion practice, forced adoption of Putunghua into the education system, …

51

Buddhidm is not non-sectarian. Buddhism is made up of many different “schools.” (they are often called “sects,” but they really only differ in emphasis of some things over others). No Buddhist would claim that another person is not Buddhist. No enlightened being would ever tell you that he/she is enlightened. I know of at least one Buddhist organization that has a head who claims to be enlightened. I question the path that organization teaches for me, but I can not speak to its relevance to others. Maybe it will help them along their paths. Maybe not.

Each person who practices Buddhism takes the path at whatever point they are on that path. When you consider that ultimate realization of mind will take literally countless lifetimes, to criticize someone for where they are on their own particular path seems very, very strange.

In Tibetan Buddhism, the term Ri-me is often translated as “non-sectarian.” However, it is more “acceptance of different views as potentially valid” than “non-sectarian.” I suspect that the Rime tradition is where many westerners get the idea that Buddhism is non-sectarian. That being said, I study Chan at the moment and have studied under both Sakya and Nyingma Lamas, yet I hold the Dalai Lama (a Gelugpa) in very, very high esteem. I understand some of the differences between the traditions and views, and find that each holds something useful under certain conditions. At the moment, karmic imprints have me in a position where studying Chan makes the most sense, but that does NOT suggest that what I learned in my roots (Nyingma) and with Sakya teachers is invalid.

52

I know there are some Gelug scholars at Lion’s Head Mountain in Miao Li County. Beautiful place, worth a trip even for folks not particularly interested in studying :-).

[quote=“Paul4970”]Does anyone know a place/center for Tibetan Tantric Buddhism in Taipei or Taichung? Link?

From all Buddhism schools, this is the only one that appeals to me. Perfectly logical. Supposedly effective. :bravo:

And yeah, the sign by MRT station is repulsive. Communist? I don’t know. Stupid? Yes.
Anyone interested (incl.Taiwanese women) should understand Tantric practices before joining them, not after. Do some reading at least.[/quote]

53

What’s their address or website?

Here’s a group in Nantou and Taichung, which my colleague told me about:

tpdc-tw.org.tw/WebWS/new3mo/index.htm

I can’t tell very much about it, but it seems to be Gelugpa. They teach Tibetan language, debate, and other subjects in a multi-year program. Does anybody here know these people?

54

I think I have found out the Right One leading to true enlightenment and deliverance, and I’d like to share it with you, hope you enjoy it too.

55

Well, you’re off to a good start. You’ve raised this thread from the dead.

56

The Gospel of Ultimate Truth is not initially created or published by me but passed on to me by the Truly Enlightened Holy Ones and then I pass it on to you, thus, all merits and glories are actually attributed to belong to the Truly Enlightened Holy Ones, the all Buddha and Bodhisattvas.

57

What makes you think I’m not a Bodhisattva already? The Dalai Lama himself said I was on the path. I may have already reached the point of perfection and just aren’t dead enough to prove it. :idunno:

58

I am a follower of the Truly Enlightened Holy One jdsmith.

59

Whether one is a Bodhisattva or not that is decided by whether one’s words and deeds according with the Dharma of Buddha’s or not, so we must first train ourselves become an enlightened one in order to distinguish the false ones from the true ones.

60

One must firstly put the Truly Spiritual Enlightenment before all worldly offerings or interests, as thus, one is a wise man worth of being esteemed by all living beings.